Email to a Friend ►

Guest EFT Articles

Home ► Articles ► Guest EFT Articles ► The Evolution of EFT from TFT Part IV

The Evolution of EFT from TFT--Part IV of V

By Gary Craig, Founder of EFT

We turn now to the "science" behind the individual algorithms taught within TFT. They are put forward as exhaustively tested Sequences that can be used for specific problems (e.g. grief, guilt, anger, phobias, trauma, pain, depression, etc.) thereby avoiding the need to muscle test in these specific instances. Some (but not all) users are quite impressed by them and indicate a high rate of success with their use. I applaud them as well because they have been responsible for many remarkable healings. I tip my hat to all the TFT trainers and Dr. Callahan for bringing them to the public. My comments here have nothing to do with their effectiveness, however. Instead, I am exploring with you the science behind them. I think it needs help.

For a starting point, let's choose the specialized TFT algorithm for grief. Grief is a label for an emotional state that might be evident in someone whose spouse has recently died. Under such circumstances, the TFT practitioner pulls out the grief arrow (algorithm), aims it at the grief target and, if successful, appears to hit the bullseye ... at least in theory.

But who says the target is really grief? Depending on where the person is coming from, couldn't one re-define the same emotion as the fear of being alone? I'm not talking about aspects here. I mean grief could be easily re-defined in terms of fear. Further, grief could also be re-defined in terms of guilt for what the "griever" did or did not do regarding the deceased during their lifetime. So who is to say that the grief algorithm is the right one? Why not use a fear algorithm or a guilt algorithm?

This thread continues. Someone's anger over what someone said about them could quite logically be re-defined in terms of the fear of what other people will think. If so, then which algorithm do you use? Anger or fear? Further, where do addictive urges end and compulsions begin? Aren't both of them related to, or driven by, anxiety? Couldn't depression be re-defined in terms of fear, guilt, hopelessness or shame? Many years ago I spent an evening pondering these labels and found it quite easy to re-define 50 or so emotional problems in terms of the fear of something. For example, guilt is the fear of being "found out." Hand washing compulsions are the fear of germs, disease or death. Trauma is the fear of the traumatic event happening again. And so on it goes.

The obvious point here is that the targets at which these algorithmic arrows take aim are imprecise. How can one proceed to cure a problem if they don't know what the problem is? Why give someone medication for mumps when the problem is measles? Further, if the emotional targets defy accurate description then how can one expect to develop a precise algorithm for them? These algorithms must be developed based on what patients or therapists are labeling as grief, guilt, depression, etc. Since the labels aren't accurate, how can we trust the accuracy of the "precise" algorithms based on them? Strange science indeed.

Interestingly enough, these algorithms, however imprecisely developed or applied, have been responsible for many successful emotional healings. There must be a reason for this because these results do not occur by mere chance. But do we just simply accept the existing explanations and overlook the obvious hole in them? Do we overlook the fact that some TFT practitioners report that applying the "wrong" algorithm often solves the problem anyway? Do we also overlook the fact that purposely avoiding the tapping points in the specific algorithms (while tapping other points instead) gives results that are just as good as for the touted algorithm?

I don't pretend to have the last answer on any of this (research on these matters is just beginning) but I do have a plausible explanation for why these individual algorithms work despite the questionable science behind them. Here it is: The one thing all these algorithms have in common is that they tap on 3 or 4 of the meridians. Since the meridians are intertwined, it is quite logical that tapping on 3 or 4 of them will often send enough energy throughout the whole meridian system to do the job regardless of the problem. This also explains why I get reports from EFT'ers that EFT tends to do the job when the individual algorithms falter. The EFT shortcut Sequence taps on 7 meridians, not just 3 or 4. Accordingly, it is more thorough and more likely to do the job. This is common sense. Reasonable science. It explains everything to date and doesn't stretch one's imagination at all.

Given the logical explanation above, I now propose a possible belief boggler for many TFT'ers. Couldn't we persuasively argue that the TFT algorithms operate under the same concept as EFT but are inferior because they don't tap as many points? I could be wrong, of course, and I'm certainly open to arguments to the contrary. But, for now, the results certainly support this theory.

In Part V, I will summarize this whole series and bring it all together.

Peace, Gary