by Bruce Wilson<\/p>\n
What is science? A simple definition is offered by George Orwell in his essay<\/a> by that name. He defines science is either: \u201c(a) an exact science, such as chemistry, physics, etc. or (b) a method of thought which obtains verifiable results by reasoning logically from observed fact.\u201d<\/p>\n By this simple definition, primal therapy might be defined as a science. Arthur Janov developed his theory through observed facts <\/em>by watching his patients descend into deep feelings, gain insights, and get better. He then reasoned logically <\/em>from those facts and developed a therapy that obtained verifiable results<\/em>. He then went further to find supportive evidence for his theory from physiology and neurobiology, both exact sciences<\/em> (or close enough to it). Throughout this process, he developed a theory of mental illness based on early life trauma and a conclusion that primal therapy can be the one and only \u201ccure for neurosis.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Throughout his work, Janov also tried to follow the scientific method, <\/em>which is required for any study claiming to be a science. The scientific method is derived from the hypothetico-deductive model<\/a> of inquiry, which occurs roughly as follows:<\/p>\n 1. Make an observation. Applied to primal therapy, this translates as follows:<\/p>\n 1. Make an observation: <\/strong> Janov observed his patients regress into deep feelings. This was not new \u2013 Freud, Janet, and others had observed it and called it abreaction, but had abandoned it as untherapeutic. But many of Janov\u2019s patients obtained relief and insights after these regressions so he decided to take a deeper look.<\/p>\n 2. Make a theory: <\/strong>Borrowing some ideas from Freud, Janov came up with a new theory about human suffering: If the needs of a child go unmet, the result is overwhelming primal pain which the child cannot feel because is so devastating. Thus, the child represses and stores that pain in the brain where it remains in the unconscious.\u00a0This became the core tenet of primal theory.<\/p>\n 3. From the theory, develop a testable hypothesis<\/strong>: If one were allowed to regress into those early memories, primal pain can be felt in small increments and eventually resolved.<\/p>\n 4. Test the hypothesis and observe the results. <\/strong>Primal therapy was the test for the hypothesis. According to Janov, most of his patients have became well by doing primal therapy and continue to remain well today.<\/p>\n 5. Modify the theory and retest: <\/strong>Primal theory has been refined for more than forty years, and according to Janov, the core theory has held up to the test. However, fetal and perinatal experiences are now recognized as being far more important in creating neurosis than earlier thought.<\/p>\n But something crucial is missing in this process and that is the attempt to falsify<\/em> your hypothesis, not just seek evidence that support it. This is the gold standard for any scientific process.\u00a0 A famous essay<\/a> by physicist Richard Feyman describes difference between good science, bad science, and pseudoscience. Feynman says that in order to do good science\u2026<\/p>\n Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be\u00a0given, if you know them. You must do the best you can\u2014if you know\u00a0anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong\u2014to explain it. If you\u00a0make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then\u00a0you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well\u00a0as those that agree with it\u2026.\u00a0 In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or\u00a0another.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In other words, you must report your experimental failures<\/em> as well as your successes. And you must make sure that your successes are truly explained by your hypothesis and not some other factor. You must not become so in love with your hypothesis–no matter how beautiful it is–that you neglect other explanations or observations that don\u2019t support it. You must never jump to conclusions beyond the data, and you must never cherry-pick data that fits your theory and ignore data that refutes it. You must test, test, and test again, always with the attempt to falsify your theory, rather than prove it. You must invite others to try and prove you wrong.<\/p>\n Feynman described this attidute as\u2026<\/p>\n \u2026a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you are maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n So in my mind, for primal therapy to truly be considered a science, those working in the area need to heed Feynman\u2019s advice and do the science right<\/strong>!<\/p>\n There is evidence that conflicts with Janov\u2019s claims. For example, many people do not respond to the therapy and yet we rarely hear of them. Why do they not respond?<\/p>\n And might there be other explanations as to why people get better in primal therapy?\u00a0Comparative studies of other psychotherapies have shown no significant benefit of one approach over another. In fact, the skill of the therapist and the strength of the therapeutic relationship between therapist and client were more relevant to outcomes. Also, you cannot ignore the fact that the therapist\u2019s and client\u2019s belief<\/em> in the therapy can have a big effect on outcomes. Also, significant changes in life circumstances (e.g. getting into a relationship, finding secure, well-paid work you like, financial security, etc.) may be more important to getting well than the actual therapy itself.<\/p>\n To anyone who has access to their deep feelings, or who has read Janov\u2019s books and experienced the primal process, it is obvious that Janov has hit upon a fundamental truth about human suffering and its treatment. To these people, primal pain is real and feeling that pain under the guidance of a skilled therapist can lead to enormous relief and healing. For those of us who have received benefit from primal therapy, it is clear that there can be no deep healing without deep feeling. Everything else is personality adjustment. People who do well in primal therapy don\u2019t need science to know it works; they are convinced by their own experience.<\/p>\n By to gain respect in the scientific community, primal therapy must follow the accepted standards of good science. With all due respect to Janov\u2019s deep insights, he fails to recognize this fact and denigrates it the scientific method as a search for \u201cstatistical truth\u201d rather than \u201cbiological truth.\u201d He writes in Primal Healing\u2026<\/em><\/p>\n <\/em><\/p>\n \u201c..we should not lose track of the overarching truth\u2014feelings are their own validation. We can quote and cite all day long, but the truth ultimately lies in the experience of human beings. Their feelings explain so much that statistical evidence is irrelevant. Cognitive therapy seeks statistical truths to corroborate their hypotheses and theories; these theories are too often intellectual constructs that do need statistical validation. We are after biological truths beyond mathematical facts.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n On one hand, he is right\u2014one cannot fully understand the inner <\/em>experiences of human beings through scientific analysis. Science can only observe exteriors, such as changes in behavior and physiology, and not the mind itself. Even reports of \u201cI feel better\u201d is an exterior. If one holds to statistical evidence alone with criteria for getting “well” that lack depth, then you’ve missed the mark.<\/p>\n The many studies on cognitive behavioral therapy fit into this category. Changing thoughts and behavior may make you feel better, but for how long? Evidence suggests that CBT often\u00a0fails<\/a> over the long-term because it doesn’t address deeper problems. However, CBT fits well with the market-driven view<\/a> of the human psyche, which values productivity and consumerism over everything. More on this in future posts.<\/p>\n But following what I wrote earlier, you cannot eschew good methodology in making conclusions, and that usually involves gathering statistical evidence in the form of outcome studies. Statistics alone are not the end-all and be-all of explanation\u2014they do not constitute truth, as Janov says. But they are an indispensable tool in the scientist\u2019s tool kit to determine whether or not the results of your testing are true and not the result of wishful thinking. In other words, biological observations may determine your hypothesis, but statistical studies are still the the standard for confirming or rejecting those biological observations.<\/p>\n As yet, we do not know how many people respond to primal therapy and how many don\u2019t, why people respond or not (is it access to feeling? Skill of the therapist?), or how long the results last. What does it mean to be \u201ccured\u201d of neurosis? Testimonials and reports from responders are not enough.<\/p>\n So in answer to the question, \u201cis primal therapy a science?\u201d I would say\u2026not yet. It is more of a protoscience<\/a>, which Wikipedia defines as, \u201ca fringe science that has limited acceptance in the mainstream scientific community but is nonetheless rooted in established scientific principles and thus has potential for being more widely accepted.\u201d<\/p>\n It is my belief that primal therapy is rooted in established biological principles, especially with regard to affective neuroscience and I hope someone in the primal community who has the required resources decides to give it the scrutiny it deserves.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" by Bruce Wilson What is science? A simple definition is offered by George Orwell in his essay by that name. He defines science is either: \u201c(a) an exact science, such as chemistry, physics, etc. or (b) a method of thought which obtains verifiable results by reasoning logically from observed fact.\u201d By this simple definition, primal … <\/p>\n
\n2. Develop theory about that observation.
\n3. From the theory, develop a testable hypothesis.
\n4. Test the hypothesis and observe the results.
\n5. Use the results to modify your theory and retest. Continue revising and retesting your theory until it becomes robust. This often requires tossing out the original theory.<\/p>\n