A Refined and Further Defined Argument on the Limits of Neuroscience in Counseling: Response to Field, Luke, and Beeson and Miller

Abstract

Responding to multiple critiques of his article on the limits of neuroscience in counseling (Wilkinson, 2018), the author further explores and defines these limits, clarifying his perspective on the hard problem of consciousness, the support–inform distinction, and the quadripartite humanistic neuroscience model. Identifying naive mischaracterizations of humanistic principles and practices, the author also discusses the limits of neuroscientific support in relation to neurofeedback, neuroeducation, and explanatory power. Finally, the author calls into question the accuracy of the term neurocounseling and the notion that neuroscientific evidence lends greater legitimacy to the counseling profession.

Exploring Counselor Experiences of Training in Relational Depth: An Interpretative Phenomenological Inquiry

“…Counseling has long been associated with humanism, yet recent cultural developments have led to technique‐based, mechanistic approaches (Hansen et al, 2014). Calls from within the counseling profession have emphasized the need to root the profession in the developmental and relational humanistic approach (Dollarhide & Oliver, 2014; Hansen et al, 2014; Wilkinson, 2019). Dollarhide and Oliver (2014) suggest that because counselors within the professional field of counseling identify most closely with humanistic principles, counselor educators are charged with upholding the humanistic foundation of the profession.…”

“…Hansen et al (2014) argued against the use of prescriptive counseling methods and emphasized that healing in counseling is achieved largely through therapeutic relationships. Wilkinson (2019) further noted that the person of the counselor is key in building therapeutic relationships that lead to change. Counseling curricula that use RD concepts and training methods concentrate learning on the developmental agenda of the counselor while also providing skills to help counselors relate more deeply and authentically with clients.…”

Holistic irreducibility: Humanistic practice as the gateway to phenomenal mind

“…If a client (i.e., the subject) learns to self-distance from thoughts (i.e., the object), then it is possible to replace thoughts or modify beliefs via psychoeducation on rational means of epistemic reinterpretation. In kind, neuroscience-supported practices utilize brainbased psychoeducation so as to enhance metacognitive selfdistancing by introducing the client (i.e., the subject) to the brain (i.e., the object) as the source point for habitual manifestations of automatic thought (Wilkinson, 2019).…”