Not trotting out the examples or just being selective in the presentation of the results: that is cult-like.
Agreed, and not what I was suggesting.
You have to demonstrate results. That is only way to verify or falsify the premise that primal therapy is effective.
Sounds simpler than it is. What do you mean by "demonstrate results" and "effective"? I can find thousands of people who will say that they feel better after psychoanalysis, cognitive-behavioral therapy, medication, and, as I said before, faith healing. And thousands who won't.
But none of this addresses my original topic, which was not about the effectiveness of primal therapy but rather about proof of the underlying theory. These are separate issues for me, since I am satisfied with using the techniques in my life but increasingly doubtful that the techniques have helped for the reasons assumed by the underlying theory.
This is significant for me because I'm aware that my feeling work is impacted by my beliefs about the underlying theory. Most obviously, if I believed that my pain was caused by birth trauma or a past life, that would affect the course of my primal work.
But to take it a step further, what if the whole Freudian theory of repressed feelings is simply wrong. There's little evidence that it's right. How is the feeling work that I do on myself impacted by my belief, or lack of belief, that I am storing repressed material in my unconscious that causes neurosis?