This book was given to me by
![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
aliothsan, because of our mutually high level of tactileness and interest in research thereof.I read the book with a positive bias. I am, indeed, extremely touch-oriented; I've had professional training in massage and various related practices; I've given 'em professionally; it's probably one of the most important senses to my enjoyment of the world.
So I'm very disappointed to say that the book is 99% bullshit. Hardly a single page went by that did not include fallacious reasoning, unstated or unproven assumptions, appeals to authority or tradition, uncritical acceptance of unproven (or disproven) "Eastern" practices, fundamentally flawed conceptions of study design, flippant dismissal of the same, false claims about neuroscience, pure speculation, dewey-eyed wistfulness about the moral and familial superiority of indigenous cultures, or similar.
That's unfortunate, because I do believe touch is important (to me and others like me, at least), and would like to see books out there that support my beliefs. But in this case, while it preaches a message I like, its support for that message is thoroughly porous.
On the positive side, there was the small portion of studies that were correctly done (at least if described accurately, for which I've been giving benefit of doubt) and had interesting results; it is highly probable that most touch is good for people or at least not bad; etc. And it was an interesting read.
Comments
Like I said, I strongly agree with the desire - touch is good, should be generally desexualized, etc etc - but this was woo in lab clothing. :-/
Thanks for the ref, though; will check it out if I come across it (though I confess I am far, far behind on my reading list).
I've heard attempts to correlate disliking touch with mental illness/learning troubles/what have you, but I tend to file that under "If What's Important to Me Isn't Important to You, You Must Be Mentally Ill." Autistics and abused children are not a generalizable sample. It's not like all of them dislike touch...
I'd be interested in that too. I can speak to the factors that go into my own (cultivated) hyper-responsiveness, but as a general predisposition, that is indeed an interesting question, and I know of no answers.
Autistics and abused children are not a generalizable sample. It's not like all of them dislike touch...
The book addresses this. It claims that autistic kids like touch that is predictable and controllable, such as massage, but not general touch, like what occurs in social situations. I saw no data or studies to back up this claim; it appeared to be purely a speculation to explain data on massage (possibly - 'twas poorly if at all controlled) helping them in various ways.
I've heard that claim before, but I really haven't seen data to back it up either. It could simply be that the benefits of massage could outweigh the downsides of being touched... something I've heard before.