Talk:Family Constellations

Representatives of the past?

I don't think "supposedly" is tightly enough grouped with the representatives of the past; I think of "supposedly" as going with "reveal a previously unrecognized systemic dynamic that spans multiple generations in a given family", and once we've got to "accept the factual reality of the past" we have a perfectly reasonable thing one might actually do. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Is this for real?

I always thought that Primal Scream Therapy was cretinous as could be, but this one really takes the biscuit. Are there any studies about the people who actually go for this nonsense (i.e. may we be dealing with yet another manifestation of the YAVIS syndrome?)146.0.189.118 (talk) 02:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Please confine yourself to comments more definitely related to improvements to the article. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's for real; and yes, it's pretty cretinous. You should be aware that the purpose of this page is for discussing changes to the article, not for use as a general discussion forum about the subject of the article. You may feel free to use my talk page if you want to engage in a discussion about the subject. I know that at least a couple of editors watching this page also watch my talk page. To find my talk page, click on the text "Tell me all about it" in my signature → ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

POV

This article has no scientific criticism of its pseudoscientific claims and assumptions, other than a short item in the lead. The lead is a summary of the article, and is not the place to put information appearing for the first (and only) time in the article. The main body needs to have this material expanded upon. RobP (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree on this and also I think pseudoscientific is only relevant if someone claims their stuff has undergone scientific research and met scientific standards. Family Constellations is a process which Hellinger or others have never claimed to be scientific anywhere. Just like me baking bread. It is pseudo-scientific by nature, but there's no point in pointing that out... Besides, it is the same for most of the therapies it is based on, simply because the standards for scientific research are hard to meet in psychology: control group issues, shortness of research period (due to grants etc), measurability of personal wellness.... Ava Ketel (talk) 10:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

It claims to do something based on some proposed mechanism. That's a claim in the realm of science. It's important to point out that this mechanism doesn't exist and the whole approach is pseudoscience. mfb (talk) 11:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, which mechanism does not exist? Ava Ketel (talk) 08:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The one by which the client's actual family situation magically makes the random people standing in for the client's family members behave in a way that mirrors the way the actual family members would behave. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Morphic resonance innit. Bon courage (talk) 06:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

New research added. Seems relevant in these times.

The concept that present-day problems and difficulties may be influenced by traumas suffered in previous generations of the family, even if those affected are unaware of the original event, called intergenerational or transgenerational trauma, has been subject to many research studies, which first started with war and Holocaust victims, but since has expanded to, amongst others, Black, First Nations, indigenous or aboriginal, and immigrant populations. Given that times have changed and acknowledging the impacts of war, genocide and discrimination on others has changed research permanently and it is now closing in on areas that before were only recognized by "weird" people like Hellinger: historic trauma and how this influences affected populations today. To me this is relevant to be added to the topic. Not saying that family constellations can heal this - not enough research to sustain that point of view - but enough of a link to the topic to make it to progressive insight. Ava Ketel (talk) 10:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Transgenerational trauma has its own distinct article. Please don't mix stuff on that in here, Bon courage (talk) 12:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Recognized experts on the topics in this page and other pages

Freud trained Wilhelm Reich and Reich trained Alexander Lowen - bio-energetic work, and Fritz Perls - Gestalt Therapy. None of these people's pages are considering them as pseudoscientific (even though their processes are not all researched and proven solid). Same for Ivan Boszormenyi-Nagy - family loyalties, Milton Erickson - hypnotherapy (not relevant for Family Constellations, by the way, so not sure why this guy is mentioned), Eric Berne - life scripts and games people play, Virginia Satir - family therapy. Dr Richard Schwartz with Internal Family Systems is another student of these people who has taken this work to conclusions on our internal instead of external systems. On several of these pages there is a chapter on opposition to their work though (which is correct, given that some of their work has not stood the test of time). So, is it because Hellinger was self-taught and did not have a university degree in psychiatry that his method is treated differently? Considering that best-selling researchers/trauma psychiatrists like Peter Levine, Gabor Maté, Efu Nyaki, Mark Wolynn, Bessel van der Kolk believe in the usefulness of (internal and/or external) family systems work to deal with trauma, it is a bit short-sighted to quote one, completely unknown author (sorry if you are this guy, but hey, you cannot be found on internet other this one book) who says family constellations is pseudo-scientific. Ava Ketel (talk) 11:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia goes by reliable sources, and the one designating family constellations pseudoscientifc is one such. Sources need to be WP:FRIND, directly on-topic and of high quality. Furthermore you are bombing the lede, which should only be a summary of the article body. If there are any high-quality sources this article is missing and needs to be citing, please identify them. Bon courage (talk) 12:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok, sorry if I placed it wrongly. However, the article as it stands now (August 8) has no informational content and personally I preferred it the way I found it before, so I regret drawing attention by changing phrases and related research - as said, Hellinger always said his work is based on phenomena, not in science). Might as well start anew with the topic, e.g. on basis of the German version, but if all edits just get deleted, I am not going to waste my time any further adding knowledge from my psychology degree on this page. I will stick to my normal occasional grammar and spelling edits on Wiki. Not my Spiel this ;-) Ava Ketel (talk) 08:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, this sounds a bit more negative than I meant to. I do appreciate Wikipedia a lot, and that’s the reason I try to add from time to time when I can! Ava Ketel (talk) 08:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Further vetting of Results of Randomized Controlled Trial of Efficacy

The following addition to the article was reverted with the explanation "Rv. primary research". I am reposting here for further discussion. I understand that secondary sources are preferred over primary sources, but I believe that, per wp:scholarship, the controlling issue is whether or not the publisher, Family Process, is a "reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses."Nowa (talk) 18:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

In 2014, Christina Hunger, et al., of the Institute for Medical Psychology, Center for Psychosocial Medicine, University Hospital Heidelberg ran a randomized controlled trial to demonstrate that participants in family constellation seminars, on average, showed "improved experience in personal social systems" relative to a control group. The effects of the seminars were measured 2 weeks and 4 months after the seminars. Hunger, et al., followed up at 8 months and 12 months and found participants still "showed improvement of psychological functioning" relative to the control group.

References

WP:MEDRS required. So no. Bon courage (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Good point. Would this work better as a secondary source? See the intro The efficacy of pandemic-adjusted family/systemic constellation therapy in improving psychopathological symptoms: A randomized controlled trial Nowa (talk) 18:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

More primary sourcing. Not useful. Bon courage (talk) 19:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

How about this article from Der Spiegel? [1] Nowa (talk) 19:49, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Popular press, unreliable for biomedical content. We're dealing with pseudoscience/quackery, so any claims need a wealth of impeccable sourcing. Bon courage (talk) 20:21, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, I respectfully disagree that none of these sources are suitable, but let's wait and see what other's say. Nowa (talk) 21:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS is needed. Primary sources are a no-no for quackery subjects. Heaps of pseudosciences are "confirmed" all the time by studies which are written by proponents and are not reproducible because they were based either on statistical blips or on rookie mistakes. Everybody who is familiar with medical science at all knows that.

Der Spiegel is notoriously bad at science. The assumption that articles in the popular press can make a scratch in scientific consensus is laughable. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)