![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 9 to 33 of 39. Go back in thread:
Posted by Larry Hoover on December 20, 2005, at 13:33:08
In reply to Re: emotional encapsulation » Larry Hoover, posted by cricket on December 20, 2005, at 13:20:14
>
> > The opportunity to do this, I believe, relies on the learned capability of going into observer mode. You learn to become alerted, to identify the type of emotional capsule being launched, to alter the course of events, such that thinking does not go offline, and that intensity does not come.
> >
> > I'm speaking ideally. I've done it. I do it better (not better....wiser?) with each opportunity that life brings me. I also fail at it. But I observe, and I improve. (Thus the wiser.)
> >
> > I hope I made sense. My brain relents. <sigh>
> >
> > Lar
>
> Yes, that made sense to me. Splitting off a wise little observer. I think part of the trick may be to make sure that the little observer is gentle and easy (like a mother gently pulling back a wandering child) and not a smart alecky "oh yeah here it goes again, haven't we gone down this path before" observer.
>
> Does that make sense?Absolutely important to choose the split personality. I think that's part of something else, too. Being chairman of the board at the meetings taking place in my mind. That smart alecky voice isn't present, in observer mode. I've already made that distinction.
Good point. Good feedback. It's reassuring to have assessed my situation, and found it proper.
Thanks.
Lar
Posted by Dinah on December 20, 2005, at 16:17:15
In reply to emotional encapsulation, posted by alexandra_k2 on December 20, 2005, at 0:46:59
Maybe the spider thing is partly that the choice of which thought to challenge isn't correct. Maybe the internal thought isn't "It's dangerous" but rather "It's a spider" so all the thinking in the world that it's not dangerous doesn't alter the very true fact that it's a spider. Probably a fair number of people who are afraid of spiders aren't afraid of danger at all.
So then all you can do is change your associations with spiders, and then only if it's worth it to you.
Like my vomit obsession. I know vomit can't hurt me. But it's *vomit*. I know vomit can be cleaned up. But *vomit* contamination can't. I'm not afraid of getting dirty. It's just that vomit is something to be avoided at all costs and I know that if I'm near vomit all these things will happen to *me*. And indeed they do.
But the definition of *vomit* can be narrowed. Dog vomit is no longer vomit. I can take the barfing dog and lower him off the bed and say "Please don't vomit on the bed" and it's just annoying. Because that's no longer considered *vomit*. Not the sort of vomit that causes things to happen to me or the sort that forever contaminates an area.
Vomit is as distinct a concept as danger is to me, but the one concept doesn't necessarily rely on the other.
Sort of like "What do I care if it can't hurt me. It's still *vomit*."
Posted by alexandra_k2 on December 20, 2005, at 16:49:26
In reply to Re: emotional encapsulation » alexandra_k2, posted by fallsfall on December 20, 2005, at 7:46:50
> So what are you supposed to do? Find a psychodynamic therapist.
that might be what i'm 'supposed' to do...
but unfortunately finding one ain't gonna help me...:-(
Posted by alexandra_k2 on December 20, 2005, at 16:52:57
In reply to Re: emotional encapsulation » alexandra_k2, posted by muffled on December 20, 2005, at 8:58:04
> I must say I've had this s ame thot on simpler lines.
yeah me too. i've believed it for a while. but just try and explain that to a CBT therapist... well... lets back that up with some empirical evidence then and show their theory to be false...
heh heh
> Emotions are not always controllable to me, or even others I think. If they were I suppose we'd be robots or something.
or maybe... if we understood the function of emotions and their production and expression fulfilled that function... maybe... we would be healthy and happy human beings.
so much...
so much is on how people with mental illness are unhealthy / defective.
well...
what is healthy supposed to be then?
i'm sick of running from my alleged sickness...
give me something to work towards...
okay don't then
i'll make something up myself...heh heh
> Hmmmmm.
> You got me thinking girl, thats a good thing, gotta work the old brain now and again.:-)
Posted by alexandra_k2 on December 20, 2005, at 17:12:34
In reply to Re: emotional encapsulation, posted by ghostshadow on December 20, 2005, at 9:39:39
> but phobias are, by definition, irrational.
yeah. irrational emotions.
and delusions are, by definition, irrational.
irrational belielfs.but the trouble with accepting those truths by definition is that if we want an explanation of the phenomena... well... you can't offer a 'rational' explanation for something that is essentially 'irrational' (by definition once more, heh heh)
and... some philosophers accept this conclusion.
and... it is accepting conclusions such as this that leads to the scientists mocking philosophers (and rightly so in my opinion) :-(
like how Plato considered planatary orbits must be circular because the 'heavenly bodies' must be perfect and clearly a circle is the perfect shape...so...
how to get off...rationality (of mental states - ie feelings and beliefs) has a structure.
at least three parts to it...
(funnily enough this falls out of the way in which we use the terms too)see... feelings and beliefs are supposed to be internal mental states of the person (by definition)
INPUT CLAUSE
they are supposed to be caused by certain things (so the belief that the sun is hot is roughly supposed to be caused by the sun being hot. a feeling of fear is supposed to be caused by something posing a danger / threat)
INTERNAL ROLE CLAUSE
they are supposed to interact with other mental states in certain ways (inferential relations. that is the alleged breakdown in phobias / delusions where the subject is led to endorse contradiction)
OUTPUT CLAUSE
they are supposed to interact with other mental states so as to produce the relevant action (so if you believe your step-father has been replaced by an impostor it may well be 'rational' (with respect to the output clause) to decapitate him in order to look for the batteries and micro-film in his head. The irrationality consists in how the belief was formed in the first place... But some other people say their step-father has been replaced by a robot and yet they do not act in ways we would expect. They do not search for the original or report the disappearance to the relevant authorities or anything like that. Their 'irrationality' consists in... All three parts. How it is formed. How it interacts with other beliefs. How it interacts with (assumed) desires in the production of action.But if things are irrational by definition... How to offer a rational explanation for them???
There are cognitive modules that underlie our ability to be 'rational'. If there is a breakdown / malfunction in an underlying cognitive mechanism then that could lead to a very specific breakdown in rationality. In such cases we could say 'given the nature of that breakdown in that cognitive mechanism... delusions (or phobias) would be an inevitable (hence predictable and understandable 'normal' or 'rational' even in a revised sense of the term) response.
trouble is... if you go from conceptual analysis to making empirical claims... science may well show your claims to be false. language ain't perfect. just because we talk about people having 'beliefs' and 'emotions' doesn't mean there actually are any inner mental states of the person that map onto the terms we use in our common sense folk-psychological vocabulary. and the same goes... for the cognitive modules we posit. what we really need is independent empirical evidence for cognitive modules. cases where they malfunction to compare that to cases where they funciton normally...
what i want to say is...
that emotional encapsulation is fairly 'normal'
it happens to everybody...
but it happens more to some than others...
matter of degree...:-)
:-)
:-)
> (and i want some of whatever you're on)
heh heh
yeah, i wouldn't mind some more ;-)
Posted by alexandra_k2 on December 20, 2005, at 17:13:08
In reply to Re: emotional encapsulation » alexandra_k2, posted by Tabitha on December 20, 2005, at 11:29:31
> You answered your own question
> > the way to change it...> > is experience.
yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees
how to change ones experience?
Posted by alexandra_k2 on December 20, 2005, at 17:14:01
In reply to Re: emotional encapsulation » alexandra_k2, posted by sleepygirl on December 20, 2005, at 12:38:35
> we're all f*cked I guess...
though... if we are 'all' f*cked then we are 'all' normal.
heh heh
> and I too would like some of what you're on...deeeeeeepp thoughts :-)
:-)
Posted by alexandra_k2 on December 20, 2005, at 17:21:09
In reply to Re: emotional encapsulation » alexandra_k2, posted by Larry Hoover on December 20, 2005, at 12:47:30
> And, that experience need not be real. It can be cognitive, pure thought.
well...
picture of a snake - shock - fear
picture of a snake - shock - fear
repeat for a while...
picture of a snake - fearhmm.
the person says 'i know the picture of the snake can't hurt me'.
but they feel fear regardless.
ah...
they must 'unconsciously' endorse the belief
'the picture of the snake can hurt me'
but how can they believe both 'the picture of the snake can hurt me AND the picture of the snake can't hurt me' at the same time? Do they believe that pictures in general can hurt them?irrational.
so...
let them say one million times:
'that picture of the snake can't hurt me'
'it can't'
'nope it can't. pictures can't hurt me'will the fear response extinguish in virtue of that?
not in my lifetime
i would bet
note: yes I am making an empirical claim...
who would like to run the experiment?what you need... is alteration of the reinforcement contingencies... basically... you need to extinguish the fear response via flooding or exposure.
imagery...
imagery can help with exposure...but thats experience rather than self talk.
how much can we simply imagine an alteration in rft contingencies and thus benefit from the imaginary experiences??? i have no idea... that is an interesting thought...
Posted by alexandra_k2 on December 20, 2005, at 17:37:39
In reply to Re: emotional encapsulation » alexandra_k2, posted by Dinah on December 20, 2005, at 16:17:15
> Maybe the spider thing is partly that the choice of which thought to challenge isn't correct. Maybe the internal thought isn't "It's dangerous" but rather "It's a spider" so all the thinking in the world that it's not dangerous doesn't alter the very true fact that it's a spider. Probably a fair number of people who are afraid of spiders aren't afraid of danger at all.
well... fear is supposed to arise in response to a stimulus that poses a danger / threat or in response to a stimulus that is perceived as posing a danger / threat. by definition. it is thought... that that is simply what fear *means* and that conceptual analysis of the meaning of the word 'fear'... tells us about the *real nature* of fear.
it is a funny approach.
philosophers are moving away from conceptual analysis and are having an increased respect for sciences ability to have us revise our concepts.
a lot of that has to do with... Kripke's causal / historical theory of reference. Where the appropriate reference of natural kind terms (eg fear and belief and spider and tree etc) are thouht to be... determined by science rather than by a-priori conceputal analysis...fear...
has an evolutionary function...
to prepare for flight.
when all goes well, the proper function of fear is to prepare us for flight when the stimuli actually poses a threat to us.some people... well... it is better to have a false positive (ie run from something that does not pose a threat) rather than a false negative (ie not run from something that can hurt you very much) so their nervous systems are wired up in such a way...
and some people... in their history... associations were learned...
vomit.
i wonder what that means to you Dinah.
and i wonder... what associations that has for you.
of course the associations... may lie in your past and may not be accessible to consciousness.taste aversions tend to result from someone experiencing nausea upon trying the food for the first time. later... all they know is the food tastes / smells 'yuk'. they can't remember the nausea... yet it is in virtue of that that the taste aversion developed...
> ...But *vomit* contamination can't.
Ever?
Do you really believe this...
Wouldn't that conflict with other beliefs you have about disinfectants etc?
Are you confabulating an explanation when other people (or even when you) REQUIRE a rational explanation of your feeling of fear / aversion?
Everybody does this.
I think...
When therapists (especially) REQUIRE us to give a rational explanation for our emotional responses...
That is what leads people into contradiction.
People do confabulate under those circumstances. When we are required to explain something we do not know and the explanandum is OUR thoughts or whatever...
Confabulation under those circumstances is NORMAL.And that...
Seems to be what gets us into trouble...So the CBT therapist is in a win win situation...
OF COURSE people endorse contradictions / irrational beliefs when they experience intense emotion...In the attempt to explain something that cannot be explained via inferential relations (because of encapsulation) people are led to confabulate to endorse contradiction / irrational beliefs.
Make 'em worse in order to help 'em?
I dunno...A little validation...
Posted by Dinah on December 20, 2005, at 18:00:16
In reply to Re: emotional encapsulation » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k2 on December 20, 2005, at 17:37:39
Well, I could say that vomit contamination can be cleaned. If I wanted to make others happy.
But it can't. Once vomited on, forever contaminated.
And... why can't the taste aversion have caused the nausea rather than be a result of it?
Posted by Dinah on December 20, 2005, at 18:08:55
In reply to Re: emotional encapsulation » Larry Hoover, posted by alexandra_k2 on December 20, 2005, at 17:21:09
But that still assumes that one has a phobia of snakes because one believes on some level, or believed at some point in time, that the snake can harm one.
I'm just not certain that's a valid assumption.
Posted by alexandra_k2 on December 20, 2005, at 19:19:41
In reply to Re: emotional encapsulation » alexandra_k2, posted by Dinah on December 20, 2005, at 18:00:16
> Well, I could say that vomit contamination can be cleaned. If I wanted to make others happy.
> But it can't. Once vomited on, forever contaminated.
Right. But you also have lots of other beliefs. I'm not sure that I have the knowledge (of decontamination) but I'll have a go...
You probably also have other beliefs about disinfectant. About how disinfectant can kill germs. Decontaminate things etc etc.
So the thought here is that the belief that 'once vomited on always contaminated' would conflict (run into contradiction with) other beliefs you have about how things get to be decontaminated.
of course... you can try and tell elaborate stories to remove the contradiction... sometimes people do this with delusional beliefs. they revise most everything else in their belief network so that the delusional belief does not conflict with any other belief. what is interesting is that they aren't prepared to reject the delusional belief in the face of 'inconsistency with everything the patient previously knew to be true' (Stone and Young, 1997) ie their other beliefs in the first place.
Of course... maybe there are two readings of 'contaminated'. one is scientific and the other is... feeling based???
thats my favourite strategy for removing contradiction :-)
> And... why can't the taste aversion have caused the nausea rather than be a result of it?
because...
rats. take a bunch of rats. actually two bunches of rats. they have never had sugar water before. rats typically like sugar water. (as do people i suppose). then you inject one group with some stuff that induces nausea. they drink the sugar water (a novel food) then experience nausea. after that (after a single pairing of novel food - nausea) they will not drink sugar water volountarily. they have developed a taste aversion (maybe disgust?) to it. the other group (the control group) got injected with saline or some placebo that does not induce nausea. they like the sugar water just fine :-)
Posted by alexandra_k2 on December 20, 2005, at 19:30:11
In reply to Re: emotional encapsulation » alexandra_k2, posted by Dinah on December 20, 2005, at 18:08:55
> But that still assumes that one has a phobia of snakes because one believes on some level, or believed at some point in time, that the snake can harm one.
> I'm just not certain that's a valid assumption.but it is true by definition!
fear *just is* the result of the belief that the stimuli can harm one *by definition*.
that is just what we mean by fear.but...
you are dead right.
that may well be what we mean by the term...
but it is an empirical matter whether there is anything in the world that matches the description.if you have a picture of a snake, a spider, and a mushroom... and you flash that picture (i think in under 250milliseconds) then the person has no conscious recall of what was flashed at them.
the person with the snake phobia has heightened SGR (a measure of physiological arousal / affective response) to the pic of a snake, but not to the pic of the spider or the mushroom.
the person with the spider phobia has heightened SGR to the pic of a spider, but not to the pic of the snake or the mushroom.
the control group has baseline SGR to all three stimuli.in this case... the person exhibits the physiological markers of 'fear' even though they don't have any (conscious) beliefs about the stimulus whatsoever!
so... maybe fear is a response that can happen in response to something we believe to be a threat...
but... it need not require a conscious (or even a consciously accessible) appraisal of the stimuli. it doesn't even require a conscious awareness (or consciously accessible awareness) of the stimuli.these emotional responses...
would seem to be encapsulated from cognitive evaluation.
but does SGR constitute fear?
how much are we prepared to revise our concept in the light of scientific discovery?linguistic decision...
language isn't perfect...
sometimes... our 'definitional truths' need to be revised... but if you do this too much... then you have changed the subject.like... scientific investigation of consciousness where they define it as something they can study objectively when consciousness is *by definition* an essentially subjective phenomena.
have they changed the topic?
or should we change our concept?there are a number of considerations...
if you want to know the 'real nature' of emotions...
then if the causal-historical theory of reference is true of natural kind terms...
and if emotions are natural kind terms...
then the 'real nature' of emotions is an empirical matter...
and we may well commonly believe a number of falsehoods about the real nature of emotion.
we may well... need to revise our concept...
and... our criteria of application.
Posted by alexandra_k2 on December 20, 2005, at 19:33:10
In reply to Re: emotional encapsulation » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k2 on December 20, 2005, at 19:30:11
which is just to say that...
IF the phobic people felt fear in response to the pic...
THEN fear response need not result from cognitive awareness / appraisal.but perhaps... fear *just is* the result of cognitive awareness / appraisal about the harmful nature of the stimuli...
in which case these people did not experience fear (by definition)here... we need to make a decision.
do we revise the concept of fear so that it need not be produced by cognitive awareness / appraisal...
or do we simply say that one cannot experience fear when there is no cognitive awareness / appraisal in which case whatever was going on for these people with the heightened SGR it wasn't fear...decisions...
Posted by alexandra_k2 on December 20, 2005, at 20:16:43
In reply to emotional encapsulation, posted by alexandra_k2 on December 20, 2005, at 0:46:59
that should have been the heading...
Posted by alexandra_k2 on December 20, 2005, at 20:17:43
In reply to Re: *informational* encapsulation (oops), posted by alexandra_k2 on December 20, 2005, at 20:16:43
because... it happens with a variety of different information bearing / contentful states.
beliefs
perceptions
emotions
etc
Posted by Dinah on December 20, 2005, at 21:53:44
In reply to Re: emotional encapsulation » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k2 on December 20, 2005, at 19:19:41
I think what I mean by fear is fear that the object will somehow harm you in some way. My guess is that certain objects can cause unpleasant hyperarousal because of associations, and if there's fear of anything it's the fear of the hyperarousal. The fear of fear.
So then you need to change the association that causes the hyperarousal. Which you can't really do too effectively with rational explanations.
For example, I once had a dog who had an irrational fear of towels. Now it's probably true that there had been someone in that dog's life that had given the dog a reason to fear towels, but by that point it was the towel itself that aroused the dog, even if there was no risk that the towel would hurt the dog.
If I remember correctly, we changed the association of towels to one of treats being given when towels were around. Eventually the dog didn't run away from them, and probably we totally messed with that poor dog's mind by introducing all sorts of ambivilance and contradictory feelings about towels. But we meant well.
I can't quite figure out how that would work with people. If I had to go past someone throwing up to get my paycheck, I'm pretty sure I'd quit. And grow to hate money.
And vomit contamination isn't the sort that can be cleaned with disinfectants. It never occurred to me that it could. It's more like vomit spirit.
Posted by Dinah on December 20, 2005, at 22:00:08
In reply to Re: emotional encapsulation » alexandra_k2, posted by Dinah on December 20, 2005, at 21:53:44
I suppose I should add that I'm rather specific in many of my definitions. I don't think of unpleasant emotional arousal as definitely being fear.
Posted by Dinah on December 20, 2005, at 22:16:01
In reply to Re: emotional encapsulation, posted by Dinah on December 20, 2005, at 22:00:08
That I'm quite aware that the contamination caused by vomit is my awareness that vomit had been at that site. No amount of cleanser can wash away that awareness. And it's the awareness that causes my discomfort at a spot, and thus it's contamination. It's contaminated by my awareness that vomit had been there.
I can't seem to shake that awareness either. Decades later I still can tell you the many contaminates spots around my old home and my new one, and a few parking lots and garages. Places that I circle if I can, and if I can't I'm aware that I've stepped in an area that once was touched by vomit and that I am not contaminated by awareness myself. Although fortunately that contamination is reasonably time limited.
Posted by alexandra_k on December 21, 2005, at 2:48:46
In reply to Re: emotional encapsulation » alexandra_k2, posted by Dinah on December 20, 2005, at 21:53:44
> I think what I mean by fear is fear that the object will somehow harm you in some way. My guess is that certain objects can cause unpleasant hyperarousal because of associations,
yeah. that is the thought.
> and if there's fear of anything it's the fear of the hyperarousal. The fear of fear.
well... associated with the different emotions... there are different... what is the term... fixed action patterns... faps. crap. i think that is somehting else... i'll have to look up the proper term... at this point i'll just have to go with 'fap'... a fap is made up of a set of responses. endocrine changes, facial expression changes, physiological changes (ie in level of arousal) etc. i need to read... but i think there might be a distinctive fap associated with each of these...
fear
anger
happiness
sadness
disgust (possibly contempt as a variety of that)
and there is one more that escapes me... shame? not sure...anyways... the fap is supposed to constitute the emotion. emotions just are faps. except... the thought is those are 'basic emotions' which are short lived responses (by definition). but some people say... disgust isn't a proper emotion... and proper emotions involve cognitive appraisal of the stimulus. so then there are meant to be 'more complex emotion episodes' which do involve cognition and are less well understood...
but informational encapsulation might help...
maybe...
possibly...emotions aren't just an interpretation (or explanation) for SGR.
because we can have heightened SGR without being aware of it...
and we can have emotions that do not involve a conscious element of interpretation / explanation...
but emotions are thought to be...
faps.
so for the more complex emotion episodes we extend the fap to include cognitive appraisal. and other cognitive phenomena too like focusing of attention in anger... orienting response... etc.> So then you need to change the association that causes the hyperarousal. Which you can't really do too effectively with rational explanations.
well...
we could tell the rats 'don't be silly of course rats love sugar water' but i don't think that is going to help them!
but of course that is with rats.
how much of human emotions are similar to rat emotions?
perhaps things run differently with humans because our cortex (and higher cognitive functions) are more developed?
maybe it can't be altered that way in rats...
but it can be in humans...maybe...
it depends on whether it involved a conscious appraisal in the first place...
for those that don't...
dunno...
what are the limits?
thats what i wonder about...
> For example, I once had a dog who had an irrational fear of towels. Now it's probably true that there had been someone in that dog's life that had given the dog a reason to fear towels, but by that point it was the towel itself that aroused the dog, even if there was no risk that the towel would hurt the dog.> If I remember correctly, we changed the association of towels to one of treats being given when towels were around. Eventually the dog didn't run away from them, and probably we totally messed with that poor dog's mind by introducing all sorts of ambivilance and contradictory feelings about towels. But we meant well.
was there any evidence of ambivilance e.g., alternating between approach and avoidance response?
if not...
then why postulate ambivalence?
maybe you cured your dog.it is hard to extinguish emotional responses.
and some emotional responses are more easily learned than others...
and some emotional responses are harder to extinguish than others...i would say that to feel disgust / repulsion / avoidance to vomit... is a normal human response.
i think vomit is pretty yuk myself.
but...
it doesn't often occur to me that someone might have vomited where i happen to have placed myself. it is yuk now that you mention it but that thought wouldn't have occured to me all by myself...
> I can't quite figure out how that would work with people. If I had to go past someone throwing up to get my paycheck, I'm pretty sure I'd quit. And grow to hate money.money is considered to be a 'secondary' reinforcer. that means... money only has value to us because it has been paired (by associations) with 'primary' reinforcers such as food and shelter etc...
you would probably have more luck with keeping you at 80% your body weight (so you feel constantly hungry) then offering you your favourite treat where you had to walk through vomit to get it...
thats how the chickens were trained to peck a key for food in the labs over here...
(don't get me started on animal ethics)> And vomit contamination isn't the sort that can be cleaned with disinfectants. It never occurred to me that it could. It's more like vomit spirit.
'vomit spirit'
confabulation?
you postulate 'vomit spirit' in order to EXPLAIN or JUSTIFY your fear / aversion to vomit - right?
thats the point...
you don't *literally* believe in vomit spirit - do you?
i mean... it isn't the sort of thing that will go down in the science text books about a radical new kind of contamination that has no known cure - is it?
would that be missing the point of what you are trying to say?
(how good am i at leading questions?
you are of course free to disagree):-)
Posted by alexandra_k on December 21, 2005, at 2:49:20
In reply to Re: emotional encapsulation, posted by Dinah on December 20, 2005, at 22:00:08
> I suppose I should add that I'm rather specific in many of my definitions. I don't think of unpleasant emotional arousal as definitely being fear.
it is not.
it could be anger.
Posted by alexandra_k on December 21, 2005, at 2:51:19
In reply to Re: emotional encapsulation, posted by alexandra_k on December 21, 2005, at 2:49:20
in fact...
i don't think the folk-psychological distinction between 'pleasant' and 'unpleasant' maps very well onto the physiology...
in terms of physiology what we have is SGR.
it is either aroused or not aroused.
it is aroused in fear, anger, and happiness for example.but there is a sympathetic and parasympathetic systems... and i need to read...
Posted by alexandra_k on December 21, 2005, at 2:52:21
In reply to I suppose I should also clarify, posted by Dinah on December 20, 2005, at 22:16:01
> That I'm quite aware that the contamination caused by vomit is my awareness that vomit had been at that site. No amount of cleanser can wash away that awareness. And it's the awareness that causes my discomfort at a spot, and thus it's contamination. It's contaminated by my awareness that vomit had been there.
>
> I can't seem to shake that awareness either. Decades later I still can tell you the many contaminates spots around my old home and my new one, and a few parking lots and garages. Places that I circle if I can, and if I can't I'm aware that I've stepped in an area that once was touched by vomit and that I am not contaminated by awareness myself. Although fortunately that contamination is reasonably time limited.hmm...
do you remember the first one that bugged ya?
Posted by alexandra_k on December 21, 2005, at 3:06:30
In reply to Re: I suppose I should also clarify, posted by alexandra_k on December 21, 2005, at 2:52:21
Posted by Dinah on December 21, 2005, at 9:56:30
In reply to Re: I suppose I should also clarify, posted by alexandra_k on December 21, 2005, at 2:52:21
It seems like it was always there, but it changed from something that bugged me to an obsession around the time we adopted my brother. My brother who vomited at the drop of a hat.
I had a recurrant dream for as long as I remember about being a baby/toddler in a playpen(?) with two or three other babies. One threw up, it got on me, and they came to take the baby who threw up away, leaving me dirty and crying and trapped. But I'm positive that's a dream, since I don't think kids of that age have the memory wherewhithal to make memories. (although I know others would differ).
I still think those emotion groups are rather limited. Especially if they take out disgust.
However, in the above example, wouldn't the predominant negative feelings be rage and disgust? With the fear only coming from feeling unable to escape my surroundings. Then well later on into the phobia then obsession, fear and the flight response came from fear of painful arousal, not from fear of the vomit per se.
So that as I have myself found, reassurances that vomit can't hurt me don't work, because they miss the point. And dog vomit avoids being vomit because it escapes the primary association with vomit, intense painful emotional arousal. While quickly making plans wherever I go for how to make an escape should someone vomit is helpful enough to keep me from being housebound.
And CBT'ers might well miss the point by giving the wrong correcting information if they try to overcome a phobia with reason. Even if it did work, even a bit.
And flooding and exposure therapy might just prove that yes indeed, intense negative arousal does accompany exposure to the object.
While maybe being held by someone you love or being given some other positive reinforcer, or exposure with large doses of sedative, might possibly raise doubt as to the inevitable conclusion. Which is why exposure therapy with a therapist that the client has a good rapport with is probably better than exposure therapy with a therapist that the client isn't too crazy about.
As for the dog, I didn't have long term followup. The dog had been removed from a (clearly) less than ideal arrangement, and we placed her in a loving home. But I'd say that it wouldn't be impossible that the dog had ambivilant responses to the towel. Because to my recollection, the dog never lost her awareness that this was a *towel*. And I wouldn't consider the poor thing cured unless she could consider the towel just another neutral object that humans are unaccountably fond of collecting when they could have instead chosen to collect smelly poorly identified objects from outside, or the yummy bones and scraps that the silly things just throw away.
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.