Regression Therapy???

PICKLES1

Hello I joined this website recently because I was inquiring about regression therapy. My boyfriend is interested in doing this because he was referred by his therapist to a woman who does regression therapy. I am wondering if regression therapy is a credible source or if it does more bad than good. If anyone could answer this question for me I would be very grateful. He had a terrible childhood and some of the things his therapist would like him to do is quite embarrassing but for her its the point to make him feel that way since it happened to him as a child and I am suppose to help with this so called "therapy". Please Help!

guitarzero

Id get as much info about it as possible. I've done a small bit of reading on it. I'm not sure if the process is for everyone.

PICKLES1

I've tried to google it but it just brings up past life regression therapy which makes no sense to me....?

psycjay

As far as I am aware it is something done by hypnotherapists. As this is a science forum I doubt you will find much info about it. I wrote a paper about it recently actually.

There is age regression and past life regression. Age regression is supposedly where the individual is brought back to the mindset of a previous age (childhood usually). They are not just talking about recalling memories of childhood, they actually believe that the therapy brings your cognitive functioning back to the way it was then you were a child. The idea is that psychological problems are caused by past trauma and this method allows the hypnotist to get right back to source.

When put to the test however the technique does NOT bring a person's mind back to an earlier state. This is simply as impossible as bringing the body back to the way it was in a previous state. So the major theory behind this technique has been invalidated. Also you are correct that this form of therapy can be harmful, it has been shown that false memories are easy to create and then when done so under hypnosis, are more likely to be believed by the client.

Past life therapy is even more far fetched and has also been invalidated by science.

In short if your boyfriend is looking for evidence based treatment, tell him to contact his GP who will refer him.

willow tree

who is his therapist? im just wondering as if they are a iahip accredited therapist they should be able to help him with his issues.. talking therapy has been proven to work, im just sorry more people here are not open to it (proven in how high a suicide rate we have)..:( good luck with it, hope he gets help he needs;)

psycjay

willow tree wrote: »

who is his therapist? im just wondering as if they are a iahip accredited therapist they should be able to help him with his issues.. talking therapy has been proven to work, im just sorry more people here are not open to it (proven in how high a suicide rate we have)..:( good luck with it, hope he gets help he needs;)

Talk therapy is a general term for psychotherapy. Some forms have received empirical support while others have not. Bunching them all together is just silly. Each one should be evaluated on it's own. I have provided an account of age regression and would be happy to debate it's efficacy if you would like to.

Being "open" does not come into it, it is about being scientific. For researchers it is about testing therapies against controls and each other and determining what are the most effective treatments for different psychological problems. For practitioners, it is about using the empirical evidence to guide the appropriate treatment for their clients.

Unfortunately, not all "therapists" out there believe that evidence and science are important. Hopefully regulation will eventually put an end to this quackery. But in the meantime it is important that people are made aware of the facts and the snake oil.

You say that the high suicide rates "prove" that people are not open to therapies like age regression. This goes to show you know nothing about science.

willow tree

yes im the first to say im not hugely scientific as i dont believe everything needs to be scientifically 'proven', also there are so many tests and theories that disprove each other that really 'evidence' is not always fact.. you say being 'open' has nothing to do with it shows that you may not be emotionally intelligent, yes it has so much to do with the results you get in therapy.. if you can be open and true to yourself you will get results.. sceince e.g. drs handing out pills does not fix any emotional issues, it can help for a while but nothing is treated but talking therapy does help.. so no im not scientifically intelligent but you do not sound emotionally intelligent to me (but you do sound science minded)
(sorry nursing baby as i type so rushed reply)

Waking-Dreams

i dont believe everything needs to be scientifically 'proven'

Hmmm, you always seem to hear this exact sentiment from the peddlers (or people who have dabbled in it themselves) of therapies, remedies and other untested treatments (all of which are usually backed up by some anecdotes).

Yet, if there was scientific proof for their effectiveness, do you think the creators/makers would disregard it and continue to say, “It doesn’t matter; not everything needs to be scientifically proven.”?

I doubt it. When as advertising has shown, putting “scientifically proven” next to your product/treatment is a huge seal of approval.

Strange that those who can’t seem to meet the standards do not consider them terribly important.

It never gets old…

psycjay

willow tree wrote: »

yes im the first to say im not hugely scientific as i dont believe everything needs to be scientifically 'proven'

Not everything but when you have serious psychological problems you are entitled to treatment that has been tested and shown to work. If you go to a GP with high blood pressure you would expect the same wouldn't you.

also there are so many tests and theories that disprove each other that really 'evidence' is not always fact..

It's called falsification and it's a philosophically sound method of scientific discovery. You test theories in an attempt to disprove them. Those that resist over time are said to be supported. In other words they have resisted testing time and time again. This is how science functions, you do not need absolute certainty, but you do need probability

you say being 'open' has nothing to do with it shows that you may not be emotionally intelligent

How? Do you know what emotional intelligence means?

yes it has so much to do with the results you get in therapy.. if you can be open and true to yourself you will get results.. sceince e.g. drs handing out pills does not fix any emotional issues, it can help for a while but nothing is treated but talking therapy does help..

This is not a debate about psychotherapy vs medication. It is about OP's questioning of regression therapy.

so no im not scientifically intelligent but you do not sound emotionally intelligent to me (but you do sound science minded)
(sorry nursing baby as i type so rushed reply)

If I sound cold it's because I really take this seriously. Psychology is science, and all that means is that theories are tested and logic is used. Psychological methods are effective and help a lot of people. Psychologists are highly qualified and have studied for the best part of a decade to be able to do what they do.

willow tree

yes psycjay, i do believe that op's oh and all deserve proper proven treatment which is why i referred to iahip, as they are accredited and fully qualified therapists.. i too think that there are too many 'cowboys' out there and i find that really quite scary.. also psychiatrists have studied more than most and yet there was a case of one drowning her daughter and i know a psychologist who has so many issues and actually ive come ascross this a lot, the psychologist who knows all the scientific theory going but has not looked at their own issues. i believe that if you do not look at your own issues you cant go deep into and help someone with theirs..
i too take this very seriously.. i think that we have a huge problem in this country with depression etc and that it is largely ignored and yes unregulated or not regulated well enough, makes me very sad when i think about the pain people are in..

psycjay

willow tree wrote: »

yes psycjay, i do believe that op's oh and all deserve proper proven treatment which is why i referred to iahip, as they are accredited and fully qualified therapists..

Again, we are not discussing the merits of different accreditting bodies we are discussing regression therapy specifically.

also psychiatrists have studied more than most and yet there was a case of one drowning her daughter and i know a psychologist who has so many issues and actually ive come ascross this a lot, the psychologist who knows all the scientific theory going but has not looked at their own issues.

What is the purpose of pulling a couple of anecdotal cases of a psychiatist and psychologists? Are you making a point here or relying on rhetoric? I can only assume you are trying to say that we should not trust the massive amout of scientific data and entire professional fields because of one or two individuals.

You are attempting to invalidate entire scientific fields by your personal beliefs and a couple of people you have seen. Well I am sorry but if we all thought like this then we would still be treating mental illness by drilling holes in people heads because we "believe" that deamons have possessed them.

guitarzero

psycjay wrote: »

Again, we are not discussing the merits of different accreditting bodies we are discussing regression therapy specifically.



What is the purpose of pulling a couple of anecdotal cases of a psychiatist and psychologists? Are you making a point here or relying on rhetoric? I can only assume you are trying to say that we should not trust the massive amout of scientific data and entire professional fields because of one or two individuals.

You are attempting to invalidate entire scientific fields by your personal beliefs and a couple of people you have seen. Well I am sorry but if we all thought like this then we would still be treating mental illness by drilling holes in people heads because we "believe" that deamons have possessed them.

On a side note, whats with the attitude? Cant you address people with respect regardless of opinion?

willow tree

i have to say i find you quiet controlling.. you have pulled me up on what we are discussing but im only responding to you at this stage.. anyhoo, im over it.. my point about the individuals is in response to what you said about studying for years. knowing every theory going does not make you a good counsellor.. my favourite therapist is yalom, but while he knows his stuff, its the man and the lovely approach he has that makes me know he is a brilliant counsellor, he truly has great awareness of himself and this is reflected in his work..
you know, we are just very different people and we see things very differently..
good luck with everything op..hope your partner gets the help they need;)

psycjay

I am sorry if you both feel the way you do but so far in this thread I have been told I am not emotionally inteligent, that I am disrespectful and that I am controlling. Not once have I made a personal remark about anybody else's personal character. I have been the only person who has given a proper account of regression therapy (which this thread is about) and have then proceeded to defend the scientific basis of psychology. I personally do not think your claims about me are warrented.

mcmoustache

I'm not too well read in Psychology but psycjay was making a point that comes up a lot in medicine in general so I'll be try to explain in this general sense.

In medical research, doctors and scientists test treatments to see if they work. They don't just try anything, though. They try plausible ideas. For example they wouldn't try poking you in the eye to cure a cold. They might instead try boosting the immune system instead as this provides a reasonable mechanism for eradicating the virus.

When they have a cure or a therapy that might be plausible, they test it. First on a small number of people and then a larger number to eliminate chance. If a cure or a therapy gives positive results then it is seen as a valid treatment and the results get published. Other scientists/doctors investigate the claims and try to invalidate them. If they find flaws, it's back to the drawing board. This is a simplified version of the process but you get the idea.

Then there is another way that people come up with treatments. It's the "open minded" way. They just make stuff up. They might try it on a few people, get a few successes that could be explained by chance, ignore the failures and then consider the treatment valid. They will use scientific jargon which won't fool a scientist but will fool a regular Joe. This is what's known as pseudo-science.

Regression Therapy is very much in this latter category. It's not scientific. It doesn't produce results. The mechanism by which it's meant to work is impossible. It's practitioners don't look at the process sceptically to see if it works. It's not far off voodoo.

Psycjay might have come across a bit strong because it's very hard to describe this rubbish without sounding that way. It's just the way it is. Pseudo-science is a huge industry and it's encountered by people all the time. It is treated with contempt by experts because it never works. When people who know what they're talking about start talking about pseudo-science it's hard for them to hide their contempt. Perfectly understandable in my opinion.

psycjay

thank you mcmoustache, your post was excellent. Again, i will say sorry for comming off strongly, it was not my intention to be personal.

JuliusCaesar

and when we don't have an actual evidence base, we have a huge amount of evidence. We can't just to RCTs on everything that pops into our heads!

Medical doctors get sick too; psychiatrists and psychologists are as prone to mental health problems as anyone else. That's why we generally have safe-guards such as clinical supervision built in to the services.

The fact that someone is accredited doesn't necessarily mean anything. I could open the JC College of Psychobabble tomorrow, and either a) accredit my graduates myself (by also opening the Psychobabble Association - I might even join my organisation to one of the national bodies for psychotherapy and counselling OR I could set up my own national body).

OP - in answer to your original query, Skeptics are usually a good source of information. Here's a quote:

There are at least two attractive features of past life regression. Since therapists charge by the hour, the need to explore centuries instead of years will greatly extend the length of time a patient will need to be "treated," thereby increasing the cost of therapy. Secondly, the therapist and patient can usually speculate wildly without much fear of being contradicted by the facts.

willow tree

to the op, unfortunately someone could start up college of psychobabbble and start accrediting body, however they could not join iacp or iahip, they have guidelines so if you get a therapist from there they will have done around 5 years of client work, 3 years of group therapy and at least 3 years of personal therapy, all in supervision so while nothing is guaranteed you know you are getting someone with training and who has looked at their own training, not anyone can just join those ones..i think thats important to know when looking for someone, good luck with it