Posted on 10/01/2018 1:57:41 PM PDT by kingattax
Christine Blasey Ford, a California woman who has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of attempted rape in the 1980’s, co-authored an academic study that cited the use of hypnosis as a tool to retrieve memories in traumatized patients.
The academic paper, entitled “Meditation With Yoga, Group Therapy With Hypnosis, and Psychoeducation for Long-Term Depressed Mood: A Randomized Pilot Trial,” described the results of a study the tested the efficacy of certain treatments on 46 depressed individuals. The study was published by the Journal of Clinical Psychology in May 2008.
(Excerpt) Read more at thefederalist.com ...
We really don’t know if there was a therapist.
“Psychoeducation for Long-Term Depressed Mood”
Note that “Psychoeducation” is about CHANGING memories, not recovering them.
Typically this involves going over a traumatic experience with a coach who talks through a different, much better ending. After many repetitions, the neuron pathways for the “good” version edge out the old bad one, so that the memories of the car going over a cliff or an IED blowing up your squad don’t exist to plague you anymore. Apply the same technique to casting Brett Kavanaugh as the attacker, and voila.
Smoker
Yall pics too big for viewing jest after supper... bleah
They used hypnosis to awaken Jeffry McDonal’s memories of the night of his family’s murder in Fort Bragg. The video of him identifying his wife and infant daughters’ supposed murderers (hippies chanting ‘acid is groovy. Kill the pigs.) was excluded from evidence, I think, because hypnosis is more likely to reinforce previously alleged memories than to awaken suppressed memories. Jeffry was convicted.
It only took 11 people to write that article.
Looking through her publication list the other day produced nothing that was written by her alone. Two was the lowest number of authors and then it seemed to be mostly in the 5 or so range. I wonder how much she actually contributes to the work, as her name was usually later in the bylines.
If she was hypnotized then all of her testimony is suspect and should be tossed
Probably still smokes
HYPNOSIS, even self-hypnosis, can sometimes result in the creation of false memories -- the belief that something happened even though it never did. A psychologist at Ohio State University in Lima and fellow researchers found that even when people were warned about the possibility of acquiring pseudo-memories under hypnosis, more than a quarter of them did anyway.Note well the date: late mid 1990s. The nineties were the time of the “recovered memory” craze. It ruined a lot of good men. Good, prosperous men. Men who had unhappy (Denis Prager might suggest, “ungrateful”) daughters and the money to pay for psychoanalysis for them. Because if the analyst found it in his interest, he could easily use unethical means under psychoanalysis to “recover” a memory of paternal abuse.Dr. Joseph Green, a professor of psychology at Ohio State and co-author of the study, said, ''There's a cultural expectation that hypnosis will lead to more accurate and earlier memories, but that's not true.'’
For that reason, there is a raging controversy over the use of hypnosis to help people recall lost memories of early trauma. Many experts dispute the conclusion that such recovered memories are always real . . .
Understand, basically you ARE your memories. You don’t so much have memories, as your memories have you. So these daughters were entirely turned against their fathers, and the poor schlubs didn’t have a chance - their marriages and their lives as they knew them, gone whist! Unless, as happened only too rarely, the “recovered” memories could be disproven by objective fact. That took a lot of luck.
The conceit that such “memories” (note that, to those possessed by them, they cannot be distinguished from reality - so they would object vehemently, and persuasively, against the scare quotes) are probative is evil. Caused a lot of harm, “validating” accusations against good men.
Presently including, IMHO, Brett Kavanaugh, but in the past lots of men who are relatively anonymous. And, I’ve seen argued persuasively, Joe Paterno. Plenty of FReepers have bought that one hook, line, and sinker. And are not open to any argumentation to the contrary. As a certain former FReeper would ruefully attest. And also, I have argued in the past (tho the subject isn’t fresh in mind as to why I thought so), Roy Moore.
The conceit that such “memories” are probative is evil.
She’s 9th of 11 authors. That probably means she did the statistical analysis only, and others conceived of and carried out the study. Whether she learned anything about retrieving memories can only be speculated on.
bkmk
Or her name is on a study she had nothing to do with because someone owed her a favor.
I don't think that was the claim. Rather, she testified that he touched her, tried to take off her swimsuit, put his hand over her mouth, and she was afraid he would do something else.
Rather than recovering memories, it implants them.
I’m pretty sure that within 15 minutes I could have Ford clucking like a chicken.
Not a whole lot going on in there IMO.
Qiviut on this topic in another thread;
Fffford was also asked by Rachel Mitchell if she had educated herself on the best way to get to memory, truth when interviewing victims of trauma ... best practices. The answer was “no”.
I’d say that was a lie in light of this info from Margo.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGxr1VQ2dPI
At 24:55
It’s fairly standard, especially in ‘medical’ journal articles, to have a long list authors. Anyone whose lab, subjects or resources were used gets cited. I believe Ford fancies herself as a statistician so she probably did the data analysis - landing her name in the ‘author’ list.
Was Ford one of the 46 participants and one of those who experienced a remission?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.