http://www.amazon.com/Touch-Bradford-Bo
This book was given to me by![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif)
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.
This book was given to me by
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.
