Peer Review

7

In chiropractic you will never be effective if you care what the masses think or care whether they care what you think. Recently, in conversation, a chiropractor tried to impress me with his “philosophy of chiropractic” indicating that it was evaluated and accepted by hundreds of researchers, scientists, academicians and philosophers. My response was “so what!?” Leadership is not following the accepted thinking or that which would fit into accepted thinking. Palmer did not do that. You may just happen to be the first in the line of sheep but that does not necessarily mean you are a leader, maybe just another non-thinking follower or wanderer and not necessarily following anybody or anything worthwhile. I’d rather be one of the sheep hanging in the back saying “let’s wait to see if this guy leads us off a cliff or into the slaughterhouse, before we get into line”. Somehow we seem to get it backwards so often in chiropractic with regard to humility and arrogance. The arrogant person is often the one who desires and strives for public acceptance, to be reviewed and accepted by his peers. In reality, the humble person says “here are my thoughts, accept or reject them. I really don’t care. I’m secure in my position and it’s really not my job to lead you or convince you of anything, just to give you the information.” (This was the message behind Ayn Rand’s Fountainhead. We really don’t elect leaders any longer. We elect politicians who mouth the platitudes of the majority. We probably don’t even have that many chiropractors out there who are thinking as leaders. As a result, the majority of the public thinks that:
a. Chiropractic is for bad backs and stiff neck’s.
b. Chiropractic is quackery
c. Chiropractic is part of the outside in medical model, that it get sick people well.
d Some of the above.
e. All of the above.
If that’s where leadership has gotten us, he would be better off without it altogether.

There is a chiropractor, “a practice management consultant” who apparently thinks outside the box when it comes to matters of practice building and practice management. He is quite controversial and apparently doesn’t care what the masses think of him or his ideas. Many have studied his material and think it is quite good. I have never examined it in depth, merely read some of the things he has written on the Internet and heard him speak once, briefly. I have not studied his work, first, because I am no longer in practice and could not apply the principles he teaches to see if they are practical. Second, understanding and clarifying chiropractic philosophy, not practice management has become my main area of interest. Lastly, because I am no longer practicing, I don’t need to buy and study his manual in order to see if it is consistent with my chiropractic philosophy and I would not be so presumptuous to ask him for a complimentary copy. As a writer myself, I respect his work and his effort too much to do that. Apparently, he does not seem to need, or desire my endorsement or anyone else’s. I like that. His manner and language is often coarse, crude and some people would be shocked if they knew that a “fine Christian gentleman” like me even reads what he writes. Perhaps, to my shame, that speaks to my need to be acceptable to my peers. He is a true iconoclast and seems to enjoy tweaking the accepted authorities. I can appreciate that since I believe that most of the accepted authorities are inconsistent in their chiropractic philosophy and when they speak it is only in what-people-want-to-hear platitudes or non-challenging terms, merely political correctness with no concern for what is right or whether it in any way is meant to improve the profession. I respect his desire to do that, improve the profession, at least in his area of expertise. I’m sure that I would not agree with everything he writes or says. I’m also sure that he could not care less what I think of him and he should not. Perhaps that is what I like most about him. Sadly, some characteristics of present chiropractic “leaders” are that they:
1 Don’t question or challenge anything B.J. or D.D. ever said.
2. Don’t even suggest that anything about the CCE is not in the best interest of chiropractic.
3. Don’t find fault with anything the colleges are teaching or doing.
4. Don’t imply that the state or national political organizations are merely that, political organizations.
5. Don’t tell the truth, that the profession is in a terrible state of affairs and getting worse by the minute.
6. Don’t mention that if it hasn’t already occurred, we are on the brink of losing this profession.
7. Don’t care whether what they say meets the test of logic/commonsense.
8. Don’t care whether their position is consistent with real/legitimate authority (in the case of chiropractic, the 33 principles.)
9. Don’t care whether their position is consistent with their own world and life viewpoint? If not, is that position wrong or do they need to rethink their own world and life viewpoint?

Be Sociable, Share!

This article has 7 comments

  1. Don 02/18/2015, 3:35 pm:

    Joe,
    I believe I know who you are speaking of and I would enjoy finding out if the material is consistent with OSC (and your chiropractic philosophy).

    • Joe Strauss 02/19/2015, 2:48 pm:

      Don, as I said, I cannot know whether his manual is consistent with OSC philosophy unless I would study it. I think we also need to realize that chiropractic techniques and practice building/management techniques are philosophically correct, philosophically incorrect, or not addressed by the philosophy. From what I have read and heard, I believe he and I would differ on fee systems. (I had a box on the wall.) But while we would disagree, I would hope we would respect each others choice, just as I respect other’s different techniques in LACVS, for the right objective, even if I would personally not choose that technique.

  2. Steve 02/20/2015, 3:39 pm:

    Thom Gelardi, once spoke to a group of us in SC and mentioned, “lais·sez faire”

    1. An economic doctrine that opposes governmental regulation of or interference in commerce beyond the minimum necessary for a free-enterprise system to operate according to its own economic laws.
    2. Noninterference in the affairs of others.

    Since chiropractic is so different from everything else it would seem logical, I don’t know however, if it is possible (inside/outside politics).

    • Joe Strauss 02/20/2015, 6:39 pm:

      Steve, Laise` faire is the doctrine that is the basis for libertarianism. Pure libertarianism leads to anarchy, freedom with no authority. Chiropractic(IMO) needs the authority of the 33 principles and the authority of the chiropractic objective(locating analyzing correcting vertebral subluxation to enable the innate intelligence of the body and its forces to be more fully expressed and nothing else). Unfortunately most chiropractors want the authority of the medical objective, the authority of the Palmers, or the authority of their national organization, all the while having to live under the authority of the state law. In other words, everyone wants to “do what is right in their own eyes”. That’s why our profession borders on or exists in a state of anarchy. However, anarchy never lasts very long and ends up in a dictatorship. The classical historical example is the French Revolution. Under the pretext of liberty, fraternity, and equality the king as the authority was overthrown. Anarchy reigned as the “reign of terror” until a French officer named Bonaparte had the cannon’s loaded with grapeshot and fired into the mob. That ended the French Revolution, the anarchy and began the dictatorship of Napoleon.
      The sound you hear in chiropractic is the CCE loading the cannons.

  3. David Suskin 02/20/2015, 8:02 pm:

    Joe,
    With the multitude of authorities (opinions & philosophies) that exists, Which Authority could, should, would, will reign over all other authorities and/or is that THE Paradox (eg. This sentence is false, Authority of other authorities, faith vs logic vs fact vs opinion vs material vs immaterial), that causes the pendulum of historical events to swing back and forth, ultimately pushing forward the birth and extinctions of those authorities, with THE TRUTH forging forward. If you take mankind out of the equation, things just are the way they’re suppose to be.
    Mans freedom to think, to imagine and to control, as defined by his will, his passion, his needs, his emotions, his ethics, etc. will only resolve if the authority of Truth prevails. And what pre-tell could that be?
    What has captured my attention, with the Authority of Chiropractic’s 33p’s, is the realization of the mono-direction, Intelligence >> Force >> Matter (Innate awareness of innate needs). That the authority of acknowledging Intelligence, and perhaps the creator of Intelligence, offers purpose and meaning to each and every one of us. I remember your post about ‘The wishes of innate intelligence being expressed by matter’. How could mankind, with its complexity and intelligence in design, in it’s miraculous actuality of it’s existence, not have a plan, or a planner. That’s a powerful concept to get, or to revere, versus one which uneducatedly could experience me, you, mankind, just being here, sucking up O2, polluting and mearly leaving behind a carbon footprint. Purposelessness!
    The authority of ADIO, in acknowledging something bigger, and purposeful in its intent, that precedes mankind and man. Something that is expressed from mans matter, in creativity, in family, in love, in communication, in building, in all of mans attributes AND failures. In Life.
    I don’t know who or what the authority is or should be, but I think, it would seem that moderation, common sense, logic, love, empathy,
    and a good dose of humility and personal self worth is a prerequisite to a world transforming.
    and You Really Write Well, concisely (as apposed to me), and you are quite quite funny.
    With regards to this post. I agree with you, not that you care about me agreeing with you 🙂

    • Joe Strauss 02/21/2015, 11:55 am:

      David, one method of perception may be superior to others in certain situations where those others are not helpful. But they should not disagree with or contradict each other. Example: if you believe in God(faith), it logically follows that you accept the concept of creation(deduction) and there are empirical evidences to corroborate that. If you accept evolution on the other hand (a theory which necessitates belief or faith) and for which there are also empirical evidences. But it disagrees with or contradicts a belief in God. It would seem to me to be illogical to have a belief in God and accept evolution.

      “With regard to this post…”, It’s not important that you agree with me but it is important to me that you understand a principle or truth and that you agree with that, not because I am an authority but because you have accepted the authority of the 33 principles and your sound mind(logical deductions) and empirical knowledge either corroborates or at least does not contradict those 33 principles.

      • David Suskin 02/21/2015, 2:31 pm:

        Yes Joe,
        I would say that is called congruency. Laise’ Faire is an ideology, perhaps it’s a movement, was a movement, an attempt To live, and Let live, as the expression goes. Authority would seem to mean, rules, laws.
        And as applied to matter, or actions, or living things, or to specifically humans, all laws, authority as applied or implicit within the particular domain of the particular object, limits chaos or at least controls it. Here we go again, maintains organization. Of course, in a larger, broader perspective perhaps, maybe chaos is allowed, by law, to destroy the old and bring in the new, and fresh, as in fires that destroy, allowing new fertile earth as an encouraged byproduct.
        We’ve all talked about truth, and words, language. That they point to the truth, but are not the truth. Living in that state requires the designation of the concept, authority. Knowing that we, in all our knowledge and control, truly live under something, within something, something larger, incomprehensible perhaps. Perhaps that is just my need.
        I guess without humans to think, to wonder, to philosophize, to exercise freedom, to live together or apart, there is no need, no justification for authority, for anything. Things just are and would be.
        No thought, no need for assuming or not assuming authority or authorities.
        Man, and free will and as it would appear, awareness and the ability to control, somewhat, and what to do with that, The Ethics, The Discovery, The Exploration, Suffering, Yes, the ability to seek Congruency. To contemplate where we come from, where we are going to, why are we here? How to live? What is love? What am I? And the gift of Chiropractic, maybe More accurately ADIO understanding.
        Maybe it’s the gift to receive spiritual guidance or at least be able to contemplate spirituality.
        Am I correct or am I thinking logically when I reiterate what has been suggested about
        The Triune, ADIO being unidirectional. That
        We are the expressions of intelligence? That is what chiropractic philosophy presents to mankind. It has found purpose for matter, and purpose, the why for chiropractic. LACVS?
        What am I pontificating about? What principle am I understanding?
        And that we as chiropractors need to teach or bring awareness to, to our PMs, to the people? It’s the A, in ADIO, mostly.
        The intent behind the existence of our matter and our state of being alive, as an expression of the force it creates and adapts to allow life.
        The chiropratic meaning of life!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *