![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 18 to 42 of 89. Go back in thread:
Posted by fires on July 23, 2004, at 11:17:49
In reply to Re: Matt DDS? Other CBT'ers? » fires, posted by Dinah on July 23, 2004, at 6:44:02
I will respond to you since you did not use ad hominem attacks.:)
CBT is based on rational thinking and logic, which isn't always present in our "emotions."
>>For example. If someone I knew and trusted walked up to me and without a word shot me in the leg, I might feel hurt and surprised, and very very angry. I understand that the CBT take on it is that I could *choose* to feel another way entirely. But the facts are that I was happily wandering around, feeling safe and cheerful. Then someone I trusted deliberately shot me in the leg! If someone hadn't shot me in the leg, I'd still feel happy and cheerful. But now I don't. How can the person who shot me in the leg deny all responsibility for my mood by saying my mood is my own responsibility and no one else can *cause* my mood? It seems to me to be a very non-communal attitude to take, and not at all in keeping with the nature of mankind, which is very interpersonal in its orientation.<<
Let me answer your questions using the Socratic method. You probably would feel hurt and angry, after first being shot. But then you might think (logically): Maybe I didn't know this person as well as I thought. Maybe he wasn't as mentally stable as he appeared. Is it your responsibility to be the caretaker of ALL of your friends mental health? Or, maybe my friend has a brain tumor which disturbed his thinking and led to, my shooting. (Not too far fetched, as a number of serial killers have been known to have suffered traumatic brain injuries as children). Many incarcerated Americans have been shown to have abnormal brain functions in their frontal lobes which partially controls impulsivity.
You might also think: Well, I certainly didn't do anything to provoke the attack, therefore why should I feel angry (if any of it is directed at yourself) because of what someone else did?
You might also think, "I don't believe in instant Karma, therefore it wasn't "my fault" I got shot.
Just examples. I hope you find them thought provoking.
Thanks
Posted by Dinah on July 23, 2004, at 11:23:27
In reply to For Dinah, posted by Susan47 on July 23, 2004, at 9:56:59
Well, I think that that isn't totally black and white. Because sometimes being supportive doesn't *look* like what we'd like to see. And we don't pay them to do what we want them to do. We pay them to do what they think is best for us. And sometimes that may be making us feel very bad indeed.
When that happens, I talk with my therapist. I tell him that what he is saying feels hurtful to me and ask what he is hoping to accomplish by his words. Sometimes I understand that he is trying to help me by telling me things that I don't really want to hear.
Sometimes I'm able to help him help me better. Because, as he says, all the wisdom in the world is no good if it isn't phrased in a way that the client can understand and can tolerate and be receptive to it.
So I'm not at all shy about saying "You know, tough love has never worked all that well with me." or "I'm more easily led than driven." or even specific examples "Last week when you said XXX, it just made me want to do YYY, and I don't think that's what you intended. So let's talk about different ways of saying that so that you're more likely to get the reaction you'd like." Sometimes he listens. Well all the times he listens. Sometimes he admits he erred in his approach. Sometimes he just laughs at me. :)
I've got to say he's gotten absolutely brilliant at it. He knows me so well that he knows just how to present things so that they tickle my mind without making me lock my hind legs and refuse to move. I don't even have to coach him anymore. :) I'm so impressed.
Posted by AuntieMel on July 23, 2004, at 11:31:54
In reply to Re: Matt DDS? Other CBT'ers? » Miss Honeychurch, posted by Dinah on July 23, 2004, at 10:51:05
Sticks and stones theory: you are right. Words do have the power to hurt, probably worse than physical pain. But the degree of hurt should vary depending on who says them.
If your husband came home and called you a lizard, you would be very hurt because you have a close relationship. In a way he would have responsibility for you mood
Where having control over your reactions comes in (to me) is when the lady behind you at the grocery store calls you a lizard. If the reaction is the same as when it is someone close to you, then the mood *is* your responsibility. And that's where CBT can come in.
Posted by Dinah on July 23, 2004, at 11:35:32
In reply to Re: Matt DDS? Other CBT'ers?, posted by fires on July 23, 2004, at 11:17:49
Yes, thinking about why something happened is always helpful. And sometimes the answers *are* enough to reduce anger and replace it with something else, like compassion. Sometimes they aren't. It's usually worth exploring. But I wouldn't relieve the shooter of his responsibility based on that.
CBT is very rational and unemotional. I know it appeals to a lot of people because of its appeal to logic. As I said, I think it's a useful set of skills to have. But sometimes I find the logical underpinnings of CBT to be a bit less than logical in light of the complexity of human beings and the biological needs that are built in us.
I thank you for responding to me in a pleasant manner, fires. I hope that you are able to continue to engage with many people on the board similarly.
Posted by fires on July 23, 2004, at 11:42:30
In reply to Ah, the tyranny of the Should... » Miss Honeychurch, posted by gardenergirl on July 23, 2004, at 8:42:10
> Such an awful place to be stuck. I tend to be one who say's no one can *make* me feel something that isn't already there at some level. It goes back to our discussion about indifference. If I were truly indifferent to someone (working on it at this very moment, regarding someone else...), then no matter what they said or did, my feelings would be my own.
>
> I had a client once who used to feel guilty about a lot of things. And she would get mad at her mother for "making her feel guilty." I said the same thing to her...no one can make you feel guilty if you don't already feel it inside yourself. It's really coming from you, not your mom. And she was stuck in that dang tyranny, too!
>
> Take care,
> gg>>I had a client<<???
Care to share your credentials? State lic. #?
Thanks
Posted by Dinah on July 23, 2004, at 11:43:17
In reply to Re: Matt DDS? Other CBT'ers? » Dinah, posted by AuntieMel on July 23, 2004, at 11:31:54
I still think that ignores sociological truths about human beings. Certainly the lady at the supermarket shouldn't upset you *as much* as your husband. But in a species that relies on communal living, the community *does* affect us. And I don't think it's reasonable to be totally unaffected by the lizard woman, or to consider our reaction to be our sole responsibility. The lizard woman needs to accept some responsibility too. That's why the woman at the supermarket who called you a lizard would probably get community censure from other shoppers, unless you had done something lizardly. In which case, reaction might be mixed. And if the lizard lady had a habit of going around calling perfect strangers lizards, her social life is probably limited, because society does hold people responsible for their behavior, and for good reason. (Unless the lizard lady is a lizard school-aged kid, in which case the school aged kid community would probably hail her as the height of cool, and anyone she called a lizard would be ostracized.)
Posted by AuntieMel on July 23, 2004, at 11:48:46
In reply to Re: Ah, the tyranny of the Should..., posted by fires on July 23, 2004, at 11:42:30
If I've read things here correctly, GG is Therapist-in-Training (Please no acronyms here (snicker)) And having issues of her own.
And she's a very nice lady.
Posted by AuntieMel on July 23, 2004, at 11:54:46
In reply to Re: Matt DDS? Other CBT'ers? » AuntieMel, posted by Dinah on July 23, 2004, at 11:43:17
You certainly have the behavior of junior lizards down pat. Having been on the recieving side of that one too often for comfort, I can relate.
I'm probably not expressing myself properly, and I think we're saying the same thing.
Of course what the groocery store lady says will affect you. No one lives in a bubble. And there really is a butterfly effect.
I think CBT comes in when a person doesn't have the capability of putting it into perspective and feels *just* as hurt as if it was - say - their mother calling him a lizard. I think we can all agree that type of reaction isn't good.
Posted by Dinah on July 23, 2004, at 11:56:13
In reply to Re: Matt DDS? Other CBT'ers? » Dinah, posted by AuntieMel on July 23, 2004, at 11:54:46
Posted by AuntieMel on July 23, 2004, at 12:07:16
In reply to Re: I believe we have an agreement in principle :) (nm) » AuntieMel, posted by Dinah on July 23, 2004, at 11:56:13
Posted by Miss Honeychurch on July 23, 2004, at 12:09:17
In reply to Re: Matt DDS? Other CBT'ers? » Miss Honeychurch, posted by Dinah on July 23, 2004, at 10:51:05
Your example is a good one and I wish I were advanced enough at CBT to be able to self-talk myself out of that one!
I admire the theory behind CBT, but alas, I am not that good at it. It has helped me get out of the horriblehabit of wanting to please everyone and basing my self-worth on the opinion of others. That lesson alone has been invaluable.
Posted by Larry Hoover on July 23, 2004, at 13:40:55
In reply to Re: Matt DDS? Other CBT'ers? » fires, posted by Dinah on July 23, 2004, at 11:35:32
> CBT is very rational and unemotional. I know it appeals to a lot of people because of its appeal to logic. As I said, I think it's a useful set of skills to have. But sometimes I find the logical underpinnings of CBT to be a bit less than logical in light of the complexity of human beings and the biological needs that are built in us.
Cognition is a whole lot more than logic alone. And I fear your impression overlooks entirely the second word, behavioural.
One of the foundations of the cognitive approach is to try to develop an oversight of the transition from the experience of an event to the resulting feelings. Many people believe that an event leads directly to a feeling, which might be symbolically represented as:
E --> F
However, cognitive approaches attempt to focus on an intervening (and automatic) step, the interpretation, symbolically:
E --> I --> F
Our interpretation can be simple, or it can be complex. A physical threat to a child is not very hard to interpret. Other interpretations, though, call on a host of cognitive characters, including: attitudes, beliefs, religion, innate traits (e.g. shyness), memories, mores, and on and on. These, collectively, create one or more schemata, the psychological term for the way (or ways) we view the world.
Cognitive analysis, then, is an attempt to bring to conscious awareness the components bearing on the interpretation of an event. First, those techniques are applied to past events, in hopes of making it easier to recognize those same characteristics in subsequent events. One trains oneself to become aware of the interpretative elements which shape the emotive response.
I hope it is not a trite example, but consider someone who has lost everything they own in a tornado. It's pretty likely that a fair number of people would feel devastated by the loss. However, adherents of the Buddhist philosophical traditions would be elated, as they have been provided with an opportunity to learn from the loss of material wealth. The event doesn't necessarily and predictably lead to a feeling, but the interpretation always does.
Upon learning of the E --> I --> F model, I quickly grasped that the only place I have effect is on I (me).
It is a vastly liberating feeling to become aware of interpretation in real-time experience. It takes practise, but the rewards are immense. You get to choose.
The second part is behaviour. You have to do things differently to actually effect change. I'm sure that many of you have heard these two sayings: "If you keep on doing what you always did, you'll keep on getting what you always got." and "You can't think your way into a new way of acting, but you can act your way into a new way of thinking."
Thinking about the past is not cognitive-behavioural therapy. Trying to develop new thinking rules is not CBT either, unless you actually put them to use, and experience new opportunities to generate feelings that otherwise may not have had the chance to exist. Cognitive insight gives you the chance to choose. Behavioural change *is* the choice. You become proactive, rather than reactive.
Kids coming. Gotta run.
Lar
Posted by AuntieMel on July 23, 2004, at 14:05:30
In reply to Re: Matt DDS? Other CBT'ers? » Dinah, posted by Larry Hoover on July 23, 2004, at 13:40:55
With the behaviour part of Lar's post. This is exactly what you have done recently with gracious gestures. You didn't allow feelings to muck with your behaviour.
Good job
Mel
Posted by Larry Hoover on July 23, 2004, at 14:10:56
In reply to Re: Dinah, we've come full circle, posted by AuntieMel on July 23, 2004, at 14:05:30
> With the behaviour part of Lar's post. This is exactly what you have done recently with gracious gestures. You didn't allow feelings to muck with your behaviour.
>
> Good job
>
> MelAnd that new insight becomes part of the cognitive processing (positive feedback), and you have a gradual "drift" towards adaptive behaviour from the old maladaptive stuff. Good work, Mel. I left that part out on purpose. :-)
Lar
Posted by fires on July 23, 2004, at 14:20:03
In reply to Re: Ah, the tyranny of the Should... » fires, posted by AuntieMel on July 23, 2004, at 11:48:46
I'm not sure what a T-in-training is? I know some schools hand out degrees for money, and eventually get caught for being unaccredited.
Ph.D. + training? Also, do theapists have issues of their own? How can they be helpful to others, while busy with their own issues? Maybe they are minor issues.
thanks
Posted by Dinah on July 23, 2004, at 14:21:11
In reply to Re: Dinah, we've come full circle, posted by AuntieMel on July 23, 2004, at 14:05:30
And I fear that I am in a quandary. :)
Part of my reservations to CBT - and in particular the B part - come from my own history, which I don't feel safe sharing here anymore. lol.
But it's the reason that my therapist doesn't do straight CBT with me. In fact CBT hasn't been a strong emphasis for some time.
But I will say it did wonders for my OCD.
Posted by partlycloudy on July 23, 2004, at 14:25:46
In reply to Re: Ah, the tyranny of the Should..., posted by fires on July 23, 2004, at 14:20:03
> I'm not sure what a T-in-training is? I know some schools hand out degrees for money, and eventually get caught for being unaccredited.
>Wouldn't a T-in-training be a therapist who has not finished their training yet? That seems very straightforward.
> Ph.D. + training? Also, do theapists have issues of their own? How can they be helpful to others, while busy with their own issues? Maybe they are minor issues.
>Most therapists have therapists of their own, to my knowledge.
> thanks
you are quite welcome.
Posted by Dinah on July 23, 2004, at 14:32:14
In reply to Re: Ah, the tyranny of the Should..., posted by fires on July 23, 2004, at 14:20:03
This is just the sort of thing that gets people in trouble! So many people here are fond of Gardenergirl, and your post might be seen as being critical of her. If you have questions, perhaps you should ask her with an inquiring spirit.
Something along the lines of:
I'm not familiar with the training of psychotherapists. I think I'd be interested in learning more about it. What does t in training mean?
Now, to answer your question to the best of *my* knowledge. Gardenergirl is not here primarily as a therapist in training, she is here as a therapy client just as we are. But we often find her experience from the other side of the couch very helpful to us, as well. Many programs for therapists strongly encourage if not require therapists in training to seek psychotherapy themselves. Don't you think it's helpful for therapists to understand their own issues?
And everyone has issues. I'd much rather have a therapist who recognizes their issues, wouldn't you? Perhaps that's what went wrong with your own therapy.
And no, Gardenergirl is not in a diploma mill. Do you think that was the best possible way you could have phrased your post? Can you think of other ways to phrase your questions? Less challenging ways? Ways that would allow a friendship to develop between you and the person you were questioning.
I'll bet you can. C'mon, I have confidence in you here. You learned something in CBT, can you think of how CBT might apply to your last post? Maybe something about assumptions?
Posted by AuntieMel on July 23, 2004, at 14:46:07
In reply to Re: Dinah, we've come full circle » AuntieMel, posted by Dinah on July 23, 2004, at 14:21:11
Well, the one thing I like about good behaviour is it gives you wiggle room (grinning). That way if a person decides later that they read something wrong or whatever, there isn't a problem with backtracking.
I'm just the type that needs the wiggle room. Otherwise, if I just reacted when I felt like it (way too often), I wouldn't have any friends at all.
I've had good behaviour (literally) beaten into me, and one of the things I need to work on is opening up more, but sometimes it does serve me well.
Posted by fires on July 23, 2004, at 15:16:55
In reply to Re: Ah, the tyranny of the Should... » fires, posted by partlycloudy on July 23, 2004, at 14:25:46
>>Wouldn't a T-in-training be a therapist who has not finished their training yet? That seems very straightforward.<<
Very straight forward, but extraordinarily vague! At last count I believe that there were over 250+ different types of "therapy" (and the number just keeps on rising).
>>Most therapists have therapists of their own, to my knowledge.<<
I had an MD who once said, "the sick should not be caring for the sick."
Just how far into the "disturbed" arena can a therapist "go" until they become too sick to care for the sick?
Thanks
Posted by TexasChic on July 23, 2004, at 15:22:08
In reply to Re: Ah, the tyranny of the Should..., posted by fires on July 23, 2004, at 15:16:55
I just have to say that having a therapist doesn *not* mean you are sick. Why would you assume that? In my opinion, everybody should have one. Therapy is a way of maintaining good mental health.
Posted by Dinah on July 23, 2004, at 15:26:32
In reply to Re: Ah, the tyranny of the Should..., posted by fires on July 23, 2004, at 15:16:55
Why did you feel you needed to do that. Were we being too kind to you? Did you feel you needed to chase us away?
I'm very very interested in why you made the choice you made, when there were so many other choices you *could* have made.
Posted by Dinah on July 23, 2004, at 15:47:08
In reply to Re: Dinah, we've come full circle, posted by AuntieMel on July 23, 2004, at 14:05:30
It remains to be seen if my behavior has any merit whatsoever to it. Or if I am complicit in hurting my friends. There is no honor in helping people hurt others.
Posted by AuntieMel on July 23, 2004, at 15:53:40
In reply to Re: Dinah, we've come full circle » AuntieMel, posted by Dinah on July 23, 2004, at 15:47:08
It has merit in it because you believed (and I still do) that it was the right, fair thing to do. That is *not* something you should ever feel sorry for.
You're doing a mitzvah.
Posted by fires on July 23, 2004, at 15:59:41
In reply to Re: Now, fires, posted by Dinah on July 23, 2004, at 14:32:14
So many questions! I have time for only a few. Hopefully my point will answer more than one.
There are so many types of T and so many types of Ts. I was wondering what type she is in training for? Or, do they now train to cover all the types of Ts?
I got all of these types from just *one* web site:
http://www.pip.com.au/~chenderson/types.htm
•Art therapy
•Cognitive behavioural therapy
•Existential therapy
•Gestalt
•Hakomi
•Jungian
•Neurolinguistic programming (NLP)
•Process Work
•Psychoanalysis
•Psychodrama
•Rebirthing
•Shamanism
•Somatic therapy
•Voice dialogueThe following link is to Amazon.com, Crazy Therapies(Singe & Lalich):
Scroll down page to "Editorial Reviews"
Thanks
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Psychology | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.