Talk:Somatic experiencing

Removed extraneous information from 'Theory & Methods'

Removed the following:

After reportedly having a "profound" dream Peter Levine believed he had been "assigned" the task "to protect this ancient knowledge from the Celtic Stone Age temples, and the Tibetan tradition, and to bring it to the scientific Western way of looking at things....". Levine also credits a vision in a dream to how he came up with the healing vortex concept originally, despite it being part of his mentors model and originated with Ahsen's bipolarity concept. He also boasts of year long mystical conversations with an "apparition" of Albert Einstein to his "synchronistic awakening" in developing his model. According to Levine, this synchronistic leading began in his mothers womb, where at a "moment of life threat" he "bonded with Einstein through her placental fetal "blood web."

None of this has anything to do with theory and method. I concede that this is very eccentric behaviour on Levine's part, but these are the strangest parts of an otherwise staid interview. And they've been selectively extracted to paint Levine in a negative light. The interview from which they came had much discussion about actual theory & method, but none of this was cited. Levine has written at length about the theory and methods underpinning Somatic Experiencing in his books, and it's beyond doubt that his work is grounded in scientific theory - even if those books are not admissible here.

This section reads much more cleanly for these edits. Discussions about Levine's 'inspiration' should be relegated to a personal biographical page. This page is about the treatment modality he originated, not his eccentricities as an individual. Critique should be limited to critique of theory and method - the critique of the polyvagal theory, for example, is reasonable.

I also removed the following:

One of the Somatic Experiencing Institutes board of directors expressed that he "really needed a license" in a mental health discipline to practice Somatic Experiencing.[9] [...] The originator, who does not hold a clinical mental health license, has acknowledged that psychologists and psychiatrists believed he “needs to be stopped" because his "teaching is dangerous."[11]

Both of these quotes are completely out of context. The first was taken from an interview with a counsellor who talked about how experiencing the therapy as a patient motivated him to become a counsellor - part of which involves obtaining a license.

For Ocampo, the experience of this therapy was transformative. It gave him back his life in a real way. So in the aftermath of that, he joined professional training in the field. And ultimately, he decided that to bring this work to best benefit other people he needed to become a Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist. As he explains, “I really needed a license to become a practitioner, to practice this beautiful work.”

So he enrolled in the MA in Clinical Psychology at Antioch Los Angeles, with a specialization in Spiritual and Depth Psychology. This specialization allowed him to explore mindfulness-based therapy, Jungian analytic psychology, socio-cultural diversity consciousness—and the places where they intersected. He loved how depth psychology allowed the therapeutic space to become very spiritual as well. “What I mean by that,” he explains, is that “there’s a lot of depth, there’s a lot of realization, there’s a sense of arriving in oneself.”

The second quote is again, out of context and designed to mislead. Levine is, in the interview, reflecting on how he was received by psychologists and psychiatrists some 40+ years ago, when somatic based therapies were received with open hostility. He did not 'acknowledge' their critique, nor agree with it. He was merely reflecting on the intensity of the reaction that some had to his work in much earlier times.

There is no reference cited for the claim that Levine has no clinical mental health license. He does have a PhD in Psychology, according to his CV - and if he's no longer actively treating patients, then it's not clear that this is relevant. Orsova50 (talk) 11:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Orsova50 clearly states that he removed content because he wished to not portray Peter Levine in a negative light. I did not think Wikipedia was a platform for providing sanitized content of a method or an individual or to help market and promote their method. If, as Orsova50 says, the secondary sourced material from a peer reviewed journal does indeed put Levine in a bad light, why is that? Is it because Levine himself put himself in a bad light by claiming mystical inspiration for material that was clearly taken from his predecessors and mentors in the field? Levine, by his own testimony, developed his theories and methods through a socratic method of year long conversations with an apparition of Albert Einstein.

Should wikipedia sheild someone from what puts them in a bad light. The quotes were accurate and, in my opinion, do not look any better in context of the rest of the story. Some people may be attracted to SE because of the mysticism imbued nto the theory and methods by the founder.

In my opinion Peter Levine should have given homage and credit for his theoretical concepts to actual theories and actual researchers in the field who rather than attribute it to hissmystucal connections to brilliant spirits or ancient knowledge. The quote removed can be effective marketing with those drawn by Levine's shamanic influences.

Yes. It is hard to find any secondary sourced material to use to discuss the Somatic Experiencing method and that interview is definitely a secondary source from a peer reviewed journal. As far as Orsova50's claim that the rest of the interview article is otherwise staid, it is not.

Levine also claims he has practiced the method since 1968. . . 45 plus years. Is it true, or is there more evidence to show that he was practicing mind/body techniques of his predecessors? The USPO states that Somatic Experiencing was trademarked in 1989 and its first commercial appearance was 1985. That is 30-35 years. Levine also claims that he founded Ergos Institute (divining the name from a dream) in the early 1970's despite the verifiable fact that the corporation was founded/established in 1994, the year after his mentor Dick Olney passed away. These documented facts were also deleted by Wikipedia because they were not secondary sources. That seems odd that a verifiable government record (a primary source) cannot be used to counter secondary sources repeating unfounded claims by the founder. Prior to trademarking Somatic Experiencing in 1989 Peter Levine was teaching Dick Olney's Self Acceptance training. Olney gave credit to his predecessors not to dreams.

Wikipedia is not the place to blindly claim that Peter Levine began Somatic Experiencing 45 years ago, or founded Ergos instutite in the early 1970s just because it appears on his embellished resume. Wikipedia is not about making someone look good necessarily. It is about compiling secondary sourced materials on a topic. I am sorry if you feel that it puts Peter Levine in a bad light, but there is so much that puts Peter Levine in a bad light if one scratches the surface of self proclamations and shameless unfounded marketing claims. As for Peter Levine having no mental health license, an academic degree in psychology(self directed phd) is not a license to practice psychology in any state. Levine is registered as an "unlicensed psychotherapist" in the state of Colorado and hold no license at all in the state of California where he conducts most of his sessions treating PTSD. Colorado is one of the only states to allow for unlicensed registration of individuals who do not hold a clinical license. California allows for alternative practitioners but prohibits them from treating mental disorders. How does Doctor Levine practice this method legally? The quote that he holds no clinical license is relevant to the fact that Somatic Expereincing Practitioners appear to beleive they can practice, like the founder, without a license. Is SE a psychotherapy method that includes body awareness or is it a body based method exempt from psychotherapy licensing? This is germane to the "theory" topic. This is germane to "what is Somatic Experiencing?". This is germane to the fact that psychologists found his teaching dangerous.

If Levine's theories are founded on shamanism, a practice that is akin to religion and not science, what is relevant to include in the theory section? What is the "theory" of shamanism and what are its methods? "Shamanism is based on the premise that the visible world is pervaded by invisible forces or spirits which affect the lives of the living. Although the causes of disease lie in the spiritual realm, inspired by malicious spirits, both spiritual and physical methods are used to heal." (Wikipedia). If Somatic Experiencing is grounded in shamanic theory and methods (in part) and he ascribes mystical influences, dreams, and being bonded with the spirit of Einstein, isn't it relevant to include such "theories" and "methods" derived from such msytical forces in a write up of the method. Levine cannot have it both ways. He cannot imbue it with ancient and mystical forces AND have it be purely a scientific method and wikipedia doesn't get to sanitize the theory down to the ones that sound scientific and legitimate when Somatic Experiencing was founded on principles of both.

Maybe Orsova50 should not remove the quote because it makes Peter Levine look bad, but rather provide additional content from the article that he believes cushions the inclusion of the tarnishing information. As far as the Ocampo quote being out of context, it is not. It adds to the idea that although the SE method is taught to all sorts of practitioners, even a board member of the SEI organization believes it needs a license to be practiced. While the facts and quotes included might need to be tweaked to read more clear, concise and to clarify their contextual relevance, I believe they are very appropriate for this article. We are not here to make Peter Levine look good. His theory is founded on shamanic principles and the fact that he had mystical conversations with Einstein for a whole year, engaging in a socratic exercise with his spirit, while supposedly coming up with his theories and methods seems to me quite relevant. Vanguard666 (talk) 20:28, 13 August

References

Avatar 317 incorrectly removed secondary sourced material.

To quote wikipedia policy: "Biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge. This guideline supports the general sourcing policy with specific attention to what is appropriate for medical content in any Wikipedia article, including those on alternative medicine. Sourcing for all other types of content – including non-medical information in medicine-articles – is covered by the general guideline on identifying reliable sources."

Avatar317 isunder the impression that all citations need to meet medical standards for biomedical sources rather than general guidelines which apply to other fields including psychotherapy. The page is flanked by the request to supplement this article with more biomedical sources NOT to expunge all properly cited secondary source material. == Since somatic experiencing is considered a somatic psychotherapy approach, much of the citations needed are from normal secondary sourced materials. This page only needs medical citations for physiological or medical claims NOT for rudimentary theoretical underpinnings. Avatar317 habitually removes properly secondary sourced material from one of the major publishers of somatic psychotherapy and somatics, North Atlantic Books. Their reason for removing such content is that North Atlantic Books is not a publisher of medical information. It doesn't need to be unless it pertains to biomedical information. Ahsen's principle of bipolarity, as one example, is a psychotherapy based theoretical concept and the general guidelines should apply. If I make a claim that the bipolarity principle leads to decreased autonomic arousal, I should be required to support that with sources that are credible and sufficiently scientific. Vanguard666 (talk) 14:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

That's a pretty common misunderstanding with psych articles. Claims about psychotherapy generally do need to meet medical standards because they are a form of healthcare which is used by physicians, e.g. psychiatrists, to treat medical concerns. This article is about a treatment of a medical disorder, so it does fall under WP:MEDRS. An example of non-medical information would be who the creator is, whereas the basis of a psychotherapy's effect is a medical claim. If its a claim about what a particular person believes the effect to be, that isn't a medical claim and can just meet the general guideline - in that case, the medical consensus about that person's opinion should also be explained (and appropriately sourced) or it can lead to issues around WP:UNDUE. I hope that helps to clarify the policy. --Xurizuri (talk) 07:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge: Peter A. Levine → Somatic experiencing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This has been posted at WP:RFCL and as requested I am here to close. There is a very clear consensus that Peter A. Levine should not have a standalone article. The only actual point in dispute here is whether to merge or redirect. That being said, this appears to be a semantic point. Most of the editors who have !voted for a merge acknowledge that Peter A. Levine is bereft of legitimate content and seek to merge and the only person who hasn't changed their merge !vote describes the worthwhile parts of the other page as being composed of "(scant) biographical content". I'll close as redirect Peter A. Levine to Somatic experiencing for now. If the lone merge !voter actually wants to include parts of that article in this article then we can describe this ex post facto as a merge, but unless that actually happens it makes more sense to describe the consensus here as being in favour of redirecting. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 18:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

---

It doesn't look like Peter A. Levine is notable for a standalone article; suitable content should be merged to Somatic experiencing. ––FormalDude talk 08:50, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• why levine is not notable for a standalone article, but Gabor Maté already? I do not understand. a specialist should take a look next to meSchutz67 (talk) 17:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Schutz, we're deciding notability based off of WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and WP:NACADEMIC. Just to clarify, notable doesn't mean the same thing on Wikipedia as it does in the rest of the world. Someone can be a beloved hero in their community but not have a wikipedia article; it's actually the norm. The premise here is that for a lot of people, they will be more interested in what Levine created than in the details of his life. That's not a reflection on him, it's just the nature of contributing something to the world. We also tend not to prefer to use the guidelines when figuring out notability, rather than comparing to other articles. --Xurizuri (talk) 05:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
• Merge. I agree, it looks like he's not notable by any of WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:NACADEMIC. And all of the vaguely interesting content is about somatic experiencing, so it would be most useful to a reader to merge the articles. --Xurizuri (talk) 07:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
• Merge The (scant) biographical content would make more sense here per WP:NOPAGE. Alexbrn (talk) 07:55, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
• I agree that discussing Peter Levine here would be appropriate. He is virtually synonymous with Somatic Experiencing.Vanguard666 (talk) 01:08, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
• peter levine has worked for decades to develop Somatic experiencing SE. he created it. people want a short info about the person, not info about his method and somewhere in-between an info about him. it would take to much time reading. SE is only one click away.
  To place the page peter levine under somatic expricing would be like placing the page albert einstein under the theory of relativity. people come across the name peter levine and want to read who he is. forwarding them to SE would confuse people. not everyone who is interested in peter levine is automatically also interested in SESchutz67 (talk) 08:22, 30 October 2021 (UTC) Note to closer: Schutz67 is the creator of the page that is the subject of this discussion.
  • I don't think Einstein and Peter Levine are comparable figures for a biographical POV. Alexbrn (talk) 10:42, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
    • I haven't compared Einstein and Peter Levine as figures for a biographical POV. Levine's influence and effect in the field of trauma therapy are already outstanding. what will it look like in 100 years, do you think you know?Schutz67 (talk) 17:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
      • WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. Alexbrn (talk) 17:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect, do not merge. The content is probably copyvio, and definitely unencyclopedic in tone. XOR'easter (talk) 20:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @XOR'easter: My proposal is to only merge the suitable content, which, in my opinion, is basically just his occupation. ––FormalDude talk 06:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Somatic experiencing already mentions his occupation ("trauma therapist"). What else is there to add? XOR'easter (talk) 13:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect only - I'm changing my support since I agree with XOR'easter that there's essentially nothing suitable to merge. Pinging participants @Alexbrn and @Xurizuri to see if they may change their vote in order to reach consensus. ––FormalDude talk 01:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I do not understand. a specialist in Therapy should take a look next to meSchutz67 (talk) 17:35, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
• Changing opinion to redirect. Everything worth keeping from the Levine article (i.e. he developed SE) is already in the SE article, so I'm happy with that.--Xurizuri (talk) 05:11, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect. Not that this confers any special authority or status, but I wrote the first draft of the Somatic Experiencing article, and the author of the Peter Levine page contacted me and we agreed that the pages should be merged, but neither of us did the work to make that happen. FYI. I also agree at this point that a redirect is the most appropriate thing. Having just reread the Somatic Experiencing page, it seems to me that it currently fails the NPOV test and perhaps the Original research test. IMHO it's very argumentative and derogatory. Lcuff (talk) 16:37, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
  • This is WP:FRINGE/woo isn't it? Looks like it's being touted without any decent research ever having been done. Alexbrn (talk) 05:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alternative medicine, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology, Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Psychiatry task force, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Psychiatry task force, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skepticism. ––Formal ^talk 04:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sourcing

I request that Alexbrn give specifics of how certain articles do not meet Wikipedia source criteria. Alexbrn has consistently removed artices from peer reviewed Journal Frontiers in Neuroscience and Frontiers in Psychology with the sole reason given as "fringe" source. Given these journals high citation inpact score, I know of no reason they should ve deemed fringe or in amy way violate wikipedia guidelines. Additionalky, descrptions of SE theory, backed up by multiple secondary sources, including peer reviewed journals, are removed by Alexbrn with the simple explanation "gobbledygook". I request that Alexbrn give nore solid rationsle for his edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanguard666 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, if you have a specific source in mind could you specify what it is please? Alexbrn (talk) 16:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I reference your deletion of Frontiers in Psychology and Frontiers in Neurosciene. I am confused why you are asking for clarification here, given that i specifically noted these on your personal talk page? Additionally, I am requesting that you give more specific reasons for your last edit removing an academic thesis. Since that thesis is not making medical claims, only conducting a lit review claiming that no research has been conducted to support some of SE's biological claims, there is no reason for it to be removed. Academic Theses' are not barred by wikipedia.Vanguard666 (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't use a thesis for anything in this area. Could you please say what Frontiers ARTICLE you mean? Alexbrn (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Here are the edits I am requesting clarification on.

1061468078

1075636717

1057810158

1057708340

1055584173

1048072919 Vanguard666 (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Again, I am requesting why, based on Wiki source guidelines, you justify the Thesis' removal. You seem to be stating personal preference not guidelines. Vanguard666 (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

additionally 'Gibberish' or 'woo', is not citing guidelines. If something is quoted from a peer reviewed journal, why do you get the sole discretion of deeming it "gibberish"? Vanguard666 (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP English Wikipedia only uses theses in rare cases. I looked at first of your disputed edits, Special:Diff/1061468078 which is of another editor fixing a typo. What. If you have a query about an ARTICLE, for the third time please say WHAT THAT ARTICLE IS. Alexbrn (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I do not see "only in rare cases" described in the guidelines. It does say used "with care" but you have not given a justification fir why, in this circumstance the Thesis citation cannot be used with care. Since it is only making a claim that current research has not evaluated a biological claim, and not made a biological claim, I beleive the use of this reference is appropriate. I have specifically gone through the trouble of specifying all the reversions you have made to my edits which i am requesting clarification on. I am sorry if i accidentally copied one incorrectly. I have specifically mentioned the actual peer reviewed Journal (Frontiers in Psychology). The specific article is easily obtained by looking at your own edit history, but here is one of your specific comments for edit 1048072919 "Seems like goobledegook from fringe source without sane context". I am asking you to justify claiming Fromtiers in Psychology is a fringe source and your personal opinion that it is "gobbledygook". I am requesting you be more specific generally in your removal in content in the future and adhere to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_removal Vanguard666 (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2022 (UTC)