Reductionism vs Imagination - Jack True

[nicklebleu]

I've just come back from a workshop about quantitative EEG (QEEG) and Event-Related Potentials (ERP) by one of the world experts in the field, Prof. Yuri Kropotov from St. Petersburg, Russia. I am interested in this technique because I recently started doing neurofeedback therapy.

There are basically two approaches in doing neurofeedback therapy:
1. Apart from the patient's history (plus or minus psychometric tests) you subject the patient to a diagnostic procedure via QEEG and ERPs. Once you have this information, you can then target the areas that either need to be stimulated or that need to be suppressed.
2. Empirical approach: Based on the history of the patient, you make an educated guess about the affected area and frequency band, and then you pick a likely protocol. You test that protocol on the patient and adapt it according to the feedback from the patient.

I personally am more an "approach 1" kind of guy - I like to "see" what I am doing. Now the methodology is quite complex, hard to master, and the hardware quite expensive. It would take me anything between 5 and 10 years to get some expertise in that. Of course I can always rely on experts in the field to analyse the tracings. But then again, I am also a bit of a DIY guy.

For those unfamiliar with QEEG and ERPs, a short summary:

In QEEG you derive a full-cap EEG, which is then mathematically crunched (by spectrum analysis and blind source separation), by which process a brain map is established, showing the distribution of brainwaves over the whole surface of the skull. This can then be compared to a normative database, which allows one to see, where deficiencies are in relation to distribution. With that information, the areas of the brain can then be influenced (e.g. by neurofeedback therapy or transcranial DC stimulation).

ERPs go a step further. While QEEG only provides a picture of the surface EEG and it's distribution compared to healthy controls, ERPs actually measure the information flow in the brain. The way this is done is by submitting the subject to a task, while simultaneously measuring the brain activity to this task. A common protocol is called GO/ NOGO. A series of pictures are flashed on a screen, and depending on the sequence, an answer must be either generated (button pushed) or suppressed. With similar mathematical crunching, the information flow can be deconstructed into it's subcomponents (e.g. executive control, inhibition, attention, processing speed - there are probably over 50 know components), after which these components can be influenced by different methods.

Compared to what is going on in psychiatry at the moment, this is a major advancement. Psychiatry hardly uses any measurable parameters for their diagnosis. They rely on the DSM-5, which essentially is a concoction of agreed upon pattern. So if you have X number of symptoms, it means you have disease Y. This I think is totally unscientific.

For instance according to ERPs there are at least six subtypes of ADHD. Only one of them shows any improvement with Ritalin (around 30% of patients). With ERPs you can actually prove, if Ritalin is going to work or not, by giving the patient a single dose and do a pre- vs. post-ERP.

So far, so good.

On my flight back home I read a series of interviews that Jon Rappaport did in the 1980s with a hypnotherapist by the name of Jack True. The full transcript can be found here. I have signed up for a hypnotherapy course with one of the leading experts in the field, something I wanted to do for the last 30 odd years, but never did it for a whole lot of reasons, hence the reading. But this year all the stars aligned and it's happening. I did a self-hypnosis course when I was 20 years old and have always been fascinated by this technique. The short of it is, I need to flush it out of my system, whether or not this is an avenue I want to pursue in the future.

Jon Rappaport describes Jack True the following way:

Jack True was one of the most innovative hypnotherapists of our time. Largely unknown in academic circles, uninterested in publishing his work, Jack focused on his patients. We met in 1987. We became friends and colleagues.
Over the course of several years, I interviewed him many times. Jack eventually gave up on straight hypnosis-and-suggestion as a way to do therapy.
He said, "I’m finding that people who come to my office are already in a hypnotic state, so my job is to wake them up."

Having read a few interviews so far, he seem to be quite a radical thinker, but what he says also seems to make a lot of sense (at least in my mind).

Here is the first of over half a dozen interviews that Jon did with Jack (the others follow in the link given above). I will explain why I posted this interview at the end of it - so bear with me:

INTRODUCTION (by Jon Rappaport)

Since I’ve written hundreds of articles that attempt to stimulate imagination, I’ve had to take into account the resistance - many people pretending they’re simply "the audience." They watch. They keep their distance. They enjoy the show.

If they think I might be writing about them, they deflect the message like a matador.

In some strange way, the reflex to deflect keeps the universe in the condition of status quo.

Because, think about it. What would happen if a few billion people, on this planet alone, woke up one morning galvanized by their imaginations to such a degree that they began to create new realities at an unprecedented rate?

Life would never be the same.

To personify what I mean by status quo, it’s as if a deal were taking place, under the table, between humans and the universe. "We’ll pretend imagination doesn’t exist, and you, universe, keep us enchanted by things as they are."

Hopefully, you understand that I’m talking about magic here - or the lack of it.

Almost all discussions of mind control, programming, operant conditioning never visit this territory, where the really big-time programming lives.

Well, what is this conditioning? What is its nature?

After many years of considering these questions, my answer is simple. It’s resistance. That’s the beginning and end of it. I know, it sounds too simple.

There must be a complex structure involved. In fact, humans would be drawn to a structure like that. Fascinated, absorbed. They would sign up in droves to study it. Why? Because it would constitute yet another deflection. It would allow them to wriggle off the hook.

I’ll offer you another considered conclusion. Even if there were such a structure, whose purpose was to keep people from exercising their imaginations to the fullest, once that system was probed, understood, and eradicated, humans would remain in limbo. They would still be one step from creating new realities - just as they are now.

In another context, with a different implied meaning, T.S. Eliot famously wrote,
"We shall not cease from exploration/and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time."
Remove all the supposed programming, and we’re really where we started, but in this case we don’t know the place for the first time, we don’t know very much more than we did. We’re rather bewildered, like the institutionalized person who looks at the open door to his cell one day and doesn’t step beyond it.

Because the resistance is still there.

The word "will" has been pretty much removed from the modern vocabulary.
"He doesn’t have the will to do the work."
We’re taught there are layers and layers of social, psychological, and political factors that separate a person from acting on an idea. And all these factors must be addressed.

You want operant conditioning? There it is: the deleting of the idea of will behind an avalanche of fake knowledge.

To live through and by imagination is a choice, taken or not taken in freedom. That’s the short and long of it, and no amount of complaining will change the situation.

To put it another way, resistance is not a thing that sits in the mind like a solid object. It is a generalized description of a person saying NO. It really refers to a refusal to act.

People ask,
"But why does the person say no. Why does he refuse?"
They hope to find a mechanism which, if corrected, will turn the no into a yes. In words, a revolution achieved passively.
"Sir, just sit here and we’ll insert this needle and remove the obstruction and then everything will change."
Really?

It doesn’t work that way.

Here’s another picture.

All the refusals, over time, tend to pile up into a glob. If you could peel them away, one by one, you wouldn’t have curtailed the ongoing decision to refuse, you would have merely taken off some incidental debris surrounding it.
TO IMAGINE OR NOT TO IMAGINE
TO INVENT REALITY OR NOT TO INVENT REALITY
Choice.

That’s the background for a conversation I had in the late 1980s with my friend and colleague, Jack True, the most innovative hypnotherapist I’ve ever encountered.

In this interview, I touch on the beginnings of the Magic Theater:


Q (Rappoport): Just give me your response to this: a person can say YES or NO.

A (Jack): Yes isn’t necessarily better than no. It depends on the situation.

Q: Are they both pure choices?

A: What else could they be?

Q: The result of habit? The result of long chains of cause and effect?

A: Yeah, sure, you could analyze it that way, but then you’d miss the point.

Q: Which is?

A: Take this kind of thing. "Shah ousted. The president refuses to send troops to Iran." People assume the president has a choice. They don’t say, "The president couldn’t send troops, because when he was a small boy, his father punished him for shooting a water pistol at a neighbor." (laughs)

Q: He’s accountable for his decisions.

A: Yes. And he’s free to make those decisions either way. So is everyone.

Q: We have mountains of "psychological research" that deny that.

A: Yeah, well, we have mountains of research that say the universe started with an explosion. So?

Q: Freedom exists.

A: If not, what are we doing here?

Q: Why are we talking at all?

A: Right.

Q: You can lead a patient to water, but you can’t make him drink.

A: No. I make him drink.

Q: How?

A: I find an avenue that’s clear and I send him down that avenue.

Q: Not sure I understand.

A: I find a channel along which he can use his imagination, and I can get him to do it, because it’s fairly easy for him.

Q: You give him a taste of what’s that like.

A: Many tastes.

Q: Which takes ingenuity.

A: I have a fair amount of that.

Q: For instance, you have patients invent dreams.

A: They’re used to dreaming. They know what it is. So I can tip the scale a little and get them to create dreams they never had. But if I had a patient who told me he never dreamed, I’d find another way.

Q: Suppose you have a patient who digs in his heels and says he doesn’t want to use his imagination at all?

A: That’s the "no." He makes his free choice.

Q: Why does he choose "no?"

A: Why? Because he prefers "no" in this case, just like he prefers to eat fish rather than spinach. He prefers the city to the country. I take him at his word.

Q: So if he doesn’t want to invent anything, you leave him alone?

A: Hell no. I trick him.

Q: How?

A: Maybe he makes furniture in his garage. So we talk about that, and I have him speculate about what kind of furniture he might make. New things. I get him going in that direction. And finally I say, "Well, suppose you were dreaming about furniture? What kind of crazy thing might you see in the dream?" And he starts talking about a chair with six legs. Whatever. Or he has a problem with his boss. And I ask him what he’d really like to say to the boss and that develops into a little role playing.

Q: You play the boss and he plays himself.

A: Sure. I’ve done that. So he’s making it up. And I lead him into new places. As the boss, I’ll suddenly say, "You know, I have this project I want to get you involved with. I need you to spy on a few people who wormed their way into the company.

They’re plants from our competitor." And that might work. We’d be off and running. He says he doesn’t want to use his imagination, but he’s doing it. I play out that string as long as I can. I had a guy, we ended up talking about missions to another solar system, and he was the cook on the ship.

Q: Theater.

A: Yeah.

Q: Any roles are possible. I like it.

A: No limits on that.

Q: I could play a president and you could play the sap rising in a tree in March.

A: Why not?

Q: I’ve always admired Psychodrama. But I’ve wanted to extend the range of possible roles.

A: Well, with any psychologist, that range tends to be limited, because you’re thinking about direct therapy. You want to choose roles that seem relevant to the patient’s problems.

Q: But that’s not necessary. Maybe the wilder the roles, the better.

A: As long as the patients is imagining and inventing, why not?

Q: I once had a dream where I saw these poles in the ground. It was as if I was looking at the universe. It was a huge space with poles in the ground. That’s all it was. The poles were sunk very deep in the ground. The idea was, this is the pattern. This is where things are placed. It’s fixed. It doesn’t change its basic structure. That was the feeling.

A: But if you start playing all sorts of roles, the pattern does change.

Q: That’s right.

A: Well, that’s what I do with patients. They have a kind of fixed firmament.

So instead of trying to pry one pole out of the ground so we can move it, I just have the patient invent. I get him to invent dreams he never had, and the pattern shifts. Things that were fixed become mobile. And when that happens, the system he has starts to disintegrate. It’s like moving an iceberg.

Do you get behind it and push with your hands, or do you go to the root? The root is, a person has a pattern of ideas and feelings, and he keeps it in place. I have him imagine other things, and after a while the pattern moves. It breaks apart.

Q: How did you figure this out?

A: Well, partly through conversations you and I have had about painting. Also, from Psychodrama. And initially from old Tibetan techniques. They were all about imagination.

Q: This isn’t hypnotism.

A: It’s reverse hypnosis.

Q: Meaning?

A: I once had a patient, a business type. An executive. He was always falling asleep at his desk. It was like a sickness for him. That’s how he saw it. And I told him flat-out that he was trying to have a dream, and that was what was going on. He was trying to dream something, and he couldn’t get to it.

We talked about that for a long time. But then it occurred to me that he was in a sort of waking trance. He was, every day, succumbing to a little bit of that trance. So I put him in a light trance, in my office, and I tried to find where that thing was coming from. I tried to locate the "state of hypnosis" he was in. And I couldn’t.

So I had him invent a few dreams. And he was off like a rocket, making up dreams. It was pretty powerful. We did this for six or seven sessions, and after that he wasn’t falling asleep at work anymore. The change was quite remarkable.

Q: What conclusion did you come to?

A: He had been in a waking trance at work because he was in a basic trance, a more basic trance.

Q: I don’t get it.

A: He was in a trance "about imagination." He was putting himself in a trance so he wouldn’t use his imagination.

Q: Oh.

A: That’s the granddaddy of all trances, you see? A person puts himself in a trance as a way of saying no to his own imagination. And in this patient’s case, he would literally fall asleep. So when I had him invent dreams, he went right with his imagination, and he woke up. He didn’t need that waking trance anymore.

Q: You’re saying everybody is in that trance.

A: You bet. That’s what we’re dealing with here. That’s planet Earth.

Q: So people–

A: Look, you talk to people about their imagination, and most of the time they draw a blank. They don’t think you’re talking about anything important. See? They say, "Yeah, well, that’s interesting, but I have to get back to folding napkins."

Or moving pieces of paper around on their desks. You could give that guy speed and he’d seem to wake up, but he wouldn’t really know what to do. He wouldn’t start imagining and inventing like crazy, because he’s still saying no to that.

A person pretends, on some level, that all this business about imagination doesn’t mean much at all. But actually it’s very, very big. The trance he’s in is all about not using his imagination. That’s how he says no. He falls asleep. He walks around, but he’s asleep. He’s asleep IN A PARTICULAR WAY.

He's asleep when it comes to imagination. Which means he’s asleep when it comes to the core of existence!

Q: Imagination.

A: Yeah. Reality is what’s left over when a person doesn’t use his imagination in a powerful way.

Q: So if you had him play the role of God and you played the role of Merlin, something might trigger him to wake up.

A: Theater is waking up if you do it right. I had a patient who wanted to be a choreographer in the worst way. She was a secretary but she wanted to be a choreographer. So with her, it was a straight line. I had her imagine all sorts of dances. You know, programs. Performances. Fragments of ballets.

And eventually, she became a choreographer. I used desire as the way in. Her desire. Because it was right there, in the open. I used her desire to get her to use her imagination, and eventually all the barriers fell. See, other people would say I tapped into her desire to be something different in her life. But that wasn’t it. I used her desire to get her to use her imagination. And that was the key.

Once she was rolling with that, she woke up. She woke up from the trance. She was saying no to her own imagination, and I helped her turn that no into a yes. Sounds corny, but that was it. It wasn’t faked. It was real.

Q: How long did it take?

A: Six months.

Q: But you didn’t undo any programming.

A: What programming? Her refusal to invent? I don’t give a damn about programming or conditioning. I’m not trying to undo anything. I’m not trying to do surgery. I’m not trying to pick things apart.

Q: Why not?

A: My boy, you and I could sit here and make up thousands of quite sophisticated patterns or systems of programming. We could invent all sorts of crap that supposedly resides in consciousness that keeps a person from imagining and inventing. We could speculate and assume and presume.

We could play the roles of brain researchers or whatever. But in my experience, there’s NOTHING THERE. There isn’t any programming. Not really. Not when it comes to imagination. You either imagine or you don’t imagine. My job is to get people to imagine. I’m deviously clever about it. I’m a genius at getting people to go out on some road of imagining.

Q: If we wrote a book about the whole pattern of consciousness that keeps people from imagining–

A: If we did that, if we made it all up, we’d have people drooling to learn about it. They’d come out of the woodwork. They’d pay good money to learn all about why they’re screwed. People LOVE that. But it wouldn’t amount to anything. The whole idea is much simpler than that. You either imagine or you don’t. And my job is to get them to imagine.

Q: Not just in little drips and drops.

A: No. FOREVER.

To further exemplify my point, here's another part of an interview a bit further down the page:

Q: What about so-called trauma-based mind control? You know, the CIA MKULTRA-type stuff, or the Soviet version. What about that?

A: There are a lot of misconceptions about it. Those bastards used force and drugs. It was basically torture. Now, they might have gotten real cute, in order to create what they said was multiple personalities in a victim.

But whatever system of trance or suggestion they employed, it doesn’t matter. It only matters if the victim, emerging from it, escaping from it, believes that, in order to undo what was done, he has to unpack the closet, he has to undo, a step at a time, what has been done to him. If he does believe that, you’re in a pickle.

You now need to bring in a therapist who believes what the victim believes - and together they explore this territory. The therapist offers a complex a system of un-brainwashing that the victim can accept. Based on a shared belief, they can make progress. Here’s an analogy. Let’s say you’re lost in the woods. You’ve been lost for a month.

You’re in bad shape. You’re eating leaves and roots. You believe the only way to get out is to walk the way you came - which is a complex task. But that’s what you think. As long as you think that, what else are you going to do? You might be able to make it work. Maybe. In the same way, a complex system of un-brainwashing might work, but to suggest it’s the only or best path is way overstating things.

Q: Some people are predisposed to playing chess.

A: Exactly! They look south and they see chess. They look north and they see chess. You try to sell them checkers or a helicopter and they turn you down flat. They don’t believe in that. They believe in chess. If they’re lost, you can get them out only if you present your solution so it looks and feels like chess. Otherwise, they refuse.

[...]

A: That’s not mind. That’s the person himself. He has chosen that filter and he uses it all the time.

Q: But why did he choose it to begin with?

A: See, we’re walking right back into the same trap. Suppose we say there was a long concatenation of events that FORCED this person to choose that filter. Then where are we? We’re about to conclude, well, the only way to get rid of the filter is to reconstruct the exact string of events that FORCED him to adopt the filter.

To put that whole string under a magnifying glass so he can see it in every detail - and then he can throw away the filter. Which is nonsense. Because when you go back far enough, what you really see is, he chose that filter. He took it and placed it over his eyes. That’s what happened. It doesn’t matter why. It doesn’t matter what reasons he gave himself for choosing it.

Sure, he can gain some insight that way, by scoping out the reasons. But really, he has to find a way to leap beyond that filter and start seeing reality in new and different ways - and then one day, he’ll remember the filter and laugh at the whole thing and how silly it was.

Q: What if he can’t?

A: Who are you? The devil’s advocate?

Q: I’m trying to be.

A: Well, if he can’t, he’s in the mud. It’s like asking me, if a guy is standing on one side of a river that runs from one eternity to another, and he wants to get across, and he refuses to step in the water, how will he succeed? He won’t succeed. He’ll stand on that riverbank for 50 lives or 300 lives or 50,000 lives, until he jumps in the water.

So in essence he says that we can pick the brain apart (reductionism - which is the current paradigm in science), ask for the question why as long as we want, but this is not going to make any noticeable difference (it might be interesting, though). The question is, how do you move forward, and Jack True's answer is to stimulate imagination back into existence.

Now the reason I opened this thread is, that I am in two minds about all this, meaning that I think QEEG and ERPs - and hypnotherapy, for that matter - really are a step forward, but that I can relate to Jack True's ideas really well, too. For me, these two approaches seem to be on opposite ends of the spectrum. I used to be a hardcore reductionist - but I have in recent years started to explore the opposite end, and it seems to me to be an eminently logical approach.

So, before I embark on this long and costly journey with QEEG and ERPs, I feel that I need to resolve this conflict. When I look at the data provided by neuroscience research, it totally makes sense, but I am inclined to attribute some truth to Jack True as well. BTW, it really stumps me how certain people have certain names - probably some cosmic joke (I had a builder by the name of Trickey that defrauded us - or the name Breedlove comes to mind) - sorry for the diversion.

Which might mean that both sides are looking at a narrow spectrum of what objectively could be called the Truth, which then from my view looks like a contradiction. Maybe the whole paradigm is wrong and we are working in science with totally wrong assumptions, where everything looks like chess ...

I have no idea how to reconcile these two opposing views, both of which seem to have merit.

Anyway, comments and suggestions very much appreciated!

 

[nicklebleu]

I am not sure, if I was able to communicate my problem properly, maybe it is too disjointed, as I myself am a bit struggling with that, too.

But if that is the case, just let me know and I'll try to make a better case!

 

[Buddy]

What is the persoal problem you are working on? IOW, what issue(s) are you wanting to solve or dispose of? I read something in the OP about ADHD subtypes, but not sure if you're just using that as an example.

 

[Ollie]

I trained in hypnotherapy (to masters level) and used it 'conversationally' in coaching people. However, I no longer use it and am of the opinion that its use is limited in its current form. From what I read of Jack True, his approach of using 'being asleep' - day dreaming - to get people 'imagining away' their problems makes good sense.

Just my comments, 'reverse hypnosis' is for me, rather than hypnosis or neuroscience.

 

[obyvatel]

Hi Nicklebleu,
The question you asked is a hard question. I will share my perspective based on my current understanding.

From a high level perspective, both reductionism and imagination have their place in human activity. They are different functions which serve different purposes.

Taking something and breaking it apart, studying the pieces separately and then drawing conclusions about the whole helps in understanding "how something works". This can be called a predominantly left-brain activity in a general sense - keeping in mind that this is a reductionist viewpoint.

Imagination on the other hand, conveys a whole image. It is a "just so" thing. And from a reductionist perspective, this will be a predominantly right brain activity.

Coming to the particular therapeutic perspective which you are asking about, the question to ask may be where to apply which function rather than making it "a vs b, which is better?" question. Imagination is usually far ahead of analytical understanding. Samuel Hahnemann, the founder of homeopathy in its modern form, distinguished the role of the physician who is trying to heal patients and the professor or theoretician who is trying to understand why the particular healing modality works. Ideally, the two go hand in hand - we discover a healing treatment and we know exactly how it works. But this may not be true in reality, especially when dealing with complex phenomena, complex being relative to our current state of understanding.

So the question is what is it that you wish to do - with either neurofeedback technique or hypnotherapy in some form? Continuing on the brain imaging based neurofeedback path will keep you in familiar territory and past training as far as the overall philosophy of that system goes. It will be a sideways step into a different application of a certain scientific philosophy with which you are familiar.

Yet, there is a pull from the unfamiliar - in your case, hypnotherapy and specially Jack True's interpretation of it. I am not familiar with Jack True but from the quotes you provided, his technique seems very similar in essence to what Carl Jung called "active imagination". Jack True seems to be facilitating Jungian active imagination to heal patients. This technique is non-linear, unpredictable and uncertain. In a certain sense, it is much harder to learn and execute as a skill. It is like Jungian analysis, though Jack True may have found a way of accelerating that traditionally slow process which can take several years.

In the application of neurofeedback related techniques for healing others, one can keep oneself apart, like an objective observer. Using imagination related techniques, this is not possible. One is an integral part of the process, especially if the process progresses to a certain depth, which often traditional hypnotherapy does not go into. In traditional Jungian analysis, therapists necessarily have to be in analysis themselves for a long time to get a handle on their personal unconscious before they can deal with others' unconscious - as that is what active imagination or other forms of deep therapy implies. There one would come into direct and intimate contact with phenomena of projection and projective identification (transference and counter-transference in therapeutic lingo). These phenomena are always occurring in regular life as well, but their effects are not so well identified or understood.

As people approach middle age (around the 40s), psychologically there is often a pull towards developing functions which were neglected during the earlier period of life. This was Jung's observation based on empirical data. So it is possible that if one has used more of an analytical reductionist viewpoint, there will be a pull towards activities which encourage the intuitive and imaginative faculties (and vice versa). The challenge of "individuation" is to manage this pull in a way that is integrative and wholesome rather than disintegrative and painfully disruptive. I do not know if this is what is going on with you, but thought I would throw it out there for awareness.

I do not know your level of familiarity with material about the unconscious; so I do not know how much of the above will make sense or even be relevant to what you were asking. If so, please do let me know.

fwiw

 

[RedFox]

There are basically two approaches in doing neurofeedback therapy:
1. Apart from the patient's history (plus or minus psychometric tests) you subject the patient to a diagnostic procedure via QEEG and ERPs. Once you have this information, you can then target the areas that either need to be stimulated or that need to be suppressed.

As people approach middle age (around the 40s), psychologically there is often a pull towards developing functions which were neglected during the earlier period of life. This was Jung's observation based on empirical data. So it is possible that if one has used more of an analytical reductionist viewpoint, there will be a pull towards activities which encourage the intuitive and imaginative faculties (and vice versa). The challenge of "individuation" is to manage this pull in a way that is integrative and wholesome rather than disintegrative and painfully disruptive.

So the view that Jack True's work 'is the answer' probably comes from exercising part of your mind that is under used and from a neurofeedback point of view out of balance.
Is Jack Trues work 'the answer'? Maybe for those that don't use imagination (are stuck in rigid reductionist thinking modes), or use it in the wrong way (imagine only fixed points of view).

To add some perspective, here's what a neurofeedback website says about types of brain wave imbalances:

_http://www.brainworksneurotherapy.com/brain-balance-and-flexibility

Brain Balance and Flexibility

There are two main priniples that underlie our approach; brain balance and brain flexibility.

Balance - equality of distribution or equilibrium between oppositional forces.
Flexibility - the ability to move fluidly and effortlessly.

Jack Trues description seems to produce balance (from lack of use of imagination) and flexibility (the ability to 'imagine' beyond boundaries).
Does it hold true for everyone? Probably not, as he seems to lack knowledge of why reductionism can be useful.
What if you have a new age client who can imagine fantastical worlds, is purely driven by imagination, emotion and intuition, and lacks will and logic?

Some peoples system 1 runs on logic and will, others runs on imagination and intuition, others a mix of the two. Maybe you'll even find people with perfectly balances brains - who are still running in system 1 mode. So factors of observation and aim comes into play here.

BRAIN BALANCE

The brain mediates your perception, thoughts and actions. If one part of the system is out of balance, the effects can ripple out into many other areas.
If you are experiencing emotional or functional difficulties, we will see over or under-activity in the corresponding areas of the brain. These areas will be working harder than the others, and putting the brain out of balance.

When our brain actiivity is out of balance, there will be corresponding problems in our emotional or physical health.

BRAIN FLEXIBILITY

What you use grows stronger. This is as true for the brain as for physical muscles, and is called neuroplasticity. With repeated use, a thought, mood, or emotional state becomes a ‘habit’. The habit grows into a trait, a trait becomes a constant state.

If the brain is out of balance and loses its flexibility, you may get stuck thinking when trying to sleep, dreaming when trying to concentrate, or be saddled with uncomfortable emotions.

The brain has been pushed out of balance, and has lost the flexibility needed to shift out of it.

THE VEHICLE ANALOGY

Brain balance and felxibility are often explained in terms of liking the various functions of the brain to those of an automobile.

FOOT HARD ON THE ACCELERATOR (SNS flexibility)
The Sympathetic Nervous System (SNS) is your internal accelerator – it governs your alert state, your adrenal function, and arousal level. If this critical system is locked into an ‘on’ position, you can be plagued with sleeplessness, anxiety, and racing thoughts – perhaps a low-level panic as you drive.

You can think of it of having your foot firmly planted on the accelerator pedal at all times, which makes it difficult to slow down. It is hard on the vehicle; after a while it will start to burn out.

Stress and Anxiety

FOOT HARD ON THE BRAKES (pns flexibility)
The Parasympathetic Nervous System (PNS) can be thought of as your internal brake pedal. The opposite action of the SNS, it governs your ‘rest and digest’ function. If the PNS is permanently engaged, it can result in digestive trouble, lack of ‘pep’, enthusiasm and vitality. You may feel generally disconnected from your vehicle, or not quite at home inside.

It can take a lot of energy to get around if you don’t first release the brakes.

Social skills and Intimacy
Sleep and Fatigue

FOOT ON THE ACCELERATOR AND THE BRAKES (sns/pns balance)
When our SNS accelerator and PNS brakes are both fully engaged, try as we might we will have difficulty getting anywhere at all with any comfort. You may even end up swinging from high energy to extreme lows. It is, of course, an exceptionally poor use of mental energy.

Spinning your wheels like this is a problem more common than you might think. In the long term, this can put undue stress on the nervous system and shorten the life of your vehicle.

Trauma and PTSD
Emotional Balance

ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL (Brainwave ratio)
Is your attention going to where you put it, and can you hold your attention there as long as you need it to? Or are you fiddling with the radio, checking messages, or staring off into the countryside rather than being able to stay on task? Does your mind drift somewhere completely different than where you intended it to?

When you are driving, it’s good policy to have your eyes on the road. It saves you from making needless mistakes.

Attention Training

WHEEL ALIGNMENT (brainwave stability)
If your brain is unstable, it is akin to having poor wheel alignment. Whenever you try to get somewhere, your emotions or actions may shake, wobble and buffet around. Migraines, epilepsy, tics, and a number of other symptoms may result from poor stability.

Proper alignment helps you stay on the road.

Emotional Balance

LOW HORSEPOWER (domiant frequency)
How much brain power is available? Is there enough power to run your vehicle when under load? Is power running short in a certain area, or all the energy is being used somewhere other than where it’s needed?

If there isn’t enough basic electric horsepower to go around, you may feel like you are always stalling at tasks. Without enough energy to get through the day, your mind will fade and falter.

Sleep and Fatigue

REACTION TIME (phase)
How long does it take for the vehicle to react? Many of the brain’s functions are timed events. Timing can be crucial – signals from one part of the brain should arrive at another area at just the right moment to perform a specific task efficiently. When the delay is excessive the signals arrive too early; deficient, and it’s too late.

In either case, it can make it difficult to get from point A to point B if the controls aren’t doing what you want them to, when you want them to do it.

Austism, Dyslexia, or Developmental

Linkages (coherence)
Coherence is like the linkages on the car. In order to properly make sense of the world around us and accomplish complex tasks, the different parts of the brain must share information. If different areas are not connecting to each other, getting anywhere can be tough.

Learning Disabilities may show either (or both) excessive or deficient coherence characteristics; serious traumatic brain injury classically results in excessive coherence.

Austism, Dyslexia, or Developmental

So the above is a pretty good guide to what areas are out of balance.
It should also be mentioned that imagination if used incorrectly causes problems:

https://www.sott.net/article/317740-Concrete-processing-A-strategy-of-thinking-that-could-protect-people-from-the-effects-of-traumatic-experiences

People who may be exposed to trauma can train themselves to think in a way that could protect them from PTSD symptoms, according to a study from King's College London and Oxford University.

Clinical psychologists Rachel White and Jennifer Wild wanted to test whether a way of thinking about situations called concrete processing could reduce the number of intrusive memories experienced after a traumatic event. These intrusive memories are one of the core symptoms of PTSD.

Dr Rachel White explained: 'Concrete processing is focusing on how a situation is unfolding, what is being experienced and what the next steps are. It differs from abstract processing, which is concerned with analysing why something is happening, its implications, and asking 'what if' questions with no obvious answer.

'Previous research has shown that emergency workers who adopted the abstract processing approach showed poorer coping. Another study compared abstract and concrete processing of negative events and found that the abstract thinkers experienced a longer period of low mood.'

Dr Jennifer Wild said: 'If we consider groups more at risk of PTSD, like military personnel, emergency workers or journalists in conflict zones, they are all groups known to be likely to experience traumatic events.

'This means they have the opportunity to train themselves in strategies that might protect them from the ill effects. For that reason, we wanted to test whether training people to adopt a concrete processing approach could be one such strategy.'

Fifty volunteers were split into two groups. All were asked to score their mood. They were then shown a film with traumatic scenes and asked to rate feelings, such as distress and horror. Each group was then given instructions to watch a set of six further films, while considering different questions.

The first group was asked to consider abstract questions, such as why such situations happened. The second group was asked to consider concrete questions, such as what they could see and hear and what needed to be done from that point. At the end of this period, each volunteer was asked to score their mood again.

They were then asked to watch a final film in the same way as they had practised, rating feelings of distress and horror as they had for the first film.

The volunteers were given a diary to record intrusive memories of anything they had seen in the films for the next week.

While both groups saw their mood decline after the training, those who had been practising concrete thinking were less affected than those who had been practising abstract thinking. Concrete thinkers also experienced less intense feelings of distress and horror when watching the fifth film. When it came to intrusive memories in the week after viewing the films, abstract thinkers experienced nearly twice as many intrusive memories as their concrete thinking counterparts.

Dr Jennifer Wild said: 'This study is the first to show empirically that the way we think about trauma could affect our memories of it. Further study is now needed, with people who have experienced real-life trauma and to confirm that this can be applied in groups who regularly experience trauma, like emergency workers. This could be the basis for training to improve people's resilience in the face of expected traumatic experiences.'

My understanding then is it's not reductionism vs imagination but balance between the two sides of the brain - harmony.
And maybe Jack is describing just one side of finding that balance?