Posts by bluemason3

So, why is there such a massive pile of laws and regulations out there that completely ignore what actual experts think in so many different areas? In the real world, things don't just run "by the book" because there’s a mountain of conflicting interests, lobbyists, and noise getting in the way. Unfortunately, expert opinions and even best practices from abroad aren't enough to move the needle; at the end of the day, everything basically comes down to political maneuvering.

mellowlynx68 said:This isn't "clean" at all, and whenever things get murky, the moderators should step in and pull the brakes.

The legalities aren't clear-cut, but that’s out of the mods' hands.😁

Take my own field, for example. It isn't strictly regulated by law. You can operate through an association, or if you're running a small business or an LLC, you register under something similar or very broad. There’s nothing illegal about it; there really isn't another way to do it.

Nobody is suggesting anything illegal here. In fact, the goal is to advise psychologists on how to work within the framework of an underspecified Psychology Practice Act until it gets fixed, ensuring everything stays above board.

The comparisons being made don't hold water. Selling meat under the table is illegal, and working off the books is illegal, but psychological counseling isn't. It’s illegal for a PT to use the title of a psychologist, but it's fine if they don't use that specific designation. It's like how it might be illegal for a certain brand to use a specific label, but they can still produce the product under a different one. Even if there's a theoretical line between PT and psych, in reality, that boundary is pretty blurry.

Basically, it's the exact opposite: we're advising people on how to follow the law rather than go against it, even if the law itself is a mess to begin with.

Elizabeth Davis said:Pillsbury wants to be a psychologist and practice psychotherapy, not a bartender offering "therapy," so this idea of masking it as counseling doesn't sit right with me from a legal standpoint.

That user is just a troll clone looking for a reaction. We've answered those questions a dozen times already. They just ask them in a completely nonsensical, disconnected way—throwing out technical terms and scientific jargon, then pushing nonsense even after it's been explained why it makes no sense.

It’s a bit of a messy situation.

On one hand, there is this specific legal loophole where only medical doctors—not psychologists, for instance—are technically allowed to practice psychotherapy regardless of their training. While there are pushes to change this, it’s strictly an American regulatory quirk rather than some universal standard of our profession. It honestly feels more like the result of targeted lobbying than actual clinical necessity.

On the other hand, the line between "counseling" and "psychotherapy" is pretty blurry and, frankly, often just semantic. You could argue that any kind of counseling is a subset of psychotherapy. By that logic, a chat with your bartender or a long afternoon of fishing could be considered therapy. The issue only arises when someone starts branding fishing as "psychotherapy" to charge premium rates. It’s like how selling herbal tea isn't quackery, but calling it a prescription drug is. Similarly, it isn't illegal for a psychologist to apply techniques learned in psychotherapy training during a counseling session, provided they don't label it as such.

slycrane94 said:I’ve brought this up a few times, but honestly, it’s hard to gauge how much people are actually willing to fork over. Without knowing what the actual costs are, it’s impossible to figure out how many donations we’d need just to break even.

The reality is that nobody else has stepped up to build a competing forum. It's easy enough to launch one, but keeping a site of this scale running isn't exactly cheap.

Just implement a membership tier that lets people view images. You could probably get plenty of support from the regulars and long-time users.😁

Good grief, the guy is literally making threats (not counting all the trolling and those blatant false accusations)

There’s no point in arguing; you’re all just going to end up spinning your wheels. He needs to be dealt with on the Religion subforum (if you ask me, this kind of excessive threatening should probably trigger an automatic permanent ban) and then we can have some peace.

Elizabeth Castillo87 said:But seriously, where the hell are you supposed to find that kind of leadership?
When things just happen spontaneously, they can become a massive burden if you don't have someone showing you the ropes. The problem is, the market is flooded with "experts" promising everything under the sun, but somehow, nothing ever seems to come for free.😁

Probably nowhere. Better to spend more time walking and less time overthinking it—and definitely skip the Kundalini stuff.😬

Sexual arousal isn't Kundalini, even if there’s a connection there. You can certainly manipulate sexuality to trigger it, but in any normal day-to-day scenario—including sex—Kundalini usually stays dormant. I wouldn't recommend messing around with this at all, especially if you think you can just wing it. Honestly, the negative outcomes tend to outweigh the positives. Of course, that assumes we're looking at this through the lens of Kundalini theory rather than seeing it as a psychological issue caused by suppressing sexuality or other similar mechanisms. Awakening Kundalini through specific physical exercises often sits right between extreme asceticism and suppression on one hand, and ecstatic, over-emotional spirituality on the other. In any case, you risk a massive "shaking" of the nervous system, creating intense Vata imbalances. It can get dangerous fast if you don't know what you're doing, lack a solid foundation, or don't have the right guidance, environment, and support systems in place.

While any spiritual practice carries a risk of triggering this process—and it can happen spontaneously or due to chaotic life events without any warning—I don't see any reason to force it. Not unless you have a broad, clear perspective on what you're actually doing and access to decent guidance.

Thnx 👍 again. I probably don't need an MRI for a checkup at a public facility in a place like Chicago, but there aren't many private options around here for one

Can't I just get a specialist report based on my current results? It shouldn't be a huge deal—the specialist probably won't need me to redo every single test, they'll just give their opinion on what’s already there.

I've seen some promotions lately, though it seems like they often have a separate price list for breast exams (most other segments are around $1200 or $1600 during sales, but breasts go up to $2000). That doesn't even include the drive into Chicago. Most places don't even list their prices online, so you basically have to call them first.

Thnx

p.s. How long of a wait am I looking at through Social Security?

I’ve been going through a series of private consultations (at Mayo Clinic). It started with a systemic checkup, then a mammogram, followed by a biopsy. Now they’re recommending an MRI, which is $667 quite a lot. Does anyone know if my primary care doctor can issue an MRI referral through Medicare based on a specialist's opinion from a private clinic? Or do the specialists need to send over a formal referral first (or is there some other protocol I should know about)?

transmeditation - for a few years now
yoga - on and off for about 20 years
reiki - maybe a year or two

anything else mentioned, no

I still do yoga (in the broader sense, including various meditative practices and whatnot)

I think they work, but you have to start somewhere, I guess.

Nothing brings miracles overnight. At least, not for most people. You might find some outliers at the extreme edges of the bell curve, but for the majority, all that hype is just beginner's enthusiasm masking reality. There are no magic tricks—just consistent effort for specific (and often modest) results, much like any other field. There isn't some secret technique that’ll turn you into a top-tier scientist, musician, or athlete overnight without years of systematic training and heavy investment, even if you're naturally gifted. Techniques promising miracles are just selling smoke (for a high price) to naive consumers.

well, it’s hard to disagree with you on this one 😘 😁

Moderators act like digital popes—they're always right, aren't they?😳

ruggednomad5 said:Thanks for the input.
So I guess I still have to break a sweat then... 😉

It also depends on how you approach the practice. You can make it much more dynamic and physically intense—almost like doing floor gymnastics—but there’s always a trade-off. If you push too hard in one direction, you tend to lose ground elsewhere. That makes it pretty difficult to maintain that subtle focus, like staying on top of your breathwork or noticing those tiny physical shifts while you're moving.

You should be training at home every single day alongside those group sessions; doing it just once a week won't do much for you.

By the way, I work out daily and haven't noticed much of a boost in muscle mass; if that's the goal, hitting the gym is definitely the better move.

ambercyclist50 said:bluemason3 and redheron30, why don't you two go start your own thread? You can have your little debate over there.

You can't really say that, not after you explicitly implied that someone brought me here on purpose just to trigger this specific situation.

ambercyclist50 said:bluemason3, I have zero interest in debating technical matters with self-proclaimed experts. That goes for redheron30, too.

This is a textbook ad hominem attack, which seems to be your go-to move. If you think I’m wrong, then make an actual argument. Show me a specific statute, a regulation from a governing body, or a peer-reviewed study that proves my point is contraindicated. Otherwise, it’s just sad to watch "self-proclaimed experts"—and to be clear, I already stated I am not one—claim to know more than you about a subject where you're constantly trying to play the ultimate authority.

If you’re acting as @Sacreus’s legal counsel, just say so.

You’re projecting again. I never said anything for or against what @Sacreus claims regarding those client treatments—I don't know. I'm just talking about what I actually know, which has nothing to do with him.

Your contribution to the old thread is so negligible that I don't really see you as a relevant voice in this discussion about the topic about BPD (not BPD itself).

You’re probably right, which is exactly why we stopped talking about it on the main thread, yet here you are, dragging the whole debate back into the light.

Jerry Vaughn2 said:- acting as a mod by deleting posts from the thread just to protect himself
- using mod warnings to punish other users just to defend his own position
- failing to sanction @Sacreus while targeting others instead

There were two other active mods working (probably more than him), so how can you be sure who deleted what? 🤔

which are harmful to clients (hypnosis in FDNY patients)

You're just parroting New York’s baseless claim. There aren't any scientific papers specifically targeting the link between BPD and hypnosis, and most issues—both direct and comorbid—are regularly treated with hypnotherapy. It might be useless, or maybe it's great, but claiming it's specifically harmful is an unsupported stretch.

casualwolf39 said:You've got the wrong thread. These are formal complaints against moderator @Sacreus.

He called me out directly in the post I was quoting.🙂

ambercyclist50 said:By ignoring more than 30 direct questions from the community, he’s causing genuine distress to several members. Some people have even gone as far as posting about the emotional toll it's taking on them.
Anyone in the field will tell you: ignoring someone isn't just rude. It’s the most malicious, traumatic, and dangerous form of passive aggression there is.

Even if that were true—and I'm not even going to get into the weeds on this whole situation—it’s completely irrelevant to this forum. You can't really fault anyone for choosing which replies to pick or which questions to ignore. No one is under any obligation to post anything specific just to keep a discussion moving. Unless you're acting as a moderator handling technical inquiries, nobody owes anyone an explanation.

ambercyclist50 said:He’s out there pushing hypnosis to treat personality disorders, which goes completely against everything established clinical standards dictate. He’s basically tossing aside the fundamentals of the field—ignoring the very science and the mandatory medical literature he used to earn his license in the first place. Now, instead of following proven protocols, he's operating via unverified, dangerous methods that he isn't even licensed to perform.

I’ve read plenty of solid literature on hypnotherapy, and I haven't come across any of the claims you're making—except in that one presentation you linked yourself. And let's be honest, that wasn't exactly a peer-reviewed study; it was more like a collection of caveats regarding specialized medical backgrounds and the lack thereof. As for hypnosis, there isn't even a professional consensus on the basics, much less the specifics. Most things in psychotherapy lack universal agreement, though I know you prefer to present your own theoretical frameworks as if they were gospel.
That second link you mentioned actually looks like a more seasoned, expert take, so I skipped over it at first. But honestly? It’s nowhere to be found in this thread. I’ve combed through the posts multiple times and there’s nothing there besides that childish nonsense. Even if it did exist, we'd just be looking at one person's opinion, not some established industry standard.

That’s nothing more than pure charlatanism and quackery. It's actually a criminal offense under the Penal Code of the United States.

This is straight-up lying and defamation, which is also a punishable offense under the Penal Code of the United States. 😁

It all comes down to this guy’s posts about his little "techniques"—which, for the record, he’s never mentioned here before. He basically jumped from a thread on hypnosis and hypnotherapy straight into this one just to run a shameless self-promotion campaign. To make matters worse, he openly dismissed 98%—and yes, I am quoting him—of mental health professionals, claiming their expertise is somehow less significant than that of a circus magician. Isn't that just a massive slap in the face to everyone of us actually working in these fields?

We aren't hanging out because we share an interest in hypnosis. He didn't drag me into this, nor have I ever supported his claims regarding treating BPD or jumped into your arguments. Sometimes I browse the BPD threads just to follow one specific user I’ve known for years, but that's about it. I rarely chime in since I’m neither a patient nor a therapist—though, to be fair, I haven't been completely silent on these boards in the past. Unlike most people here, I’m not entirely sure how much knowing someone with actual or potential BPD qualifies me to offer any constructive input. I only spoke up because this specific off-topic subject is something I actually know from both theory and practice, and you were being quite authoritative while spreading blatant misinformation about a field you clearly don't understand.

It’s not an insult; it’s just a fact. Most people who graduate with a degree in timber industry management aren't actually better at building scale model ships than a hobbyist working alone in their garage—mostly because that's not what they study in school. It’s the same logic with mental health: just because someone finishes a degree in psychology or psychiatry doesn't mean they're suddenly more skilled at hypnosis if their curriculum didn't include extensive training in it. A professional who practices it every single day is going to have the edge.

The issue here is that you seem to have this need to be the "expert on everything." You try to claim authority over subjects you don't actually know, and you take any disagreement as a personal hit to your ego. As it happens, both Sacreus and I actually know a thing or two about this topic. Also, regarding BPD, I'm not seeing how you're even connecting us to that.

Elizabeth Castillo87 said:Look, we’ve all heard the chatter by now—there are endless studies out there showing that you can actually trigger these intense "spiritual" experiences just by poking at specific centers in the brain. It’s everywhere. You’ve got astronauts floating in the void having these profound moments, people tripping on psychedelics, near-death experiences... it's a whole spectrum of weirdness.
The typical scientific take? They argue that if you can just flip a switch in the brain to make these things happen, then it’s all just neurochemistry. To them, it’s proof there’s nothing "out there," just neurons firing in the dark. Naturally, religious folks look at those kinds of experiments with a massive amount of skepticism.
But honestly? I see it differently. To me, the fact that we can even induce these states suggests we’re sitting on a mountain of knowledge we aren't even aware of—stuff that's buried incredibly deep. If you look at it through the lens of biological evolution, there’s zero survival reason for us to carry around those kinds of heavy, ancient memories, no matter how deep they go.
People who get hit with these induced experiences usually end up totally lost, not knowing what to do with themselves. And let's be real, even when these things hit you out of nowhere, it’s a hell of a thing to process. It isn't easy to carry.
But seriously, since anyone can basically be triggered into this state, how does that prove it's somehow meaningless? How does being able to replicate it mean it doesn't matter?

They aren't "scientists," they're "scientism" proponents. Even the guy who came up with the "God helmet" and those specific experiments qualifies his own work, claiming he didn't actually succeed in proving everything can be reduced to those kinds of theories.

Besides, the brain processes all information, including stuff from our immediate surroundings. Does that mean everything we see around us is an illusion? If we pull this "brain-centric" argument to its logical conclusion, we end up with total solipsistic-Matrix subjectivity rather than the naturalist reductionism the skeptics are pushing for.

There's also the issue that spiritual experiences might look identical on the surface while being fundamentally different in substance. For instance, you could dream about Jesus, you could have a weird, unpleasant hallucination caused by a fever, or you could have an incredibly intense vision accompanied by feelings of purity, ecstasy, and piercingly clear consciousness. If you were just describing the visual, you might describe seeing the same figure of Jesus in all three cases.

While some have assumed they are the same based on those superficial similarities, people who have had an NDE and those using hallucinogens say the experiences are nothing alike.