Western Association for Biofeedback and Neuroscience — Spring 2017 23 not want to see new life breathed back into alpha training. It was also a matter of firmly held doc- trine at the time that the elderly brain could not be trained, and that children below seven somehow could not retain the gains—even though they could man- ifestly learn behavioral skills at that age. Years before, Lubar had even worked personally with very young, cognitively impaired children. In an operant condi- tioning design, the children had tubes run into their mouths through which sugar-sweetened water was delivered as a reward. The children were being trained as if they were lab rats! When this design was later recalled so that everyone could have a good laugh over the early foibles in our field, Lubar took offense and defended the approach! The mere thought of it just boggles the mind. Skinner must have been rolling over in his grave. He had himself demon- strated just how trivial it is to alter be- havior even in infants with infant-appro- priate reinforcements. What are those? Anything that engages the infant brain, and only for as long as it does so. For years we were then living in parallel universes. Margaret Ayers and our clinician network were routinely training young children effectively, and yet Lubar continued to complain about it bitterly for many years. As late as 1997 Lubar wrote to me as follows: “I still disagree with you strongly about the age issue. We clearly have been telling people that it is not appropriate to work with individuals below the age of seven…. The most important criticism… is the carryover problem.” All the evi- dence was on one side, and yet that did not count for anything. Ayers had been training young children successfully for twenty years by this time, and for us it had been nearly ten years. It was yet an- other conquest of empirical data by ab- stract theory. For Lubar, ADHD qualified for neuro- feedback as a ‘neurobiological’ condition, in contrast to anxiety and depression, which were somehow not neurobiological conditions. Who could take this serious- ly? And yet one had to live with this doc- trine for many years, even though con- tradictory evidence was piling up on all sides. Lubar had psychologists in his au- dience who were telling him that anxiety and depression were more readily resolved with neurofeedback than ADHD, and yet he did not budge. Every clinical advance was met with concerted hazing. Claims of benefit for PMS, Bipolar Disorder, Au- tism, Parkinsonism, and even migraine, were all laughed out of court upon first hearing by the academics and the other gate keepers among us. (“Migraine is vas- cular in origin. How could you possibly help with EEG neurofeedback?”) And yet all those claims had been based on solid clinical evidence. In the words of Barbara Brown, our field was “imprisoned in be- havioral control science.” There was a complete mismatch be- tween means, methods, and objectives. At almost every point, the prevailing un- derstanding constrained what could be observed and even what could be talked about. Everything outside of that narrow frame was dismissed as unscientific. We had the equivalent here of the foot bind- ing of female infants. They were sure to be stunted in their growth, and so was our field. The rejection by the mainstream we were all laboring to reverse was mirrored