Wikipedia

Talk:Alexander Technique/Archive 1

< Talk:Alexander Technique
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Denverjason in topic "Confined to a wheelchair"
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Alexander Technique discussion page:

Please read the article before you add to it. What you want to say may already be there, perhaps in an already-edited but not-quite-identical form.

I just took off a section added in by someone who had gone to the trouble to make an extra wiki page explaining the principle of "Direction." Obviously they didn't even read the main page because their identical contribution had already been integrated and since edited into an earlier section of the main topic, under "In-depth". So I added their wiki link in the list of links and delected the redundant section they had repeated at the end of the main page. Franis Engel

Would anyone mind if I change the redirect at Directions from here to the Direction disambiguation page? That seems more natural, and it already has a link to here.

Also, Franis - I believe that simply writing from your own experience, extensive though it appears to be, might be considered "original research". Similarly, just because I happen to know lots about unit vectors and am perfectly capable of rederiving the formalism doesn't mean I shouldn't still cite a standard text. Admittedly, most people will not trouble to look up a book in their local library, but original sources and key secondary sources are still nice. It would also help with any lingering aura of the NPoV which this page indicates has troubled this article.

As a purely stylistic comment, I think it would be preferable and more practical to reduce the barrage of external links. Rather than attempting to include and keep up to date all the sundry teacher training courses, perhaps a single link to a site listing all the regional courses and suchlike would suffice. But that is simply my impression as an outsider.

Eldereft 06:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I just took off the "verify" wiki-ism. The content of this article did not come from reading other books; it came from a synthesis of years of first-hand experience with lessons and teacher-training. Insights about how to write about the very subjective experiences of AT were taught to me by a first-generation AT teacher, and honed by many, many other teachers who edited my many years of attempts before I made my writing on the topic public. Because AT started around 1910, there are now only a few "first generation" AT teachers left - that made me very lucky to have started writing and learning about AT since 1978.

If a reader wants verification of any of the contents of the article, they can use any of the links already provided in the "professional associations" or ask any Alexander Technique teacher who is a trained member of a professional association about any point of what is in this article. I could cite as source F.M. Alexander's four books, (which are extremely difficult to decipher, but well worth the effort.) But, it is doubtful that anyone would want to go to that source and read them. A study guide for Alexander's books as a link is already there, but the person who posted the verification request did not even notice it.

After reconsideration of the "verify" request, I've decided to work on adding a very short section, to be included before the other two link sections. I'm thinking of links listing various Alexander teachers' pages on the web, living or deceased, who contributed to defining and developing the content of this Alexander Technique article - in the form of having taught contributors who wrote and edited this article.

So - if you did contribute to editing or creating content for this article and your Alexander teacher isn't listed, find or make your teacher their own biographical web page and list it if you like. Then everyone will know the sources, direct sources which did not come from reading another author.

Franis Engel


Looks good - thanks for your help. http://www.franis.org/Alexander 28 August, 2005 Franis Engel


Actually, I reorganized the whole text and removed those remaining sections that seemed not NPOV and removed the POV objection at the start. I am fairly satisfied with the generally though it is still rough around the edges in places. It not longer reads like ten brochures for the Alexander Technique pasted together.

Hans Joseph Solbrig 03:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I am re-organizing the first two sections to give them some coherence. Their previous version was repetitious and unclear. I'm sure that the re-organized versions will anoy some and folks are welcome to rewrite. It is simply that the article should be one article, not several somewhat similar articles.

Hans Joseph Solbrig 02:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that. You can experience the effect of the reorganization I just did - I even changed the heading sizes to match the outline form. I guess you should use the most recent version if you want to improve on it.

I've got permission to use a page for Marj Barstow's bio - could someone else write a bio for Carrington and MacDonald who knew them better? It doesn't seem very prominent to list a "prominent AT teacher" when they don't even have a bio link attached to their name.

http://www.franis.org/Alexander Franis Engel 7 August, 2005

I simplified the first two sentences. Whatever my background, I still claim the right to edit sentences to basic readibility.

Mannerism as defined by dictionary.com: 

  1. A distinctive behavioral trait; an idiosyncrasy.
  2. Exaggerated or affected style or habit, as in dress or speech. See Synonyms at affectation.
  3. Mannerism An artistic style of the late 16th century characterized by distortion of elements such as scale and perspective.

"Limitations within Mannerisms of movement" clearly is not correct since a mannerism is already a limitation or idiosyncrasy already. But "limitations with manner of movement" might work.

More about organization later.

Best Wishes,

Hans Joseph Solbrig 07:40, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

The first sentence is something that will be changed by whoever comes to the site who is an Alexander teacher - so I wouldn't worry about it's comprehensibility so much. Something was there and it was late at night and I tried to integrate it - I'm famous for switching around words and messing up my prepositions. It should have read "It teaches how to learn to recognize and prevent unnecessary habitual limitations within mannerisms of movement."

BTW, which one sentence definition on my site made sense to you that you think should replace it?

I think your suggestion in the second paragraph is a good way to combine that sentence. "The Alexander Technique refers to the educational methods of Alexander teachers and the individual practice used by students". (I didn’t write it. I was trying to integrate someone else’s editing.) It is confusing – AT teachers demonstrate on themselves the learning process during teaching that students must learn to emulate for themselves and then apply to any activity they want to improve. AT principles are practiced while doing any action; at first for making easier movements. As students gain more ability to observe themselves, they rely less on the teacher’s observations and suggestions. As the student’s ability to choose new responses develops, they discover their own improvements related to their performance. (...that probably should be in the intro following the explanation of the kinesthetic sense.)

You’re right about “use,” but bringing up the term “use” doesn't communicate, IMHO, (I'm not alone in this) it’s just an AT buzzword that evolved for mannerisms some believe the word "use" splits the person into having a body that is "used" by the self. It’s a word that’s incongruent with the rest of Alexander’s mind/body unity principles that I think should be left out. The word "posture" is a problem too beause of how people stiffen themselves when the word is mentioned.

I'm not sure how the sequence of sections you've suggested improves the presentation. Perhaps if we review what is there, recombining to improve comprehension and NPOV can be obvious.

We’ve got now…

  • First section with what AT refers to both a method and a practice, one sentence definition, who started it, his lifespan, when he discovered it, a few teachers mentioned that he trained and famous endorsers (someone needs to write something on those teachers and ancient endorsers so the link goes somewhere if these people are going to be mentioned.)
  • section as an intro about what it is, what it does for who uses it, the sense that it trains and what criteria it was designed with
  • section on the needs it addresses, principle of sensory adaptation, benefits and effectiveness, with qualifiers of its effectiveness under what conditions
  • section of Learning and Training Requirements – subsets: using it for oneself, environments of a lesson, and why learn with a (properly trained) teacher, requirements to teach it, teaching styles (perhaps this is where specific teachers and their teaching styles should be mentioned instead of in the first section)
  • Disadvantages - Proof, learning time and pitfalls
  • Principles and how they work together in a sample lesson
  • History


I would say leave the first paragraph as an introductory paragraph, because it’s better to explain one at a time such original ideas such as “direction,” “inhibition,” “sensory adaptation,” “primary control,” “end-gaining” etc. in context so readers can follow them rather than just mentioning them and confusing people and explaining later what they mean.

If we change it so the "sample lesson" follows the teaching as a subsection as you’ve suggested, maybe we could put “Disadvantages” under “Needs it addresses” so it is along with the qualifiers of the circumstances of its effectiveness.

I imagine that the “History” could go in the first section. I can see that the criteria that FM designed AT for which is now in the intro could also go in the first section. And the teachers mentioned in the first section could also go under teaching styles instead.

What do you think of that organization?

I see a disadvantage in grouping the topics together like that - it would end with describing the teaching styles of specific teachers and then mentioning specific names of noted teachers dead and alive. Aside being difficult to write about those subtle differences objectively and possibly divisive, wouldn’t that sound like a bit of an advertisement to end with that sort of thing? Editors who come by would want to add teacher after teacher and describe how great they were and what made their work notable, etc.

Ending on a more factual note I think would be more NPOV. That’s why I split the information about FM Alexander into about his work & lifetime facts in the first paragraph and how he discovered his Technique in the last paragraph. Probably most teachers would reverse that, but then we're ending with an ever-expanding list of "most notable" teachers he trained again...

How do you think we should end it with NPOV?

http://www.franis.org/Alexander Franis Engel 6 August, 2005

The first sentence is still a bit problematic "The “Alexander Technique” refers to the educational methods taught by Alexander teachers and practiced by students" - how do student practice an "educational technique". Do teachers teach student an educational or do they teach them to improve their use (a definition of "use" might make many parts of the article simpler. I wouldn't hazard that, however). It is an improvement since it clearifies the nature of the technique more than previously.

Perhaps "The alexander Technique refers to the educational methods of Alexander teachers and the individual method used by students"? -- Also, I think the first instance should be in bold, not quotes, (that's minor).

The second sentence "It teaches how to learn to recognize and prevent the limitations of unnecessary habit within the mannerisms of movement." is simply incomprehensible.

What the heck is the "limitations of unnecessary habit within the mannerisms of movement"??

I am not attached to my particular simplifying descriptions but I am attached A description simple enough to be understood. You can look at the many examples on your own website attempting to summarize the technique. Many are quite clear. If you don't like my sentence, create a clear sentence along the line of these other clear descriptions. Or quote someone and credit them.

Anyway....

The re-organization seems like an effort at improvement but clearly more is needed. I don't think there's any way around both re-writing and re-organization. These piecemeal efforts might even be making things more of a mess. A section titled "Learning, Training requirements, Environments and Why learn with a teacher" implies a section without a single clear focus even if this is a good title for what is in the section.

What I tried doing at one point was taking the different sentences/paragraph and putting them into appropriate areas. This would involve getting rid of some things, since various pieces repeat basic ideas throughout the article.

I may be mistaken but the Alexander technique as an individual practice involves the use of the four directions, inhabition and related approaches. The section on "What it is" thus should mention this. As it is, this section is mostly an second effort to be an introductory paragraph.

How about...

  • one section of the individual practice of the method,
  • One section on teaching methods,
  • one section on teacher training methods and advantages,
  • one section on the benefits of individual practice
  • one section on criticism, pitfalls and limitions
  • one section on history

Make "a sample lesson" a subsection of the teaching methods.

We put the existing material into these sections and rewriting to make it sufficiently smooth and coherent.

I believe a clear, complete and appropriate definition in Wikipedia would certainly benefit the profession.

Best Wishes

Hans Joseph Solbrig 08:01, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Hans, take a look at how I've just reorganized the sections. I'm not sure how to make subheadings; but you can see what I tried to do. Franis Engel http://www.franis.org/Alexander

A further beef: The "edit NPOV of last sentence of first paragraph" actually seemed entirely NOT NPOV - taking a somewhat neuteral comment and turning it into a very political statement - "who founded their own work using parts of Alexander's original concepts" underhandly says, as I know Alexander teachers say, that later efforts (Feldenkrais) were just stolen from Alexander. I'm working on a larger re-organizing of this page and I'll probably revert this unless someone has a good argument for it. PS, plus the new sentence is nearly unreadable.

Hans Joseph Solbrig 23:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Just Another comment. I think the article needs to be better divided into sections. As it stands, each section reads like seperate short introduction to the technique from a different viewpoint. Each section should focus on important aspects and be light on general comments - except for perhaps a generally introductory section. The sections I could imagine would be: 1. Intro/In More 2. Benefits 3. Theory behind the technique (merge section "Principles used together" into this) 4. Teaching Methods 5. The Experience Of Learning The Technique a. In daily Life (sub section) b. Learning Time c. Pitfalls Of Learning 6. Questions Of The Validity Of The Technique (include scientific research, institutional validation etc here)

Text from other sections should be merged into these sections. Section names aren't the prettiest but they are how someone would expect a neuteral exposition of the technique to go.

Best Wishes

And understand that the technique is indeed difficult to describe.

Hans Joseph Solbrig (switching from middle to first name)


Joe, I didn't imagine that you added the disputed neutrality icon. But thanks for the lecture on NPOV. I did some more editing with NPOV in mind, especially on that last section. I'll ask for more help with that from other Alexander teachers to improve NPOV further on this topic. Franis Engel

Franis, My concern with the comment along with the over-all tone of the article is that it takes the position of advocating for a position - even advocating that the reader take a particular action. Whether that advocated course of action is good or not is beside the point. Advocating for the Alexander Technique violates NPOV. It is as simple as that.

If the comment about teacher qualifications could be phrased as the belief of, say, the American Society for the Alexander Technique or some identified authority, then it might not have the same neutrality problem. If other Alexander teachers are working on this, hopefully that they will find a way to represent the opinions of the profession while maintaining NPOV.

The original article would be fine on a website talking about why someone should take Alexander lessons. But it is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. I really do think it is fine article. It simply needs considerable reworking to get NPOV - especially if this is to serve as an authoritative reference for the technique.

Also, I was not the person who added the neutrality disputed icon. The lack of neuteral viewpoint is fairly clear.

Joe Solbrig

Joe, it wasn't a paragraph added my me. (I'm the one who wrote most of this article years ago originally.) It was quite an authoritarian tone; I toned it down and put it in context as "many AT teachers feel that..." It's a professional requirement; to claim to be an AT teacher, you must spend significant years of your life in teacher training in the 1600+ hour company of already trained AT teachers - in teaching, there are no short-cuts or "tricks of the trade." I know someone personally who was injured my a supposed AT teacher who had never attended teacher training. I have seen other bodyworkers who "mimic" what they have seen Alexander teachers do, without having a clue about their actual effects. The warning is a valid concern of the professional teaching orgs. If you're going to pay money for Alexander lessons, why not get the real thing? However, I am currently not a member of any professional AT organization; I did attend formal teacher training and continued my teacher training informally for over ten years, twenty years ago. However, I am a professionally recognized Alexander Technique community member, reviewer, writer and Alexander teacher - if you would care to ask my peers. So getting a reference isn't a bad idea. I often teach and write for free, so marketing isn't very often my objective; education is. At my direct encouragement, this worldwide AT community has reviewed my writing here and edited it anonymously to make it even better. That means we AT teachers tend agree on this article's usefulness and truth in representing AT - unlike many splintered groups of various other disciplines.

http://www.franis.org/Alexander Franis Engel

The claim at the end of the article that there are a number of Alexander Technique "imposters" seems entirely unsupported. I never have never heard of such people and have never seen a reference to such people. It smacks of pure marketing. There are other bodyworkers who may incorporate methods of the Alexander Technique into their methods but these are not imposters by any reasonable definition of the word - they are eclectic body workers. They are not individuals misrepresenting themselves.

Moreover, the entire tone "why you should chose a certified Alexander teacher" is clearly far from the NPOV.

joesolbrig@yahoo.com

I should clarify that I think that the article is fairly good. I think it just needs tweaks to avoid being an Alexander Technique pamphlet. I'm not sure that describing the Alexander technique in words should be a great difficulty. There are numerous books on the subject, some may be obscure but others are fairly clear.

I have changed a few sections for greater NPOV but there's a long way to go. I found quite excellent articles on the technique on the web and I believe there's no reason the Wikipedia article shouldn't also be excellent.

Joe Solbrig


Defining the Alexander technique in words has been a problematic issue for practitioners from the days of Alexander to the present. That is not to say that Alexander himself did not try his best at describing what he felt was an observable phenomenon, as demonstrated by his prolific discussions and a number of published works.

There have also been attempts to study the Alexander technique using post-positivistic methodologies, but none of these studies have been conclusive, primarily since the technique requires a relatively lengthy period of learning for most people and the controls required by this tradition have not to date been satisfied.

Promising evidence generated by studies of the past has led to renewed interest in the technique as a research topic that might appropriately be studied through the more recently accepted means of triangualation involving fieldwork, case study, and perhaps most fundamentally, the establishment of contemporary terms that are useful in describing the method for purposes of study. See "Voice pedagogy and the Alexander Technique" Journal of singing, 1991 by Daniel M. Zipperer in reference to descriptors provided by Mrs. Frank P. Jones.

At least one Journal Direction Journal sponsored by practitioners of the Alexander technique Worldwide continued this attempt to discuss the characteristics of the technique until recently. See the UK site link in the article for the most recent scientific studies.

There have continued to be differences and problems associated with discussion of the technique partly due to the language used by Alexander himself which has been viewed as archaic and long-winded by critics from Alexander's day to the present.

Note: the 'Dewey vs. Alexander' link leads to a vanity page in which an Objectivist student of the Technique attempts to discredit the connection between Alexander and Dewey. A much more honest, and thorough, exploration can be found at: http://www.alexandercenter.com/jd/ which includes links to much of Dewey's writings on the Technique.

"Vanity page" is just name-calling, as is the honesty crack. On the site in question, Dewey vs. Alexander, you will find a collection of short articles arguing that the oft proclaimed association of John Dewey with the Alexander Technique is entirely superficial. The site has many quotes from Dewey not found elsewhere on the web.

The reason it's tricky to describe the Alexander Technique is not so difficult to understand. Characteristic of the practice is that Alexander Technique takes people into the kinesthetic unknown, where the know-it-all side of the talking brain has never been before. Descriptions have improved. The site with the most simplified, easy to understand language on Alexander Technique has been the Performance School in Seattle, WA. They offer an online study guide to Alexander's books. There's even a series on how to teach yourself without an Alexander teacher.

Could we add back an introduction which gives a general overview of the topic? I already did so this morning but was reverted -- Tarquin 12:09 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Oops, guess I was writing it at the time so didn't notice what you had done. The public has somehow acquired the mistaken impression that the definition is a variation on "Sit-Up-Straight School". Addressing this, Alexander teachers often purposefully avoid the use of the word "posture" because people commonly stiffen themselves up in response to it. The unfamiliar freedom a learner must come to welcome is far beyond substituting a so-called "better" posture for a worse one. It is a troublesome paradox to get rid of the misconception that a Perfect-Way-To-Move exists. That said, I agree on a general introduction being useful. So I slightly altered the wording of your intro to hopefully not encourage this public misconception of "selling short" Alexander Technique. Franis Engel

Looks good. -- Tarquin 12:11 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

At the moment, this is so positive about the Alexander Technique that it doesn't really look NPOV. To restore the balance, a lot of the statements in it need to be attributed: "Some people say...", "Proponents of the technique say...". The Anome 16:58 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure Alexander technique has opponents as such. I agree that some things in the article may need attributing but not everything does. -- Tarquin

Concerning Alexander Technique there seems to be only "the yet uneducated" rather than any opposition. Anyone who wants to take the time to continue the investigation firsthand in that field can verify all of its principles from their own self-observation - and that's the point. I took out some of the superlatives in the eighth paragraph, as well as the exclamation point and put some headings in. Does that help enough? Perhaps more of a mention of science that is being done could be included in certain places by someone who knows more about it? I thought including that sort of thing would make the article too long, so I added a hint on the link where some research documentation is.Franis Engel

Ok, I made an edit in the first paragraph stating the the Technique was developed in the "late 1900s" to the late 1800s. I'm sorry, but FM died in 1955 so he could not have developed anything during the late 1900s. I am going to hold off on replacing this mainly because I do not know exactly when FM developed the Technique. My only contention is that the statement which includes 1900s is clearly in error and should be replaced (perhaps "early 1900s" is correct). I encourage: Tarquin to do so sincce (s)he saw fit to re-insert this error. --mporch 21:21, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The "1900s" is a decade. Follow the link to 1900s and see. FM wasn't alive in the 1800s, which is the first decade of the 19th century. -- Tarquin 08:55, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. It seems like a confusing naming convention. Those unfamiliar with this wikipedia-ism will misunderstand the meaning of this sentence unless they follow the 1900s link. Perhaps the sentence could be rephrased so link text is not 1900s but follows the link to 1900s. What do you think? --mporch 02:14, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
It's really a "wikipedia-ism", it's the correct terminology. -- Tarquin 10:19, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Why are there no references to proprioception or kinesthesia. The article does use the phrase "kinesthetic sense". --mporch 08:03, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)


I just made a major edit, trying to take into account the new CAM requirements as well as readability. Yes, I agree that the 1900s decade reference is confusing if you didn't already know the convention. Also, I included references to proprioception, as suggested. Do you think it's necessary to install the link to the words "kinesthetic sense" that lead to "kinesthesia?"-- I see that RSI (under "Who Uses It?" ) could use a link also once I figure out how to do that... Franis Engel 2:01pm 21 May 2004 (PDT)

No kidding about free use; I found this article has been reprinted on nine other encyclopedia-type sites! I figured I'd better get my ducks in a row if that was the case, so I edited the last round myself again and hopefully made it more complete and understandable. p.s: Alexander was alive: 1869-1955, and originated his work during the 1890s, coming to teach to actors in London during June of 1904. 100 year anniversary in London. Franis Engel 3:00am 14 June 2004

Suggesting that the alexander technique is a precursor to other 'somatic' techniques (Rolfing etc.) is divisive. Somatic = relating to or affecting the body, especially the body as considered to be separate from the mind.

alexander teaching is centred around the principle that the mind-body are a 'psycho-physical' whole (alexander jargon).

This is a very complete article, but definately seems to exagerate some things, eg All Alexander teachers humbly consider themselves advanced students of the art. I think that's hyperbole. Could someone who is familiar with Alexander Technique maybe reshape this page to be slightly less... glowing? I felt like I was reading a religious tract at some points, and as a result I don't really feel comfortable editing it without any real knowledge of the subject. -mqbs Oct 24, 2004 11pm

I agree with mqbs, this article needs objectivity. The following sentence, among others, would lead a reasonable person to think he was reading a pitch for a religious cult: "To describe the Alexander Technique (AT) in words is like trying to describe the taste of honey, the colour Green or the sound of middle C." Pass the E-meter brother! Note that I am not criticizing the subject matter, actually I don't know anything about it, I'm just saying the article needs work. Bgeer 05:02, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

This article needs *a lot* of work - I read the entire thing and I'm still not *entirely* sure of just what the Alexander Technique is. It's either a habit-inducing technique or a habit-removing technique - even though they're polar opposites, I couldn't get a clear sense of which it was! It really needs a cutting down, I think, and it reads too much like an advertisement, or as has been said, a religious tract. A lot of it seems like a load of padding and waffle to make the article longer, and it's difficult to make a case that the article ISN'T at least a little too long - the length, combined with the other issues, made reading it dull and uninteresting, as well as ambiguous and confusing. I recommend a serious rewrite that will describe the Alexander Technique without a load of cultish waffle and remove the POV passages. Rarr 04:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your summary of the problems but I think you're overstating their extent. A lot of the problem involves the fact that describing the technique is difficult and thus a detailed description of how the technique operate will be at least somewhat confusing and require an attentive reader. Still, the article could indeed be improved considerably. Obviously, we are still waiting for folks to step up to the plate and offer their improvements.

Also, I think the article has improved from where it was six month ago, though having helped edit it, I'm biased.

Hans Joseph Solbrig 07:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia didn't copyright this, because:

Wikipedia's entry as of March 20, 2005, http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Alexander_Technique&oldid=11380990 CrystalLinks' entry as of March 20, 2005, http://web.archive.org/web/20050320072204/http://www.crystalinks.com/at.html

The beginning of the "in-depth principles" section hasn't changed since March 20, 2005, and therefore it can be shown that the original author is the Wikipedians since on March 20, 2005 CrystalLink's webpage was entirely different, and therefore Crystal Links must of copied it from Wikipedia.

- Anonymous User

Just a comment

I came to the page to get an unbiased introduction to the techique and possibly examples on how it is done, but instead I find this cult'ish page filled with commercial BS... really the technique said to be developed by one man cannot be learned by a person without a teacher?? come on... only sheep will beleve stuff like that, remove the "if you are not part of our cult be gone, or we will come after you" paragraphs it stinks... link to some teachers instead :)

As Was The Style At The Time

I believe the line 'as was the style at the time' is overused and makes the article sound like Grandpa Simpson's rambling about wearing onions on belts 'as was the style at the time'.

Alexanderisms

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Start of this talk page: Oct, 2006 Most recent comments at bottom.

I haven't been on this page for a while.

Unfortunately, it seems like the page has kind-of degenerated. It is once-again full of what could be called "Alexanderisms", tortured English which only an Alexander Teacher could love.

It is somewhat unfortunate that the whole previous discussion is archived with no new discussion to speak of. I guess this is wikipedia's broad-brush clean-up. I agree the article needs a clean-up. I don't think the multiple for-profits sites listed are spam, though. In the world of alternative medicine, every site is for-profit and trying to get exposure. It's OK or more accurately, it's compatible with the subject matter (much as I might personally like less hucksterism, that is the reality of Alternative Health Practices).

Anyway, if I get time, I might once rewrite this page in English, translating from Alexander-speak as well as I can. Hans Joseph Solbrig 05:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, writers tend to change the intro part often. I don't think that people discuss here before editing - they just do it.

If you think that this writing about these ideas are tricky to follow - try reading Alexander himself! Someone who has a linguistics Phd and runs a school on AT came by and reorganized much of the sequence of the sentences, so it reads much better than it did a year ago, but it is slightly different than it was. As a writer you'll find yourself getting very long-winded when you try to explain these ideas without truncating content.

I regarded each of those sites that were listed in links as an endorsement to the agreement of validity of what was written here. Last night I took all the sites out that had no other purpose other than being a billboard or business card. Then someone else came along and nixed every single link, leaving only the reference of Alexander's book that I added. Then today I found that someone had a request sent to change my password. Maybe some irate wikipedist was upset I didn't log in before editing? The completeness of these former links gave a search engine rating and also also motivated people to return to this page to find this resource - so I think they should be reinstated. I wish the person who nixed them would come talk about this here.

I didn't get most of this content for this article from reading but from direct study. I have attended Alexander Technique teacher-training, and was fortunate to be able to learn how to write simply about these very subjective ideas on the advice of many other senior teachers, one of whom was trained by Alexander. Books have been written that agree with content here; however, they are much more long-winded than this article and most do not cover the content that this article discusses in an attempt to be complete. I'm in touch with many of those fellow authors who have written about AT. Many of them have visited to look this over and edit if they desire at my request.

How shall I list these author sources? As endorsements? Franis Oct. 18th 2006

Merge 'Alexander Technique (Direction)' into this article?

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I don't believe the concept of direction in Alexander Technique warrents it's own article, and have flagged that page to be merged into this one. Feedback appreciated. --Shockeroo 11:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It's already been merged; see the third paragraph under the heading "In-Depth Principles." I deleted the article, then it came back, with the link at the end in the main article. You're welcome to make the Direction article and quote go away again - but perhaps put a note that it's been merged into the body of the main article in its place? Then the people who put it up again will know that their contribution has been added. I think it reads as an endorsement for the source of the quote, don't you? Unfortunately people don't all that often read the whole article they are adding to. 66.248.87.70 04:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Franis Oct 30, 2006

Sorry but the 'direction' article does not seem to me to add much to the discussion. Direction is already explained in the main article. The other one should be cut IMHO. Kccole01 01:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I am an Alexander student and I believe that the Alexander technique deserves its own article. The information included in the article is important and describes the information in detail. Perhaps the style could do with some editing, but only the style needs to be changed and not the content. However, if it must be merged, please expand the article on Frederick Matthas Alexander and include this information in that article. Thank you.

Comment on "visualization"

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

On the basis that the Direction (Alexander Technique) will soon be removed, it seems important to transfer the comment made by 62.64.171.42 on 8 April 2006 at Talk:Direction (Alexander Technique) to this page:

In the second paragraph of this article the author writes that the directions can be 'visualized'. Alexander was very against visualisation and it is not part of his technique. Please refer to Alexander books.

129.94.6.28 17:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree - however some teachers believe that the repetition of Alexander's Directions were a form of auditory suggestion, similar to visualization. Franis 07:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Reads like an ad

Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments7 people in discussion

I read the whole bloody thing. I was genuinely interested up to the point where it claimed teachers required "more then 1600+ hours", blah blah blah. I'm sorry. WHAT? That made me distrust the rest of the article, and the whole technique. Now, I'm an American. That might make me a bit quick to call bullshit, but on reading that line I immediately thought that the Alexander Technique was nothing more then a sham trying to gain the respectability of chiropractics. Before saying what the technique does, or at least before saying how respectable it is, tell us what the bloody technique is. And don't feed us the line that it’s hard to write down, Wikipedia has articles on meta-physics. 64.238.49.65 23:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree so strongly, but it definitely needs some pov work so I'm tagging it. --Ronz 00:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the original point also, I don't have the faintest idea whether the Alexander Technique is a sham (hence why I'm reading the article in the first place) but I agree entirely that the entry doesn't adequately explain what the technique is. All wikipedia articles should follow the basic rule of explaining at the very start of the article exactly what the subject is in language which a five year old can understand. Nothing else is acceptable, you cannot start an article using terms that your average user wouldn't understand and the absolute worst wikipedia crime of them all is giving a vague commentary rather than an explanation. Lines like "(the AT aims to) recognize and overcome reactive, habitual limitations in movement and thinking." are lovely lucid prose, but are also incredibly vague and confusing to a user not familiar with the subject. It's not that an intelligent person can't work out what is meant by that line, it's that they shouldn't have to think about it. Put it in simple, basic language. This is the equivalent of describing a pen as a "solid structure utilised in symbolic articulations of internal thought". Sure, it sounds incredibly technical and we can all slap ourselves on the back and consider ourselves enlightened little authors working away on our contribution to human understanding, but if someone doesn't know what a pen is, then that line would be completely meaningless. Wikipedia is not here to satisfy the vanity of erstwhile literary geniuses, it's here to provide information. --blankfrackis 17:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the above critisisms are entirely warranted. The Alexander technique is plagued by vague language in general. It is true, however, that postural coordination itself is not well understood therefore there is not alot of precise language that can be used to nail down what is going on in an Alexander lesson.

The technique is a means of changing one's postural habits. If you slouch, it will help you stop slouching. If you have alot of excess tension in your body, it will help you to learn to remove it. In general, if you are out of alignment, it will teach you how to recover alignment without inducing excess tension. The technique focuses on improving your habits of postural coordination, including the arrangement of your body parts, but more importantly eliminating ingrained habits of posture that tend to restrict ease of movement including breathing.

I think one of the reasons the language about the technique is vague, is that in practice, postural habits turn out to be intimately connected to a whole range of other habits - habits of thought (for example how you react in a discussion or debate), habits of perception (for example how you process visual information), habits of socializing (for example shyness), etc. For this reason, it is easy for a practitioner to be resistant to categorizing the technique as "just" about posture. Therefore, a writer about the technique will tend to generalize and yes, aggrandize, the technique so as to not leave anything out.

The reader, in my opinion, should also be aware that there are a number of heated ongoing debates in the Alexander technique world about what exactly constitutes the technique. Therefore it is likely that the Wiki will never converge on a clear explanation.

A discussion about the various different approaches to the technique, the history of the different organizations, along with a frank discussion about the vagueness of the jargon might significantly improve the Wiki.

As you can tell, I do not think the technique is a "sham". I think the technique is wonderful way to improve your posture, reduce various aches and pains due to poor posture, and offers the student a way to assess and change his/her own harmful habitual patterns in both posture and thought. However I do find the vagueness of the language somewhat embarrassing and detrimental to the technique. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hexatic (talk • contribs) 18:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I have read the entire article and the comments on this page, over and over, and I have still have no idea what AT is all about. Why can no one clearly define AT? Explanatory statements such as "postural coordination itself is not well understood" don't cut it; the article is full of similar fuzzy gibberish that, quite frankly, makes me wonder if this is a bogus topic. Please prove me wrong! Would someone please explain, in clear English, from a NPOV, what AT is and why it is notable? Lambtron (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
The Alexander technique teaches a person to consciously monitor and understand their movements and posture and to reduce habitual inefficient and stressful muscle misuse. The technique tries to promote more efficient use of muscle movement and control to improve functional reach, coordination, breathing, symptoms of illness, and sense of effort to perform movements. The resultant reduction of stress on the body is thought to improve quality of life in various ways.[1] Ward20 (talk) 15:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Alexander Technique, a student perspective

With all the actual medical "shams" out there these days, I was surprised to see the comment suggesting AT might be a "sham", as that has not been my experience. When I was 7 years old, I had severe head and neck trauma which left me in a brief coma and with lasting moderate neural problems due to neck/whiplash/concussion problems. I am now 43 years old. Over the years the neural problems (like not begin able to see or breathe properly) have become more and more aggravated. However, after 6 months of once-a-week private sessions of 1.25 hours in length with an AT teacher, the symptoms have gradually lessened to the extent that I am feeling much better. Granted, mt experience is not part of a closely controlled double-blind scientific experiment, but my being able to see and breathe properly is an empirical fact. Over the years I have experimented with several different types of body therapies (massage, chiropractic, muscle-strenthening, Feldenkrais) but AT has given the best result, with Fenldenkrais in a close second place. Also, I would say that for me, learning the AT and the type of physical awareness it entails has sometimes been disorienting, which I learned in my reading of the AT literature, is a something commonly reported by people who experience substantial "unwinding/releasing". So, I think AT is a valid therapy, and I am very happy my teacher has extensive training and experience, as I feel myself to be the beneficiary of it. Kipleitner 18:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Kip Leitner

How the article has been changed to answer NPOV concerns

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I noticed what followed in that objectionable paragraph (that has been changed)that shows a professional concern by those in the field for representing their livelihood adequately - perhaps this was the offending "sell." It's a concern that AT teachers want the public to get this information about AT from a brand-name, properly trained AT teacher - sort of attitude. I agree this is an opinion or fear among the UK preservationists of F.M. Alexander's work that doesn't belong in this article and it's been removed. (In fact, the AT preservationists endorsed this article that was written by a non-member of theirs or any affiliate club.)

I also combed through it and removed superlatives, etc. and other possibly offending characteristics. After I removed the "offending" parts, I took out the "reads like an ad" icon. Then someone re-marked the article again as advertising. Why? Did they even notice that the article had been changed? I guess it only takes one person to have an objection, and once someone focuses on a characteristic it becomes magnified by the fact they are watching for it.

In fact, unlike chiropractics which contains some of the most aggressive selling techniques anywhere, the field of AT is marked by a lack of advertising, with AT teachers usually getting their students solely by personal contact and word of mouth.

In fear that a reader might conclude that an entire of field of study is a "sham" without trying a lesson obviously led someone else in the AT field to add the list of famous people who are or have been students of AT. Perhaps it is this list that continues the make the article seem to read as if it's an ad?

I'm taking off the "ad" icon again. Please talk about where you feel this ad alert should be on if you put it back and I'll be happy to edit the offending parts. Franis 07:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The entire article. I'm not stating that it is an ad or is promotional (though I think both), but that the wording is not encyclopedic, and does not present a neutral point of view. --Ronz 15:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


Please answer my question more specifically. I guess it didn't satisfy you to address those specific concerns. Please specify how AT can be explained, without leaving out the salient parts of it, in a NPOV way - please let's do that. Tell me what you think of the list of students. I guess I'll just have to read the NPOV again and see if there is something I could still do for this article. Please, someone who is better at using NPOV, just take out or rewrite the offending language that you believe is at fault and replace it with more neutral wording! I'll be happy to then correct any inherent misconceptions that are in conflict with Alexander's work that pop up in the "translation" process. I guess I could ask some published authors on AT who are my colleagues to improve this for NPOV.. Franis 08:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, that's why I added "students"--this should dispel any notion that the claims this article makes are "sensationalist" according to NPOV guidelines. As far as the "advertisement" tag goes, I fail to see how an article that includes a section entitled "Disadvantages" makes for a very good ad.
I'm removing the tag again. Instead, please discuss any specific NPOV examples on the talk page, and I shall take steps to remedy them. CA387 19:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thank you for your point about "Disadvantages." Franis 06:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Article is NPOV, poorly written, is like advertisement, needs work

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Okay, here's why the article is NPOV and still reads like an advertisement:

(1) The section "Basic Premesis" is too long, includes infomercial-type rambling and justification about why Alexander Technique is awesome. This section should not be more than two short paragraphs long (perhaps as long as the History section. In fact, most of the sections within the heading "The Technique" are much too long, and can easily be truncated.

(2) There are very few links to other articles in that section, as well as other problem sections. A good encyclopedic article generally is well-linked to other articles that help explain what you're talking about.

(3) Not NEARLY enough sources are cited, ESPECIALLY in the benefits section, which as of right now I'm considering pure propoganda. An article of this length should really have at least 50 sources (none of which are sponsored by Alexander Technique) citing the nature of the premesis, procedures, effects, and disadvantages.

(4) Portions of the article are directly plagiarized from http://www.franis.org/Alexander/Encyclopedia_Alexander_Technique.html , I have no idea if this is an academic source or what is going on with this. FIX THAT IMMEDIATELY or I will list this article for deletion on the grounds that it is plagiarized.

(5) the section "Scientific Proof" does not belong under the heading "The Technique". Make it its own heading.

(6) The section "Learning Environments" as is right now is pointless, reads like it's stolen from an Alexander propoganda website, and is not at all encyclopedic. This section needs to be completely deleted and re-written from scratch by a neutral third party, NOT someone who is involved with Alexander in some profitable way.

(7) The section which lists famous students of Alexander Technique needs to be verified, or be swiftly DELETED. I might as well list the Queen of England, no one would be able to prove me wrong. Re-think this list.

In conclusion, I'm surprised that this article is even rated B-class. Get to work. --Rahzel 17:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


I agree that the article is pretty poor. As a start toward improvement, I changed the first paragraph to be more of a formal definition - saying what it is instead of what it attempts to do. Keep, edit, or revert as you like, and I'll try to come up with some more concrete suggestions/edits. Aiki Patrick Parker 05:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I've written a small diatribe above about this subject so I'll just say that the basic principles of a wikipedia article are violated here; instead of a simple explanation we have a vague commentary that never actually explains the basics of the subject. Reading it is incredibly frustrating for anyone genuinely looking for knowledge and it needs to be mercilessly edited. I'd like to see simple points on 1) what the technique tries to do 2) how it tries to do it - actual information not "the mystical teacher uses the secret technique that cannot be written down as it's so complex". It can be written down, this is not the magic circle, so do it 3) a genuine criticism section - who says what etc.

Alternative Medicine

Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

Alexander Technique is not a form of "alternative medicine"; it is a means of attaining greater understanding of one's self (namely, education). A side effect of AT can be the alleviation of chronic pain, but that isn't the goal of AT in itself—just like fuel-efficient cars are a side effect of science, but the goal of science itself is an increased knowledge base. It is for this reason that in AT, there is a "student/teacher" relationship, rather than a "therapist/patient" one. I'm sure many Alexander teachers would go so far as to say that Alexander lessons for the sole purpose of alleviating pain constitutes "endgaining", making progress in learning the Technique that much harder.

It is for this reason that I plan to remove "alternative medicine" from the categories listing, though I figured I should let this sit on the talk page for a bit first. CA387 22:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we need a better way to decide if it belongs in the category, one that relies on verifiable and authorative sources or one that follows what has been done in other articles. From what I've seen of how it's described and categorized elsewhere, it most certainly belongs in the category. --Ronz 00:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree. What led to suggest the change was the description of the Technique from AMSAT:
It is not a treatment, such as chiropractic or massage. Any treatment has its own unique benefits. The Alexander Technique's unique contribution is a mode of self-management that gives you independence in maintaining your health.[2]
However, Wikipedia defines medicine as "the sector of public life concerned with maintaining or restoring human health", and both "an area of knowledge . . . and the applied practice of that knowledge". I'll cede the point to you: we should keep the label as it seems to fall in line with other Wikipedia articles. Thanks for the input. :) CA387 07:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it doesn't belong in Alternative Medicine, but I am contemplating adding the Pseudoscience category, due primarily to the lack of any notable peer-reviewed scientific studies. -- Xinit 19:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed scientific studies are listed as links, etc. on the UK STAT website - Franis 22 Dec 2007

AT is not "Alternative", not "Medicine", not "Pseudoscience", not "treatment". A lot of wrong ideas I have to shoot down. Roughly it's re-learning about the way you use yourself: walking, standing, sitting down, talking, playing, etc. Children are born with the potential for correct use. It can't be explained in one paragraph what Alexander has taken a book to talk about. That does not mean it's complicated either. Read Alexander's 4 books, starting with "Use of the Self", think about it, talk to and question a qualified Alexander teacher. My mother was a qualified medical doctor and Alexander teacher, and I (though neither of those) have a good idea what AT is . P0mbal (talk) 00:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC) I concede maybe it is Medicine by definitions above, but certainly not Alternative - there is no alternative to it. P0mbal (talk) 00:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed 'is an alternative medicine' because it is factually incorrect, as has been stated here. It is commonly taught in acting/singing colleges to improve performance, indicating it is not primarily remedial. As for the AT being curative, Alexander successfully sued for defamation in Johannesburg in 1948 on the basis that he never claimed it to be a cure. However, with the thrust of teacher (and PA) advertising now plugging the 2008 BMJ published 'lower back pain' trial, I can see why it would be misleading to remove the alt med reference altogether.Anothergareth (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Verbal reverted my edit of yesterday on the grounds that it did not conform ‘...to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true’. This is the very same problem I have with the assertion I removed, that the AT is an ‘alternative medicine’ – especially as the opening sentence of the Wikipedia definition. Granted, as mentioned above, the AmSTAT What is… page starts with ‘...a method that people … can learn to relieve the pain and stress caused by everyday misuse of the body.’ It is perfectly understandable why this could be interpreted as a claim that it is an ‘alternative medicine’. Another source I’ve found is in a summary of a dissertation by Jeroen Staring where he says: ‘Since the mid-1970s, the Alexander Technique has been referred to as one of the so-called complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies.’ I found these by searching the main AT websites alexandertechnique.com, AmSTAT, STAT and Alexander Technique International. On none of these sites does it state the AT is an ‘alternative medicine’. The AmSTAT 'What is..' page is also alone in making any implication in their definitions of it being remedial or curative, and neither did FM Alexander. We all know many come to the AT to relieve pain and that many AT teachers work in clinics and in CAM centres. Also in the UK, AT teachers are soon to be included on the Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council (CNHC) Register. For these reasons – and maybe for the Wikipedia health definition reason given above, I’ll happily concede that a reference to ‘alternative medicine’ is justifiable. But to claim as a starting point that it is IS PLAIN WRONG – and is not verifiable by the terms given above. I am tempted to change it back but would prefer consent by discussion first.Anothergareth (talk) 14:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

In the absence of any response to my comments above I have again corrected the unverifiable 'The Alexander Technique is an alternative medicine', redrafting the 1st paragraph, attempting to keep the gist of what was there before but using web sources with citations. The main source is a definition that was recently hammered out over three months between representatives of four Professional Associations (including STAT, which represents about 85% of UK AT teachers). As such it is not an impartial definition, being written by those with a vested interest, but I don't know quite how that could be got around. In the case of artists, athletes and general self-improvement I didn't bother with a reference because a quick web search will bring up verifying references. Please bare in mind this has been done by someone immersed in the terminology and in the Alexandrian context so I would appreciate opinions from those who know little about it as to whether it is helpful and from anyone as to how this could be improved.Anothergareth (talk) 13:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed from article

Latest comment: 17 years ago25 comments3 people in discussion

The following is unencyclopedic. I don't think any discussion is necessary, but I've moved it here on request. Please read WP:NOT for relevant policy:

Students of the Alexander Technique

--Ronz 16:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I've read through WP:NOT, and don't see any violation of policy in this list. Can you please provide specific details on how exactly this section is "unencyclopedic"? --CA387 19:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
As the contributor, it's your responsiblity to show that it is, not mine to show it is not. As for your question: WP:NOT#SOAP, WP:NOT#LINK, WP:NOT#IINFO. --Ronz 21:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
While I thank you for tagging the section for lack of sourcing, you seem to be mistaken on a few counts:
  • WP:NOT#SOAP: "an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view". While a list of prominent students certainly advances the cause of Alexander Technique, it can hardly be argued that a list of students is tantamount to soapboxing—how about a list of successful Harvard alumni?
  • WP:NOT#LINK: "Mere collections of internal links". The important part here is "mere": as the list was a part of the article, it fails to meet this criterion.
  • WP:NOT#IINFO: This article fails to remotely resemble any of the eight subsections listed.
  • WP:BB: "If you anticipate a disagreement with your version of the article, or you want to change or delete a large amount of the text, it's a good idea to list your objections one by one in the talk page, reasonably quoting the disputed phrases, explaining your reasoning, and providing solid references (if applicable)." Granted, the responsibility falls on me to conform to Wikipedia guidelines as much as possible. But, as an editor, it's also your responsibility to state the reasons behind your edits (don't be reckless). As long as everyone gives good reasons for what they do, the encyclopedia moves forward. In the future, it might be a good idea to make use of Template:Unreferenced.
That said, I've added the section back with citations. --CA387 10:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

So you're comparing Alexander Technique to Harvard? Sounds like a pov problem. With the source given, I think it can stay, though I think we need the advert-tag again. From my perspective, it's obviously non-encyclopedic. Unfortunately, the article is so horribly non-encyclopedic overall that maybe it's not something to bother with at this time. --Ronz 15:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

You keep bringing up this "non-encyclopedic" nature of the article, but haven't yet given any concrete examples. I certainly don't think the article is incredibly well-writen; however, I fail to see any POV bias. As far as the "Harvard" example goes, I was referring not to importance, but consensus—an effort to demonstrate the point that it's a fallacy to say that Harvard can has a list of famous alumni because it's one of the best universities in the world, because it put the students out in the first place (a form of circular reasoning). Rather, the article itself should provide information on whether or not its topic is particularly useful, rather than catering to the reader's pre-concieved notions. --CA387 02:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
So you're not arguing that getting a degree from Harvard is similar to taking some Alexander Technique training? What is your rationale then? Got any secondary sources for this pov? --Ronz 03:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
My only goal here is to describe Alexander Technique to the reader as thoroughly as possible, not to encourage or discourage them from taking lessons. The discussion regarding the list of prominent Harvard alumni was just to show that while prominent alumni certainly advance the interests of Harvard, it doesn't constitute advertising—likewise for Alexander Technique. I could've easily used another example of a list with a notable people as a part of an article (Auschwitz orchestra members?) , but Harvard just happened to be the thing that came to mind at that moment. --CA387 06:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
You didnt answer my questions. Why is the list notable enough for an encyclopedia, rather than here just to promote the interests of trainers? Do you have any secondary sources to show this notability? --Ronz 15:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
The list is notable because the article is notable, and because its subjects are notable. If you need confirmation through secondary sources, click on some of the links. There are about fifty of them. --CA387 17:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
So we just ignore NPOV and NOR? I'm glad I put the npov tag on it. We can't provide a source indicating that having taken training in the Alexander Technique is notable in some way remotely similar to graduating from an accredited institution of learning, I think it should be removed until we can figure out exactly why it's here, other than to promote the interests of trainers. --Ronz 18:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I changed the npov tag to an importance tag because it's more specific to this section and how I'm proposing we resolve it. --Ronz 19:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Currently the only source we have is a primary source giving us the context of promoting the technique and training teachers. Without a secondary source that gives other context for use to judge WP:WEIGHT for this section, it's just promotional and should be removed as WP:SPAM. --Ronz 15:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Removed it. I don't think it should be included unless we can find other sources showing this information is important for reasons other than promotional. Alternatively, there might be a precedent within Wikipedia, but we've yet to find any yet. --Ronz 20:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Re-added. I've already given two examples of the precedent, and the fact that as pretty much all of the people on the list have articles show that the members satisfy WP:NOTE. Also note that this list fails any criteria covered in WP:WEIGHT or WP:SPAM. Also see WP:BTW. Thanks. --CA387 10:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Also keep in mind that the current source doesn't quite meet the guidelines listed in WP:V for "dubious sources". I do, however, support your idea to look for new ones. Why not help? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CA387 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC).
The only source we have is not independent of the topic, and shows the list as part of a promotional effort. That's spam.
Because we have no other sources to judge WEIGHT, I claim that the section doesn't deserve mention at all.
The examples of precedent given don't apply. You're comparing notable achievements to paying some money for some training. That's nothing more than promotion. It's spam. At this point, I think the relevant precedent isn't enough. Meet WEIGHT or it goes. NPOV is more than policy, it's a fundamental Wikipedia principle. --Ronz 16:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
First off, NPOV is a Wikipedia policy: see WP:NPOV. As far as finding sources goes, it's already pretty clear that all of these people have studied the Technique: pictures exist of Dewey and Alexander [3], and the Juilliard School, which Robin Williams went to, teaches the technique to their students [4]. This certainly establishes the source given by me under WP:V, eliminating any WP:WEIGHT concerns. If you'd like, feel free to expand on the citing to find sources that suit you more, but please refrain from blanking the section. --CA387 20:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. The first sentence of WP:NPOV states, "Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle." You can't dismiss NPOV and WEIGHT just because you have a source confirming the information is true. We currently have no source demonstrating the information is important. The only source we have shows that the information is used as promotional material. If we can't find a source that shows otherwise, the section should be removed per WP:WEIGHT and WP:SPAM. --Ronz 22:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I still don't see how this list needs explanation—other lists of students on Wikipedia don't. It seems to me that by going against consensus, we'd be even more POV. As far as "promotional material", don't forget the myriad articles that have used Fox News as sources. Promotional or not, it's factual, and we're not using it to outwardly promote anything in this context (see my "Harvard" example, above). It seems pretty straightforward that any type of method of teaching should include a list of students, so I don't see what makes it any different here. Without students, this wouldn't be an educational philosophy to begin with. --CA387 23:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again for responding.
Fox news is a secondary source at least, and has some degree of independence from what they report upon.
There are no list of students for Underwater basket weaving because the achievement is not important. There is a list for Harvard because it is an important achievement. We can find plenty of sources to show the importance of a Harvard degree. We have no independent sources demonstrating the importance of having Alexander Technique training. --Ronz 23:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

This indentation is driving me nuts. Anyway, is Underwater basket weaving necessarily an unimportant achievement? I sure as hell can't do it—and no doubt a list would probably help improve the article. Certainly, the WP:WEIGHT concern would arise with, say, three pages written on Adolf Hitler's involvement with Underwater basket weaving in his article (unless he was taught by an abusive Jewish instructor, sparking his desire for world domination ;)). With Wikipedia, we aren't really trying to stress the importance of something—that is, after all, POV—but rather make sure regardless of the subject that its article is as informative, notable and factual as possible.

That said, I agree with you wholeheartedly that it would be more benificial to change the section to something along the lines of "Advocates of Alexander Technique Training", to elucidate the relation of the section to the subject material. I know that John Dewey wrote the introduction to Alexander's The Use of Self, and Sir Colin Davis did the intro to Indirect Procedures: A Musician's Guide to the Alexander Technique. Then we can proceed with "other notable students of the technique have included..". This way, we can probably get more in spirit with WP:NOT#LINK (I know you had some concerns about this earlier), rather than just adhering to the letter. I'll try to get on this ASAP (finals week); meanwhile I guess we can leave the tag in place. Thoughts? --CA387 04:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

(The indents were getting on my nerves too.)
Importance is a basic component of NPOV. I'm saying that we have no sources to show that we should even mention that lists of "Students of the Alexander Technique" exist, much less including one. "That something is 100% true does not automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." (from WP:NOT#IINFO).
Good luck with finals! --Ronz 16:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I did state why Alexander Technique is important - it addresses premature aging from a self-limiting process stemming from the startle response and the ability to adapt - but people missed that in the article and it was eventually changed around and edited into something else. Alexander is considered to be "grandfather" of many other "bodywork" techniques that followed seventy years after it was invented. Oh, I see here all that was about the list, rather than the article in general. Why this came from www.franis.org - it's because I wrote it here here for wikipedia and I reposted it there as the owner of that website.

I would go with the list being "Advocates", because each of these students has given their permission to be cited as an advocate of the effectiveness of Alexander Technique. I'm still leaving the wiki tag on because we still seem to be talking about it here. Franis 03:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly my point, it's just promotional and has no business being in a encyclopedia article. --Ronz 16:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I don't think this page cites it sources very well, so I've tagged it. Please try to avoid deletions for the time being (as a favor to me). I plan on doing a rewrite in order to try and improve the encyclopedic nature of the article: clearing up stuff that reads like gibberish as well as some stuff that can be read as promotional (Thanks again with your help in tagging this, Ronz).

Franis, as you're an Alexander teacher, do you think you'd be able to upload some pictures of working with students? I think it would greatly help with the article. --CA387 23:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the article needs sources. As for deletions, it's been over three weeks since I first removed the list of students, and we've no reason yet to include it besides to help promotion Alexander Technique training. I say it's about ready for permanent deletion. --Ronz 22:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
It's not fair for me to try to hold up the works until I've got the time to correctly deal with the list in an encyclopedic manner, so I've moved it back to the talk page. --CA387 02:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! --Ronz 02:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Students of the Alexander Technique

(this section duplicated in the above)

Increased height in disadvantages section

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Is there a reason that growing a few inches is listed under the "Disadvantages" section? It seems to me this would be an advantage to many people. On the other hand, this sounds like a VERY dubious claim and should be deleted if there is no reliable source.

I'm sure it was put there on accident. From various sources published on AT, people don't actually grow a few inches, but they stop collapsing their spine, making them appear taller. Anyway, I've removed it. --CA387 09:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Can accounts from the alextech public list on google be cited? If so, this topic has come up as being a common experience of many beginning students and is located in the archive for that public list. Franis 04:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Public list? I'm not quite too sure what you're talking about. --CA387Talk 19:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a public list with an archive on googlepages: alextech Franis (talk) 01:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

B Rating

Latest comment: 16 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

There are some serious weaknesses in this article. The basics of what the Alexander Technique involves and what it aims to do are not adequately explained, instead it constitutes a vague commentary which is completely baffling to someone who isn't familiar with the subject (like myself). All wikipedia articles have to give the basics before launching into the details; most people reading this article will be absolutely clueless as to what the technique is, how it's taught and what its aims are. I can't emphasise that enough, the current article is completely unacceptable and incredibly frustrating for anyone trying to find out information about the technique. It reads like one of these web advertisements where you go through 1000 words of text purporting to explain something about the product its selling and still have no idea:

A) What the product actually does B) Whether it works or C) How much it costs

I suspect it's been given a B rating because the layout is good and it's well written, but this is somewhat incidental when the article doesn't actually perform the function its supposed to - i.e. explain what its subject is. I really can't express how appalled I am by it. Blankfrackis 00:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree with your concern and I changed the classification to Start level. The B level, among others, assumes: a casual reader flipping through articles would feel that they generally understood the topic, which IMHO is definitely not true for the current text. Pavel Vozenilek 12:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks as if someone has chopped pretty much all of the content from the article since I was last here on July 11th. At this point, the content is so concentrated that it's easy to skip over the content. If someone edited this because some content came from from my website, I'm the one who posted in onto wikipedia. org, and when I did I gave wikipedia permission to use it.

I just wrote a little about one of the basic premises Alexander deals with a principle F.M. Alexander called "sensory debauchery" that was in his books; what I wrote was removed and I'd like to know why, because it was not copied from my website nor did I list my website as a source. There are three more operative principles to list: inhibition, which I hinted at when I noted the Alexander belief of stopping the habit allows the kinesthetic system to right itself; this is also related to psychophysical unity and Alexander's ideas about Direction. (from www.franis.org/Alexander)Franis 11:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how your website meets WP:RS. --Ronz 18:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

True, so I'll write about these principles tailored to wikipedia guidelines and see if I can get my colleagues to help me with citing the references properly since I do not have my own source library at hand. Franis 01:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've added a reference to where it was requested at the end of the first paragraph. Franis 06:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Today I added a very short descriptions of Alexander's terms to the first section. I can cite a website where this information is echoed, but perhaps this is "not enough" of a source for wikipedia guidelines. Or can someone tell me if it is? It's at http://www.hilaryking.net/glossary/

As far as addressing Blankfrackis' list of what AT is, if it works, what it costs and what it does, my efforts to do that by writing an example lesson, including as an endorsement it's list of students and providing information in a previously deleted teaching environments stating that cost is similar to private music lessons, etc.- Whether AT works or not depends on whether the student uses it or not after learning it - so it can't be "proved" to those who do not or will not use it for themselves. AT is an ongoing, educational practice, benefits which are determined by the user. Essentially, all this previous content has been voted out as advertising propaganda. Oh well. Perhaps all this info should be included here? Franis (talk) 02:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Some comments to blackfrancis questions
A) The Alexander Technique (AT) is not a product, but a method. As such, it might easier compare to something like martial arts than a "product". According to FM Alexander, and current teachers of AT, teachers are not required to learn this method of using ones body. Teachers can help to speed up the process by providing useful feedback to the student. However, it is unlikely that someone who has no experience with AT can say something meaningful about it, like someone who never tried Martial Arts can judge their efficacy.
Without naming and explaining the basic principles (Self observation, Inhibition, Directing) and some of the exercises (Getting in and out of a chair, monkey, lunge, standing against a wall) this article is certainly confusing for people unfamiliar with the Alexander Technique, and IMHO fairly incomplete.
B) What does a Martial Art do? Martial Arts are specific ways of using ones body, and the results achieved depend solely on the active involvement of the student. Done with right intention, Martial Arts may improve self-defense skills, increase self-awareness and confidence, and even lead to awareness of the unity of mind and body. However, quite often Martial Arts just increase the fitness level, as any other regular physical activity. The aim of the Alexander Technique is ease (and awareness) of motion, which is hard to measure in objective terms. Yet, unlike things like Yoga, Tai-Chi and Qigong, AT follows a less strict protocol of movements and focuses on the mental processes that control our physical movement, and is therefore easier to learn. As AT makes no promises about "results", the question "whether it works" is inadequate. Martial Arts do not promise to make a Bruce Lee out of everyone, and whether they "work" depends on the expectation of the student.
C) How much the Alexander Technique costs, depends on the way you want to learn it. FM Alexanders Book "Use of the Self" contains everything a potential student needs to know, costs less US$20, and would allow him/her to do what Alexander did. As it took Alexander several decades to develop and refine his methods, and as the teachers that came after him developed the method further, this cheapest method might simply be not suitable for most people nowadays. However, there is a lot of literature about the Alexander Technique that allow starting interested people experimenting with themselves the way FM Alexander did. Again, like with Martial Arts, learning with a teacher allows for faster learning, but you have to pay for it. Individual lessons are more expensive that workshops, but putting price tags and fixed amounts of hours in the article would certainly make it sound like advertising.
I wouldn't mind at all helping to improve the article, although I'm certainly biased, as I started learning Alexander Technique myself and will start my teacher training soon. However, before I start editing, I'd rather look for consent here how to do so. A good starting point, IMHO, is the definition by Dr. Connie Amundson of Seattle, Washington: "The Alexander Technique is the study of thinking in relation to movement" (as quoted by Donald C. Weed, What you think is what you get, ITM Publications, Bristol, 2004) Lord Chao (talk) 03:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Rewriting the Basic Premisses section

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I think the article needs re-writing rather than just editing. I propose starting by replacing the "Basic Premisses" section with a revised

description of the technique. Here's my offering:

....

Definitions of the Alexander Technique have always been controversial within the field. Early on Alexander was criticised for describing the benfits of his Technique, but not saying clearly what his technique actually is. His view was that the Technique is not an understanding so much as an experience [citation].

In the early history of the Alexander Technique, teaching practice began to fragment. This led Patrick MacDonald, an influential early teacher, to state that to teach the Technique one must teach:

  1. The power of habit
  2. The unreliability of the senses
  3. Inhibition
  4. Directions
  5. The Primary Control

[citation]

Note that the first two define a problem and the last three define a technique to solve the problem.

To take these in turn, (1) habit is what guides us through our lives. The Alexander Technique believes we underestimate the scope and power of habit and addresses all habits be they of thought, emotion, posture or movement. Alexander said "Talk of the sum of a man's habits, why it's his character" [citation]. For the Alexander Technique one of the most important and widespread habits is to do with the placing of our attention: when undertaking a task, habitually one's attention jumps to the desired result, This habit is given a special name; end gaining. End-gaining is an obstacle to learning to perform familiar tasks in a new way. Not end-gaining entails the undertaking a task whilst not letting the attention jump to the desired result.

(2) Over time habits have the force to skew our sensory awareness at all levels. What we do habitually comes to feel right with the result that performing a familiar act unhabitually can feel not just strange - but wrong. Alexander states that most of our beliefs are actually based not on our thinking, but our feeling [citation]. This is in line with his psychophysical approach in which the boundaries between mental and physical become blurred [citation]. Alexander describes the problem of unreliable senses in detail throughout his second book CCCI [citation]. In a recent guide to the Alexander Technique Missy Vineyard links our unreliable sensory awareness to dysfunctions in our self image [citation]. The power of our habitual selves, combined with a strong (but ultimately unreliable) sense that our habits are right (are part of our selves), makes change of everyday activity extremely difficult. This is the problem the Alexander Technique is set up to address.

(3) The first step is to practice stopping our habits. This is a practice - we cannot totally stop acting habitually but we can choose any clear stimulus to act as it arises and refuse to immediately follow our habitual reaction. This practice is called "inhibition" and is not used in the Freudian sense of "suppression". Practising inhibition is perhaps the most difficult part of the Alexander technique. Habitual reactions can be triggered just by thought and our senses will typically battle against us; making inhibition feel wrong and our habits feel right. However, succeeding in inhibiting a habitual response to some stimulus opens the possibility of acting differently. Continuing to keep our habits at bay as we act is called "non-doing". This is an elusive quality in action, and very counter-cultural to Westerners. Some Alexander Teachers have likened it to the experience described in "Zen in the Art of Archery" [citation] or MacDonald "rather than you do the action the action does you [citation].

(4) If on a stimulus to act, the habitual response is inhibited, a new way of acting is possible. Generating this action is difficult as it cannot be guided by our feelings, as these will lead back to habit. The answer is initially to learn to guide action by conscious orders (or "directions") and to follow these directions even though they may feel strange. Alexander described orders as "...quote from use of the self..."[citation]. We reason out the directions appropriate to each action. This practice is likened to beating a new path and letting grass grow over the old [citation]. The new habits formed are unlike the old ones they replace - they are like programs that repeat themselves until countermanded[citation]. Thus greater freedom and choice in life is achieved.

(5) How do we know which directions to give? Alexander claimed that the unifying prinicple in human action is the use of the head, neck and back "...quote from UCL..." [citation]. This primary control is always active, for good or for ill [citation], and arriving at a better employment of the primary control, through inhibiting old habits which interfere with it and cultivating new actions aligned with it, is the goal of the Alexander Technique. .....

Any feedback? Better than the current "Basic Premises" section? Or worse? I notice I haven't defined "use" which is a crucial AT concept. Reynoldgreenlaw (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a nice description. I took it to heart and added parts the to article, but they have now been removed again. So I have replaced that with a definition and description of these special terms. Franis (talk) 08:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Notes / Benefits

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It looks like the notes section was messed up by the inclusion of the Benefits section, resulting in a lot of lj code to be displayed rather than readable text. I don't know anything about this topic, so I'll leave the cleanup to someone who understands.--WPaulB (talk) 14:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Removal of citations

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

For some reason User:MLAvedon removed nearly all the citations from this article! (edit history). I tried to undo this edit but could not because there were conflicting intermediate edits, and I simply don't have time to sort out the mess. In the meantime the article has, quite properly, been tagged as lacking citations! Does anyone have time to repair the damage? Grover cleveland (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

OK: I manually resolved the problem. I tried not to disturb any edits postdating the bad change, but if I did I apologize. Grover cleveland (talk) 16:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

language

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm trying to make the language a little easier for a layperson such as myself to follow - it is not always clear in the article what the technique actually is. I hope that in the process I've not changed the meaning, so do let me know if I have--Vannin (talk) 01:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Note from a reader

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

(This note is from a reader: I was once on here for a project and there was not any info on this page of all of the facts or on any page on this site. Somebody must edit this if they are part of the Wikipedia staff, or else some other people and myself might not use this site ever again. Peace! :) 196.207.40.148 (talk) 17:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

integration

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

reader, perhaps you stumbled in at the point when the citations had been removed by User:MLAvedon and had not been restored yet?

Reynoldgreenlaw made some suggestions that Patrick MacDonald's definitions should be included, so I wrote only a short paragraph synopsis; much of what Macdonald has to say is addressed to Alexander teachers and not a general audience. It is my impression that as writers, we are not supposed to directly quote from books but provide a synopsis and cite the references. I would recommend that some of those content suggestions Reynoldgreenlaw has should also be included in the "basic premises" section - and the rest of us can edit to shorten it, because it's quite long. Also, Vannin, your simplification of the definition of the Alexander Technique reflected some serious misunderstandings of what it is, which I updated. A.T. is not "physical therapy" and many Alexander teachers cringe at being accused of "correcting posture." Many uninformed people imagine A.T. to be simply a sit-up-straight school, which is certainly understandable given the mistaking of form for content. The medium or form of study is physical movement; the content is the study of reaction and how to choose a new response in spite of an established, obscured habit. Franis (talk) 12:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

As an uninformed person, unfortunately what you have written about the approach is unclear to me. Rather than using jargon about the principles and "using anatomy as designed" "stimulus response perception" and "physical movement awareness discipline" can you describe what the technique actually does in English. Some of these terms seem to have a different meaning in this article than they do in other contexts, such as Psychology. Also, please explain why movement to demonstrate its principles" differs from exercise. When I was doing my training I was taught to imagine that I was writing for an undergraduate in a different discipline - my reader then was someone who was not stupid, could be expected to follow logical reasoning, and I did not have to talk down to, but was someone who was indeed uninformed in what I was saying so jargon should be explained. Maybe we could do the same here .--Vannin (talk) 02:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Principles

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I can't find universal agreement on what the principles of AT are - many people list three principles but they list different ones. I suggest that we remove the comment about 4 principles and instead incorporate relevant information elsewhere in the article.--Vannin (talk) 01:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Reporting on the study published in British Medical Journal

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I am curious as to why the results of the study reported in the British Medical Journal were reported as "However, a peer-reviewed study[17] from Great Britain in 2008 found marked improvement in addressing back pain through AT in comparison to massage treatment, with the combination of 6 lessons of AT and exercise proving helpful over the long run[18]"

The report reports on the efficacy of 24 Alexander lessons without exercise in addition to the effect of 6 lessons plus exercise. It says: "The effect of 24 lessons in the Alexander technique was greater at one year than at three months, with a 42% reduction in Roland disability score and an 86% reduction in days in pain compared with the control group (table 4). The effect of six lessons was maintained—a 17% reduction in Roland disability score and a 48% reduction in days in pain. Exercise still had a significant effect on Roland disability score (17% reduction) but not on days in pain. Massage no longer had an effect on Roland disability score but days in pain was reduced (by 33%). Twenty four lessons in the Alexander technique also had a significant effect on other outcomes; similar but smaller changes followed six lessons. Massage produced little change in other outcomes except perception of overall improvement in back pain (health transition), enablement, and overall satisfaction. "

Brooke Lieb —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brookelieb (talk • contribs) 02:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Summary not explained

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

the line 

 as well as improve other conditions related to overcompensation

appears in the summary at the top, but nowhere else is overcompensation referred to or explained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stillflame (talk • contribs) 16:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I've changed the use of this jargon term to the more general "physical habits" to make it more understandable.--Vannin (talk) 16:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the term "compensatory movement strategies for avoiding pain" should be substituted instead of your more general term? It means when a person designs a work-around strategy of how to go about moving to accomplish their goals in order to avoid pain in the moment or to avoid further anticipated cumulative pain.

Also Vannin asked: "Also, please explain why movement to demonstrate its principles" differs from exercise." The reason for not using the word "exercise" is merely that using the word does not work to bring about in their student's response what Alexander teachers are teaching. It creates misconceptions for their students that later need to be cleared up. Exercises are done to be repeated at will with certain intended goals. The problem is that repetition sets up a new habit, which is against the intent of A.T. The challenge is to subtract current ongoing habits, not to put a new habit into place. What is recommended is exploring quality, direction, sequence and timing of movement in the moment, rather than thinking of what you are doing as an exercise. So even though you may be paradoxically following a procedure to invoke discovery, it doesn't work to anticipate results before they occur. Let me know if that sounds like "jargon" OK? Franis (talk) 08:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The Alexander Technique is not a Mind-body intervention - It's the Basis of Education

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

It falls under manipulative and body-based practices similar to chiropractic and osteopathic manipulation, massage therapy, Tui Na, reflexology, rolfing, Bowentechnique, Trager bodywork, Feldenkrais and others.[5] I couldn't find a Manipulative therapy template so I replaced the Mind-body interventions template with the Alternative medical systems template. Ward20 (talk) 02:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ward, Although to stop habitual interference has a significant effect, Alexander Technique is not manipulative if it is practiced in keeping with how A.T. teachers are trained. A.T. differs from the practices listed above in the fact that it is taught to students rather than administered to clients with therapeutic intent. Right now, since the British Medical Journal published results of the study done Aug. 20th, 2008, Alexander Technique is getting lots of press as being a solution for lower back pain. Certainly A.T. is effective for that application. However, like education, because Alexander Technique may be applied to specific subjects, it shouldn't take away from the fact that it is also applicable to freeing the ability to learn any subject in general.
Alexander Technique is considered by the field of Alexander teachers to be the basis of how a person educates and trains themselves including how to undo and refine the misconceptions inherent in skill building. Franis (talk) 03:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Franis, I am not sure the Alexander Technique is even alternative medicine but nccam puts it under manipulative and body-based practices so we have to have reliable sources to support the proper wording. I can understand how it could be applied to subjects in general although I haven't read much about it and the article doesn't do a very good job of explaining the topic in IMO. Ward20 (talk) 21:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The Alexander Technique is not a Mind-body intervention - It's the Basis of Education

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

It falls under manipulative and body-based practices similar to chiropractic and osteopathic manipulation, massage therapy, Tui Na, reflexology, rolfing, Bowentechnique, Trager bodywork, Feldenkrais and others.[6] I couldn't find a Manipulative therapy template so I replaced the Mind-body interventions template with the Alternative medical systems template. Ward20 (talk) 02:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ward, Although to stop habitual interference has a significant effect, Alexander Technique is not manipulative if it is practiced in keeping with how A.T. teachers are trained. A.T. differs from the practices listed above in the fact that it is taught to students rather than administered to clients with therapeutic intent. Right now, since the British Medical Journal published results of the study done Aug. 20th, 2008, Alexander Technique is getting lots of press as being a solution for lower back pain. Certainly A.T. is effective for that application. However, like education, because Alexander Technique may be applied to specific subjects, it shouldn't take away from the fact that it is also applicable to freeing the ability to learn any subject in general.
Alexander Technique is considered by the field of Alexander teachers to be the basis of how a person educates and trains themselves including how to undo and refine the misconceptions inherent in skill building. Franis (talk) 03:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Franis, I am not sure the Alexander Technique is even alternative medicine but nccam puts it under manipulative and body-based practices, so we have to have reliable sources to support the proper wording. I can understand how it could be applied to subjects in general although I haven't read much about it and the article doesn't do a very good job of explaining the topic in IMO. Ward20 (talk) 21:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello Ward20, If you haven't read much about Alexander Technique and you have never had Alexander Technique lessons, how can you know whether or not the article does an adequate job of explaining the topic?
We are hampered in explanation because of NPOV; the discipline is inherently subjective. Because AT has a somatic discipline that provides manual guidance that intentionally leaves out manipulative interference of what TO do in favor of avoiding self-limiting habits, it's paradoxical to classify. AT's principles and terms can be explained, but the subjective experience is not ever going to qualify as Neutral POV - as is required in Wikipedia's guidelines. I wrote a sample typical Alexander Technique lesson as a specific example, but this description was removed. Franis (talk) 08:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
What I meant was that I haven't read much about Alexander Technique lessons being applied to subjects other than everyday actions such as sitting, standing, walking, using the hands and speaking. I can imagine how the technique might be use useful for other types of behavioral modification. The other uses are what I was refering to that the article hints at but does not discuss, and I am not familiar with literature that describes those uses. I have read a couple of books about Alexander Technique, taken about 5 lessons, and a friend took Alexander instruction courses, graduated and became a teacher. I observed the diferences that occured concerning his awarness of self from the time he started the courses. Ward20 (talk) 18:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Alexander Technique has a long history of being applied in music, acting and other specific skill-related specialty colleges - all concerning movement education. For instance, from http://www.geraldfoley.co.uk/PerfArts.html these are a few: "Royal College of Music, the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art (RADA), the London Academy of Music and Dramatic Art (LAMDA), and the Arts Educational Schools (ArtsEd) in London, and the Julliard School of Dance Drama and Music in New York." from Franis (talk) 11:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Peacock terms?

Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

In the sentence, "Later, Alexander taught that the "empirical scientific method" of self-observation and reasoning, could be applied to one's own manner of moving to ease physical performance in general: sitting, standing, walking, using the hands and speaking.", the wording "empirical scientific method" is in quotes. Is this wording from a source not cited or is it an over-enthusiastic description? Ward20 (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed Ward. I did a major rewrite switching around many of the piece-mealed additions, deleting the duplicates, grouping the related, etc. and ran it past my Alexander colleagues. I'm told I have permission to be able to upload a 15 sec. movie of F.M. Alexander with hands-on a student who is moving up out of the chair when I finally get hold of it. What do you think of it so far? Franis (talk) 05:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It would be good to simplify some of the more formal and vague writing. For example, "Alexander came to believe that his work could be applied to improve longevity and human evolution in general." Is this talking about individual lifespan, quality of life, affecting the evolutionary process of the species, or simply individual development? For an encyclopedia the wording gets a little lofty at times. Ward20 (talk) 18:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was quite an inflated "Peacock" claim, which is why I thought it was notable. Alexander believed all of those factors you mentioned could be improved through practicing his work. He noted his work was an answer to the common tendency of how humans have trouble expressing their internally conflicting values in action as a species. (In his book, Creative, Consc. Control of the Individual.) Please note more instances so they can be improved. Franis (talk) 10:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I am still getting permission for the movie footage I had in mind to be used here for this Wikipedia page. It turns out that in addition to it being owned by Marj Barstow's estate, (which we have permission to use) it's also property of Grand Generation Neb. Ed TV program from 1982. So I'm writing them to get permission also. Franis (talk) 10:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason given for reverting my changing of the 1st paragraph is 'puffery', which again (my last attempt to change this paragraph was reverted too - see Alternative Medicine above) implies lack of verifiability, this time for using aggrandising terms. Comparing the list with the words in the paragraph, I came up with world-class in reference to athletes. Funnily enough, although today in my research I have come across names in the lists of pupils of the AT who few would argue are world-class athletes, now in searching athletes and AT I come up with nothing so maybe it's not 'easily verifiable' and should be removed. Before doing that and changing it back though, I'd like to know if 2over considers not just the term but the paragraph to be 'puffery'. It certainly wasn't the intention. I used sources I thought describes what it is clearly, correctly and verifyably to re-write more-or-less what was already there. If there are problems with that, I'd be quite happy to discuss and amend as necessary.Anothergareth (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The first paragraph has since been edited. Who slapped the general "weasel words" accusation on the top of the whole article? Wish the person would be more specific. Both of us have combed through and eliminated the "puffery", (except the sentence about "longevity & human evolution"( which we've been discussing here. Again, the reason I included it is because it was purely quite a radical opinion of the founder, F.M. Alexander.Franis (talk) 11:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Capitalisation of 'Technique'

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I thought I'd raise this as there appears to be a history of change i.e. sometimes capitalised, sometimes not and a lack of consistency throughout the page too. I have seen it on-line and in articles etc. occasionally with a small t but mostly, especially by authors who are familiar with what Alexander called 'the work' with a capital T. It is the name commonly given to what's fully referred to as the F. M. Alexander Technique, and as such, surely should appear with a capital T. The change to the 1st paragraph I've just made reflects my perspective on this but I've not been able to change the name of the page. Anyone know how this is done? But before doing that, maybe we should come to a consensus and then have consistency throughout.Anothergareth (talk) 12:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I started to just capitalize all of them, but NCCAM does not, so now I am not so sure. Certainly we should be consistent, and I am leaning towards majuscule. Does anyone see it differently? Moves are covered by WP:MOVE and performed by clicking the button next to the history tab up top. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
OK, 2/0, thanks for pointing the NCCAM usage. I notice in that piece they use lower case for everything in all disciplines other than names or non-english terms, ignoring the conventions within the disciplines. Is that an authoritative practice that should be followed or would it make more sense to used the customs of each discipline? By googling ' "alexander technique" definition It tends to be that dictionaries/encyclopaedias tend to use lower case whereas all who teach it or write about it use higher case. Did one encyclopaedia do it and everyone else follow suit?! Someone has changed this here before so I'd be intrigued to know why? I get that moving, which I now understand is the only way of changing the title, seems like a big move so maybe wait for some more opinions before going there!Anothergareth (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Uhmmm... WHAT ? Article needs to be rewritten

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Came looking for a definition of Alexander Technique. Read the whole article. Could not find any precise, specific, clear definition with details of the technique's methodology, principles and explanation of core concepts. The article seems written by some member of a sect, really. If there is any logic to it, it is only self-sustaining logic, i.e. a system composed of interlinked concepts, with no function other than to defend itself. Here's a example from the article:

"Global concepts such as "Psycho-physical Unity" and "Use" describe how thinking strategies and attention work together during preparation for action. They connote the general sequence of how intention joins together with execution to directly affect the perception of events and the outcome of intended results."

And ? How are those concepts used in applying Alexander Technique ? What is their influence on it ? How is the technique actually *used* ? Either Alexander Technique is an obvious sham, either the presented concepts in the article are of such abstraction that the article is utterly useless for anyone but a practitioner of the technique. Either way, the article needs a complete rewrite. 206.248.191.158 (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.200.245 (talk)


Original research?

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

I tagged the following sentences as possible original research they appear to be a critique written by an editor and there is no source.

"In both, there was an apparent attempt to measure the effects of Alexander's work on voice and to analyze some data; however, neither methodology nor statistics were provided to lend scientific credence to the interpreted results (e.g., representative sampling, control groups or blind testing) or acoustic measurements (i.e., microphone type, microphone placement, microphone directionality, recording environment, recording media – all of which could affect the spectral characteristics of the recording). Thus, while both studies may report actual effects, one cannot have confidence that they demonstrate anything more than possibly placebo improvements without the inclusion of carefully designed methodologies, legitimate metrics or statistical analysis." Ward20 (talk) 03:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

There has been no discussion so I am adding a [citation needed] tag to the uncited material above. Ward20 (talk) 18:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
After trying to locate the sources given they appear not to exist and or do not support the material so I removed the material and sources. Ward20 (talk) 23:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Scientific Research

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I had a look at the research section of this article and it appears highly biased to me. It starts off with the latest research result (a randomised control trial, using a widely accepted scientific method), but the majority of this section deals with the qualitative less significant findings of Dennis in 1999. It seems to make little sense to end a section about research with the complaint that 'a randomised control trial is needed' from 1999, when research using this method has been done, and is even explicitly mentioned in the article.

I suggest rewriting with less bias on outdated research, at least removing the last sentence. --Lord Chao (talk) 04:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree it needs rewriting. However, those two are discussing apples and oranges. The 2008 randomised controlled trial addressed back pain. Dennis studied Alexander technique for chronic asthma. Ward20 (talk) 06:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

monkey/semi-supine/squatting

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think "monkey" and semi-supine should be covered here.

I am developing a new article in my sandbox on "squatting position" User:Penbat/squatting position. There are some interesting overlaps between AT and squatting. Any feedback gratefully received. --Penbat (talk) 09:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


"Confined to a wheelchair"

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The phrase "confined to a wheelchair" is demeaning, offensive, and oppressive, and most of all illogical, and should not be used here. A person is never "confined to a wheelchair": he doesn't shower or sleep in his wheelchair. When he rides a plane he rides in a seat, not his wheelchair. "Confined" is inaccurate and conveys an inaccurate stereotype of inability of wheelchair users to engage in sexual, social, travel and physical pursuits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denverjason (talk • contribs) 03:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Cost

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Can we have a more accurate representation of cost, please? Whilst "the same price as a private music lesson" is amusingly middle-class it doesn't mean a lot to anyone who's never paid for one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.208.240 (talk) 10:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

This template for cost was used because the cost of music lessons tends to differ by location; as does the cost of Alexander Technique private lessons which is similar in those regions. You can call any music store that offers lessons in your area to find out what that is. Franis (talk) 05:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Tagging it

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It's about 9 months on, and the concerns expressed by the editor in the section above entitled Uhmmm... WHAT ? Article needs to be rewritten remain valid. I find it almost inconceivable that the obvious problems in the article have been overlooked for so long, so to begin with I'm adding {{confusing}} and {{peacock}} tags to the article. If improvements aren't made relatively soon, then I'll take further steps from there. But really, this article is largely a carwreck of evasive and in parts nonsensical rubbish. Delta Trine Συζήτηση 15:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

"Consciousness" and OR

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In this diff one can see two versions where a word is moved, which totally changes the meaning of the sentence. I reverted back to what was originally there and requested some clarification as to whether a real change of meaning was intended. Instead of a clarification the edit was restored and then a reference to a short book review was added. It would have been more helpful if the editor had actually responded to the concerns I raised in my edit summary. To not do so and just revert is edit warring and disruptive.

So instead of reverting, which would have been in my right since my concerns had not been addressed, I went ahead and read the reference to ascertain what would be the proper wording. In the process I found that the sentence(s) had existed as unsourced editorializing, and that the added reference didn't contain those words in that manner. They may have meant that, but it's not apparent to readers who aren't already believers in Alexander's philosphies.

Right now there are at least three problems with that paragraph:

  1. The word "consciousness" doesn't even exist in that book review.
  2. The statement isn't attributed so readers will know that this is the opinion of a book reviewer, and not necessarily the views of Alexander himself.
  3. The rest of the paragraph is still unsourced editorializing.

These are serious faults with the current paragraph and it needs to be fixed.

The only thing in the review which I could find that seemed related was this sentence:

  • "The emphasis is continued and included in MSI but it is subsumed under the much broader emphasis on the importance of the adoption of the principles of conscious guidance and control to the successful growth (evolution) of the human race, as individuals and as a species." [7]

Maybe we could just quote a few words from that sentence, rather than engage in OR? Fair use allows such quotes. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the edit totally changes the meaning of the sentence, but it does remove the implicit assumption that the "role of consciousness" is "increasing". Xcrivener (talk) 00:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alexander_Technique/Archive_1&oldid=1136507658"