Talk:Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Alright everyone, let's figure out an RFC

At the suggestion of others, let's figure out an actual question for an RFC. Or at least try to come to some sort of consensus here, because I still don't get a sense that BC's changes have consensus. Loki (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

We don't need a RfC. RfC's are heavyweight processes which suck up editor time. Continue normal discussion here or at WP:FT/N. Continue finding and reading the WP:BESTSOURCES and make sure the article follows them. It need not be complicated. Also accept you need to WP:DROPTHESTICK wrt pseudoscience because nobody agrees with you. Bon courage (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

It's certainly not the case that nobody agrees with me. Or rather, it's at least certainly not the case that nobody disagrees with you; I'm perfectly willing to admit here that my original edit to reduce the prominence of pseudoscience in the article was not justified. Loki (talk) 20:54, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Shibbolethink specifically I wanna ask: what exactly is your preferred option here? From my perspective, my options above were "the one I prefer", "the one I explicitly and strongly objected to", and "anything else". You described them as if I wanted both 1 and 2, which is emphatically not the case. Loki (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I think you may have misunderstood (and I was not good at communicating my intention). I actually object to this entire framing. The options should have included more such as "characterized as Pseudoscience by experts" and "is considered pseudoscience". etc. and explicitly labeled those choices as such. It should have also had "is pseudoscience" as an option. But overall I do not think an RFC is warranted and the current status quo is fine with me. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:59, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Because the third RfC will be the charm, somehow? I suspect that this process is not well suited to capturing the shades of distinction that the topic calls for. XOR'easter (talk) 21:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

That's fine, I'm not married to the idea of an RFC. I just want to figure out what the actual consensus is here. So, what sort of shades of distinction are you talking about? Loki (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The question should read ... "Where can I buy a purple hat?" -Roxy the dog 22:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not tracking the debate very well. But I believe EMDR is considered pseudoscience by relevant experts.DolyaIskrina (talk) 12:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Seems to be what good sources say. If there's a good source considering the question and coming down against, I'd like to see it! Bon courage (talk) 13:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

It seems to be a split interpretation. One one side, a set of randomized control trials which found it to be effective (aka, it's "evidence based"). On the other side, critics of the RCT designs who typically point to a lack of foundational basis for why EMDR should work compared to other treatments (aka, it's not "science based"). There's major health organizations that recognize it as valid treatment, but also legitimate criticism that it lacks a scientific basis, so we need to balance both of those. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

It's the purple hat therapy problem. Something that kinds of works (most people agree) has been ginned up with some pseudoscience (most people agree). So it still "works", but it's a bit of a scam. That's what RS is objecting to. It's not really a "split" with different "sides". Bon courage (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

(ec)But how does the reader understand that without first knowing about EMDR "empirically supported treatment"? fiveby(zero) 15:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, there's at least one expert we know of (McNally) who previously accused it of being a purple hat and now has changed his mind. And if you look at the studies they sometimes do consider this question as well, and often suggest that it's not. So it's definitely not a universal opinion that it's a purple hat (though it's common enough that I agree that should be represented in the article somewhere). Loki (talk) 15:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Maybe more accurately described as the two underlying principles resulting in the difficulty explaining the situation. It's more of a continuum than sides, how much weight is placed in the RCTs (at the extreme, to the exclusion of underlying mechanisms) versus the various critiques. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Do both. The RCTs are all shit AND it's considered pseudoscience. Nothing unexpected there! Bon courage (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Do we have good secondary sources pointing to the RCTs being faulty? I think that would resolve any WP:RGW concerns with saying 'these public health bodies promote a pseudoscientific therapy'. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, see all the sources under "Effectiveness". All the evidence is weak because of small / underpowered / flawed trials. Bon courage (talk) 16:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, catching up with the article, I think we should be leading with the meta-analyses, or at least elevating their prominence. Though the current wording is definitely better than it was last week. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Bakkster_Man. I don't think that it's "considered pseudoscience by relevant experts" unless the APA are somehow not relevant experts. Loki (talk) 15:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Have they offered an opinion on the pseudoscience question? Bon courage (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you think that the APA would endorse a therapy that they consider pseudoscience? Loki (talk) 15:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Dunno. They have rules about what they endorse. EMDR gamed those rules. They endorse woo, yes. Bon courage (talk) 15:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

The question, right here illustrates the policy problem with your argument. Fact A (The APA endorsed it) does not lead to Fact B (It is not pseudoscience) without applying your own OR. MrOllie (talk) 15:50, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, the intermediate step there is that the APA don't want to endorse pseudoscience. I'm reasonably confident it would be easy to source that part.

Look: if you are saying that the APA can fuck up, sure. I admit that. Even reliable sources eff up from time to time. But how do you know that your sources aren't cranks too? I could easily accuse them of that, and I doubt you would be able to come up with counter sources, because almost nobody ever says someone explicitly isn't a quack. Loki (talk) 16:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm reasonably confident Yes, that is the OR. MrOllie (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you want me to give you their evidence-based practice guidelines? Because "the APA cares about evidence-based practice" is absolutely a sourceable statement. Loki (talk) 16:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

No, because it would be irrelevant - what you're doing would still be WP:SYNTHESIS. MrOllie (talk) 16:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Between what and what, and to produce what? Loki (talk) 16:40, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Fact A (The APA endorsed it) does not lead to Fact B (It is not pseudoscience) without applying your own OR. MrOllie (talk) 17:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

But that's not what I'm claiming. I'm claiming that "The APA endorsed it" means it is not "considered pseudoscience by relevant experts" because the APA are relevant experts. Loki (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I was at the meeting where the APA endorsed it. The view was: well, this is horseshit but our rules say we've got to endorse it because of those two 'positive' trials, crap as they are. Our hands are tied. Bon courage (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

It's still your interpretation. We have lots of experts who consider EMDR pseudoscience. We don't need to have every expert consider it pseudoscience for the statement to be verifiable. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Right, only those that consider the question. The "not EVERY sources says it's pseudosciance!" gambit is a well-worn fallacy here on Wikipedia. It should have a name. Bon courage (talk) 16:40, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I understand that, but if you want to say that experts consider it pseudoscience you need to produce evidence that a majority do. Not just individual experts that do. To do otherwise is WP:SYNTH. Loki (talk) 16:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

If RS says it's pseudoscience we just assert it's pseudoscience. Basic WP:YESPOV. Sources that don't consider the question are irrelevant. Bon courage (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

SYNTH would be if we took critics saying "EMDR sucks!" and used it to support "EMDR has been characterized by experts as pseudoscience." As long as we aren't saying "majority" we don't need to produce any RSes which support "majority." — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

But saying "Experts think it's pseudoscience" implies a majority of experts do. I'm fine with saying "Some experts think it's pseudoscience" because that's well-sourced, but I don't think we currently have any sources whatsoever that it's the consensus in the field. Loki (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

This is correct. But we don't say what "experts think" because that's kind of strange. We just reflect RS. Personally I think we should just say it IS pseudoscience. Bon courage (talk) 17:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

LokiTheLiar, all you are doing here is hardening opinion against your views. There could be some really good content here if someone is willing to write it, but who would want to do that while all this is going on? fiveby(zero) 16:08, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Could you please explain what I'm doing wrong here? I think that this is a good and reasonable argument. I'm definitely not being more argumentative than anyone else here, right?

Like, I understand that I and BC have fundamentally opposed views on what the sources mean. I don't think that I am likely to persuade them directly. But I don't want to just stop presenting my view while BC is presenting theirs because I don't want their view to come across as uncontested. Loki (talk) 16:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if we do have opposed views on what the sources mean. But you want to take source A and source B and apply some kind of thought process to arrive at position C (which neither source directly supports). That's WP:SYNTHESIS and verboten by core policy. As other have said - you're just not WP:LISTENing. Bon courage (talk) 16:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I understand that you think that making basic inferences like "experts with a history of evidence based practice try not to endorse pseudoscience" is WP:SYNTH, but it's explicitly not. (Also to be clear, I also understand that this doesn't really resolve the purple hat question or the question of whether EMDR has a good theoretical basis, and I'm not claiming that. I am not claiming that the APA endorsing something means that the criticism doesn't exist. I'm claiming that major medical organizations are medical experts, so that means that if they endorse something it's not accurate to claim "experts think it's pseudoscience" with no qualifier.) Loki (talk) 16:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Interesting claim. Wrong mind. You can still (just) get homeopathy on the NHS. In any case, deploying such reasoning violates WP:NOR so it's a non-starter for you. Bon courage (talk) 16:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

That's fair, and I agree that's a reason for discarding the opinion of the NHS, because that's a pretty egregious mistake. But we're not just talking about the NHS here. You can't say that newspapers are inaccurate because a newspaper said something false once. Loki (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

The point is you can't use the availability of something (or not) from some health channel, or its endorsement therein, to reason about whether or not it's pseudoscience. Follow RS on the matter, not your own thoughts. Bon courage (talk) 16:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you think that an organization composed of medical experts is equivalent to "some health channel"?

The reason I keep asking that is that the APA etc etc are RSes, and the fact that you keep on trying to ignore them means that it's you that is following your own thoughts rather than the RSes. Loki (talk) 17:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

If you had a citation from the APA that said something like 'EMDR is not pseudoscience' you'd have a point here, but you don't have that. Ignoring sources that are irrelevant to the question is exactly what should be done. MrOllie (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Alright, so, now we're getting somewhere. My problem with this logic is that I think there are very few sources that will ever say that something is explicitly not pseudoscientific.

So for example, I think it's going to be hard to find sources that say even something like "the theory of relativity is not pseudoscientific". Would you accept sources that say "EMDR is evidence-based"? Or maybe "science-based"? Loki (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Is there doubt about the Theory of Relativity? I think not. Acupuncture is more like it. For a while sources DID say it wasn't pseudoscience. But that changed. Bon courage (talk) 17:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I think you have the timeline backwards. The sources that are most doubtful are also mostly the oldest. Meanwhile I can find significant numbers of more recent sources that call it an evidence-based treatment for PTSD: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2019&q=emdr+%22evidence-based%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0,14

Some notable sources are this one from 2021, this one from 2020, and this one from 2022, among others. Loki (talk) 17:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

You're back on the OR again. Bon courage (talk) 17:36, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

How is citing sources OR? Loki (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh wait, you mean about the timeline thing. My apologies. I agree that's OR, but I think your interpretation of the timeline is also OR. Until we get a source that directly addresses it we don't have anything but OR. Loki (talk) 17:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

And we have lots of recent sources which also describe it as having low evidence-quality, methodological problems, etc. That's why we say "controversy". — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree! I think that saying "Some experts think EMDR is a purple-hat therapy..." is justified, and even "Many experts..." might be justifiable. But if you just say "Experts think" that implies "Experts agree that", and that's definitely not true. Loki (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@LokiTheLiar we have an entire policy/guideline about this. WP:FRINGE. It tells us to describe, using WP:RSUW, what experts think about a topic. We have done that. We also describe there is controversy about the practice. Saying "experts consider it pseudoscience" is a reflection of WP:RSUW. There is no part of WP:RSUW that requires there to be a majority of experts who think that. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I understand that but I feel that the policy that applies here is WP:FRINGE/QS:

Articles about hypotheses that have a substantial following but which critics describe as pseudoscience, may note those critics' views; however, such hypotheses should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific if a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists.

This seems to me to be exactly the situation here and therefore we should not describe EMDR as unambiguously pseudoscientific. It's that that I object to, I am perfectly fine with portraying the criticism. Loki (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

In what ways do we do so "unambiguously" ? I've edited the statement to say "some experts." Is this sufficient to alleviate your concerns? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Yep! Loki (talk) 21:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

It's not a contest between your view and BC's on the sources. I think the editors who responded with qualified comments and saying the RfC's where premature are experienced and well-aware of issues. Give them some credit in that they do understand your view. I've done quite a bit of reading here and could flood the talk page with sources along the lines you have, but everyone already knows this so give them some space to think about it and respond. fiveby(zero) 17:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. Loki (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Personally I think noticeboards do better than RfCs. Have them rank the best sources and look at the consensus from those and the editors and use those to determine how much weight the term has from less involved editors. DN (talk) 01:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

See WP:FT/N#EMDR. Bon courage (talk) 06:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Guidelines

I think someone who knows how should reread the guidelines and summarize (WP:MEDRS is i think misleading in implying i'm qualified to do that). For instance i don't see a recommendation in the WHO guidelines), we cite the glossary, but i can't find the supposed recommendation for stress, only On the basis of available evidence, no specific recommendation can be made about stand-alone problem-solving counselling, eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR), relaxation or psycho-education for adults with acute traumatic stress symptoms associated with significant impairment in daily functioning in the first month after a potentially traumatic event.. All this "adult", "adolescent", "child", PTSD vs. clinically significant PTSD and recommendation for use beyond PTSD is confusing. Also International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies looks like a professional body and not an standards body. fiveby(zero) 18:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Ahh, "no recommendation for "Acute traumatic stress symptoms" but EMDR suggested for "Posttraumatic stress disorder" (Recommendations 14 and 15). fiveby(zero) 18:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

ooooh re: WHO. I didn't look at that. Will add. Will simplify the others. Professional bodies are typically used re: WP:MEDASSESS. Re the WHO, it's actually page 8 where they say:

Recommendation 14
Individual or group cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) with a trauma focus, eye movement
desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) or stress management should be considered for adults
with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
Strength of recommendation: standard
Quality of evidence: moderate for individual CBT, EMDR; low for group CBT, stress management

and page 9:

Recommendation 15
Individual or group cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) with a trauma focus or eye movement
desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) should be considered for children and adolescents with
posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
Strength of recommendation: standard
Quality of evidence: moderate for individual CBT, low for EMDR, very low for group CBT

— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:54, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I think part of the pseudoscience is extending to treatment beyond the EST, to children, beyond PTSD, etc. so important to get right, but sorry to dump it on you to fix. fiveby(zero) 19:03, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience entry (now cited) is well worth reading. It discusses in detail the switcheroo tactic of how EMDR kept changing to take training money (for no good reason). But one of the real reasons it's so reviled as pseudoscience is it claim to be a revolutionary treatment that could help bring about world peace and cure AIDS and cancer, all off the back of some flimsy trials. Hence the comparison with animal magnetism. Bon courage (talk) 06:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

The source doesn't cite its own sources, tho, so it's hard to tell what the actual evidence is for this claim. No other source, including the ones that criticize it strongly, says that Shapiro believed that it was effective for anything but mental illness. Loki (talk) 12:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Didn't say it was Shapiro herself making these claims. It's a good source for the pseudoscience stuff (sources don't need to "cite their sources" to the satisfaction of Wikipedia editors). Bon courage (talk) 13:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Bibliography

Meta-Analyses

Oxford Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Chris Brewin UCL

• Bisson, Jonathan I.; Anke Ehlers; Rosa Matthews; Stephen Pilling; David Richards; Stuart Turner (2007). "Psychological treatments for chronic post-traumatic stress disorder: Systematic review and meta-analysis" (PDF). British Journal of Psychiatry (190): 97–104. {{cite journal}}: Wikipedia Library link in |url= (help)
• Bryant, Richard (2011). "Psychological interventions for trauma exposure and PTSD". In Dan J. Stein; Matthew J. Friedman; Carlos Blanco (eds.). Post-traumatic stress disorder. pp. 171–215. {{cite book}}: Wikipedia Library link in |url= (help)

Systematic Reviews

Both old. We shouldn't use anything more than 5 years old if newer is available per WP:MEDRS (some exception apply e.g. Cochrane). Bon courage (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Arghh, that's my go to when there are too many sources and need a filter, look for the bibliographies and literature surveys, but can see how maybe not appropriate in a MEDRS context. Oxford Bibliographies does keep updating the online version. fiveby(zero) 15:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)