Grounding Neuro‐Informed Practice in a Humanistic Framework: A Response to Wilkinson

Abstract

Wilkinson (2018) opened an important dialogue about the role of neuroscience in counseling. In this article, the authors extend this dialogue with additional literature to show that neuroscience has meaningfully informed counseling practice and is compatible with humanistic principles.

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

“…However, such practices do not alter the fact that neurofeedback practitioners conceptualize therapeutic change in access consciousness terms. Lived experience is analyzed functionally in the vein of cognitivism and behaviorism, regardless of whether the clinical process involves “a discovery of meaning” (Beeson & Miller, , p. 101). As such, the client's subjective self‐reports serve a functional end in relation to access consciousness—namely, the salient identification of maladaptive patterns and the verification of psychophysiological change.…”

“…Phenomenal experience is taken seriously by humanists as a clinical foundation, prioritizing both I–Thou relationships (Vereen, Hill, Sosa, & Kress, ) and an emphasis on experiential awareness to ignite second‐order change (Fraser & Solovey, ). Beeson and Miller () frame neurocounseling as humanistic by referencing self‐awareness, immediacy, and asking clients about their week. Luke () frames neurocounseling as humanistic by saying it is relational.…”

“…Neurofeedback has been described as “a specialized form of biofeedback” (Chapin, , p. 155) as well as “a subset of biofeedback” (Myers & Young, , p. 20). However, Beeson and Miller () try to frame neurofeedback as humanistic by saying it is a “collaborative process that is driven by the client's autonomous choice” (p. 99), which exemplifies “how behavioral techniques can be delivered upon a humanistic foundation” (p. 101). Once again, their examples trivialize humanistic practice.…”

“…Beeson and Miller () claim that “by learning about neuroception, counselors can more accurately attune to and help clients assess safety within the therapeutic relationship” (p. 98). Yet, the article cited provides “a biobehavioral explanation ” (Geller & Porges, , p. 178) of presence, positing how a counselor “impacts the client's physiology through the calming feelings of safety that is evoked when one feels met and understood” (p. 186).…”

Bridging the Brain–Body Divide: A Commentary and Response to Wilkinson

“…Consistent with the empiricist–humanist incompatibility argument by Hansen () and others, Wilkinson () proposed that because neuroscience is fundamentally reductionistic and aligned with behaviorism and medical models, it “may lend little substance to counseling” (p. 73). Wilkinson's dismissal of the current relevance of neuroscience to counseling practice was responded to by Beeson and Miller ().…”