Thanks P&B, my best to you. Your summation was close enough, but much of my continuing evolution involves creating and revising my techniques through my own inspirations and observations. One lesson I've learned very well: Actual observation and experience must supersede any assumptions, whether internally generated or externally imposed.It was a client (ex-scn) of his that made that statement. Bottom line(from watching the vid): Dex is no longer delivering scientology processing. His approach is to handle what the client wants to handle, not propel clients along a "bridge". He's worked out his own methods, synthesizing what he's found beneficial from the works of Hubbard, Alan Walter (Knowledgism), John Galusha (Idenics) and Dennis Stevens (TROM).
I wish Dex well.
So if you are developing your own techniques, then what do you call what you are doing? It can't be Scientology anymore because standard tech is only what Hubbard came up with or approved of.Thanks P&B, my best to you. Your summation was close enough, but much of my continuing evolution involves creating and revising my techniques through my own inspirations and observations. One lesson I've learned very well: Actual observation and experience must supersede any assumptions, whether internally generated or externally imposed.
Sounds like a question for Match.com You're welcome to if it floats your boat, but as for me, e-meters are detrimental to the process, the practitioner should be well enough engaged with the participant to grok what's going on, and not splitting their attention between the participant and the meter, and the participant should not have their self-perception marginalized by looking to a device to know or confirm what's relevant for them, or how they're feeling.Do I have to do dating drills?
Yes, that's the kind of mood I'm in.
Sorry, I will go back to work.
Is that a Maine Coon in your picture? Very pretty!Sounds like a question for Match.com You're welcome to if it floats your boat, but as for me, e-meters are detrimental to the process, the practitioner should be well enough engaged with the participant to grok what's going on, and not splitting their attention between the participant and the meter, and the participant should not have their self-perception marginalized by looking to a device to know or confirm what's relevant for them, or how they're feeling.
Yeah, do you like speed dating or the regular kind?Do I have to do dating drills?
Yes, that's the kind of mood I'm in.
Sorry, I will go back to work.
He's adorable, Hat!
Do I have to do dating drills?
Yes, that's the kind of mood I'm in.
Sorry, I will go back to work.
Will I pick you up before eight?Yeah, do you like speed dating or the regular kind?
Well Dex, I think there can't be enough sincere relationship counselors in today's world. If you're sincerely addressing individuals and their problems and you're not hung up on proving your techniques will work for everyone or involved in any long-term scammy thing where it's always more money needed for the next this or that to resolve the problem, I wish you all sorts of success.I have, on occasion, worked with both parties to address a relationship. Sometimes one party resolutely wants out of the situation, but in any case, whether working with one or both parties, the end result has always been a resolving of misunderstandings and bad feelings toward each other. Much more frequently, I've only had access to one party. It is infrequent that the relationship is a current romantic relationship; often it is parent/child, co-workers, worker/boss, business person and a vendor, etc. I have 3 different techniques, all of which are pertinent to any relationship. One of these is what I call the opposition technique. The very first time I used this was around 2012, with a Scientology client I was taking over from a "standard tech" auditor. In reviewing his PC folders, I saw a great deal of time and money, over a few years, spent on address his supposed "PTS situation with his wife". So in the first session with him we did the opposition technique. It worked extremely well. His next 5 or 6 sessions began with him exclaiming, "I can't believe it, I have no more problems with my wife!". It has always worked ever since.
Under certain circumstances, I would agree with you. If I was suffering from a severe disease (either mental or physical in nature), and there was some type of scientifically validated treatment that could successfully address it and had a strong track record of curing the disease, I would use that treatment (presuming I could afford it).I remain extremely cautious about any claims for any type of therapy that doesn't have a lot of scientific validation. Many, many forms of therapy and other practices have been promoted as producing great results or working for everyone and everything in the history of humanity. Many have been revealed to have different results (including bad results in many cases) over time and even abandoned when scrutinized by enough people and in scientific ways involving the effects over time.
Lots and lots of practices can make a small percentage of people feel like they have gotten some gains for a short time right after the practice has been used.
It is much more difficult to find a way to get lasting improvement and a higher percentage of pleased people than a placebo. This gets even more difficult if you want a metric that can be verified. The claim that something has been improved needs something that isn't subjective.
I can't say no one has ever had a therapy and felt it improved their life. So, I don't recommend against every kind of therapy. There are some such as the auditing in Dianetics and Scientology which I definitely recommend against.
It seems like every therapy has some promoter who promises miraculous results.
Therapies that can have such a claim stand up to rigorous scrutiny ? When you find one, please present the evidence.