Talk:Guided imagery

"Guided imagery"
An article called Guided affective imagery already exists, as well as one called Cancer guided imagery, which both appear to be talking about the same phenomena. Apart from appearing to promote one particular medical practitioner's approach to the subject, in my opinion this article doesn't add anything that doesn't already appear in the encyclopedia. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 16:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Not objective
This article seems one-sided to me, as if it were written by a devotee of guided imagery. It explains the practices of guided imagery in excellent detail, but offers very little in the way of critical analysis. Even the Clinical investigation and scientific research section says very little about investigation and research, focusing on the theoretical underpinnings of the practice when it could, for example, discuss academic research into the efficacy of the practice.

In general, the article seems not to be written with an objective tone of voice. For example, the following assertion, which is provided without citation:


 * The maintenance of, or "holding in mind" imagery, whether voluntary or involuntary, places considerable demands upon cognitive attentional resources, including working memory, redirecting them away from a specific cognitive task or general-purpose concentration and toward the imagery.

could be rewritten as:


 * Proponents of guided imagery believe that the maintenance of, or "holding in mind" imagery, whether voluntary or involuntary, places considerable demands upon cognitive attentional resources, including working memory, redirecting them away from a specific cognitive task or general-purpose concentration and toward the imagery.

I do not object to guided imagery a priori and the practice may be backed by very good science, but it is hard to come away with that impression given the way the article is written right now.

--LibreLearner (talk) 03:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)