Re: Russ on Shrink Rap Radio

[Guest guest]

Thanks!  I noticed some other episode on mindfulness on this podcast.

 

http://www.shrinkrapradio.com/

#272 – The Happiness Trap with Russ , MD

JULY 29, 2011

Dr Russ , MD is a physician, psychotherapist and executive coach. As a GP he became increasingly interested in the psychological aspects of health and wellbeing (and increasingly disenchanted with writing prescriptions). Ultimately this interest led to a total career change, and he now works in two different, yet complementary roles: as a therapist and as a life coach. He is also the author of the 2007 self-help book, The Happiness Trap, a best-seller, now published in over twenty-two countries and seventeen different languages.

Read More

  Standard Podcast [59:35m]: Hide Player | Play in Popup | Download

[Guest guest]

Russ,In this interview you said that in CBT one uses disputation to get rid of negative emotions.  That's not quite correct.  Definitely in REBT, but also in most other forms of CBT, you don't dispute to eliminate negative emotions.  You dispute to change unworkable negative emotions such as rage or deep depression to more workable and appropriate but still negative emotions such as sadness and irritation or frustration.

I think you are setting up a straw-man to knock down when you say the purpose of disputation in CBT is to get rid of negative emotions.

 

http://www.shrinkrapradio.com/

#272 – The Happiness Trap with Russ , MD

JULY 29, 2011

Dr Russ , MD is a physician, psychotherapist and executive coach. As a GP he became increasingly interested in the psychological aspects of health and wellbeing (and increasingly disenchanted with writing prescriptions). Ultimately this interest led to a total career change, and he now works in two different, yet complementary roles: as a therapist and as a life coach. He is also the author of the 2007 self-help book, The Happiness Trap, a best-seller, now published in over twenty-two countries and seventeen different languages.

Read More

  Standard Podcast [59:35m]: Hide Player | Play in Popup | Download

[Guest guest]

I don't think Russ means to put down or over-simplify either

Burns's books or those of Al Ellis.

But I do think his post to this thread was largely correct in

highlighting both the significant similarities, and the significant

differences between ACT, REBT, and CBT - especially the older

variations of CBT as found in Burns's first two books, " Feeling

Good " and the " Feeling Good Handbook. "

Yet even with the " Feeling Good " books, it is very hard to speak of

" CBT " as if it were a single type of therapy. For example, Burns

most definitely promotes thought disputation. I know this because

the " Feeling Good Handbook " was my bible for two years & like

I did his thought-disputing exercises over and over. Yet " Feeling

Good, " like CBT in general, also incorporates " behavioral

activation, " in which the goal for depressed or anxious persons is

to get out of bed and resume doing the things they care about &

enjoy, so as to start a feedback loop of positive re-engagement with

life.

And surprise - ACT too makes use of behavioral activation! Same

technique, but a very different context - because where ACT is about

feeling feelings AS feelings, the Burns of 1999 was quite

literally about feeling " good " rather than anxious or depressed.

Changing mood from negative to positive was a key part of his

definition of mental health. He has a 2007 book about anxiety that I

haven't read; I'd be curious to see what's changed and what's still

the same.

As for Al Ellis, I never knew the man but am very fond of him as an

author. Back in 2004, having gotten completely disenchanted with

CBT, I had started looking for something better, and discovered at

the same time both Buddhism and Al Ellis. I read about a half-dozen

of Ellis's books and enjoyed them. But I never tried REBT, mostly

because early in 2005 I came across ACT and haven't looked back.

Ellis was charismatic, funny, and keenly insightful, yes - but his

books are idiosyncratic and REBT was in the end a one-man show.

There is no school of research that I know about that is using REBT

as a theoretical model for improving psychotherapy, as ACT and RFT

are attempting to do. So much as I admire Ellis, and as much as he

was a seminal thinker in modern psychotherapy, I think things have

progressed beyond him.

Which brings us to CBT today. It is still too amorphous and

political to cast in simple terms, but for at least 20 years now

there have been many researchers & therapists in CBT working on

adding mindfulness and acceptance to other CBT techniques -

Teasdale, Linehan, etc. Thought disputation is starting to fade as a

favored CBT technique. Techniques from positive psychology, some of

which are ACT-friendly, are starting to drift into CBT too. CBT

still has no unified research model to give it direction, which is a

problem, but at least some aspects of it are moving forward. And I

personally know some excellent therapists who have done good work

with both CBT and ACT.

- Randy

[Guest guest]

>

> CBT has no unified research model - what does that mean? How

> is CBT different from anyone else?

ACT is built around a very strong model (Relational Frame Theory, or

RFT) of how language processes can create psychological

inflexibility. It's fairly sleek in this regard. So research can

progress to try & improve the RFT model where it does not seem

accurate. And research driven by RFT can suggest new or better

therapeutic techniques for ACT. At least that is the general idea -

you could ask an ACT/RFT researcher and they could tell you more.

CBT, on the other hand, has a zillion proposed models to try and

handle a zillion different observed phenomena. It is a vast

confusion, really. The one thing that the models have in common is

that in each case, the mind is compared to a kind of computer or

other machine. And each module is like an internal part in this

machine, and is proposed as a way of explaining one or another

aspect of human behavior.

It's a little weird, though, because the modules are entirely

hypothetical - they can never verified. It's somewhat like the way

you might try and imagine the inside of a car engine if you were

never actually able to take the car engine apart. Lots of guesswork.

And because the models are so vague, they keep being dreamed up &

they keep competing with each other and there is no way to prove

which model is more " real. "

Meanwhile, we now have cognitive neuroscientists spending big bucks

(REALLY big) trying to show that one or another of these models maps

onto structures or patterns of activation in the human brain - but

the problem here is that the research is often extremely sloppy. I

mean, ridiculously sloppy. In my opinion, and the opinion of quite a

few other skeptical observers, it is too often like a bunch of kids

playing with MRI machines because MRI machines are " cool. " And the

results often seem exciting and convincing to the public because the

public thinks that MRI scans are " hard science. " For an interesting

article on this, see " Brain Imaging Can Be An Illusion, " by the

excellent science journalist Sharon Begley, March 18 2005 in the

Wall Street Journal. You can find the article online here:

http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB111110678590183261,00.html

And you can also check out this blog, by an anonymous but apparently

well-informed skeptical neuroscientists (the anonymity is probably

so he can keep his job, whatever that job is!):

http://neuroskeptic.blogspot.com/

Of course there is interesting & good work being done by CBT

researchers and neuroscientists alike. But the label " CBT " is

becoming less and less useful. It is almost more of a political tag

now than anything else, in my opinion.

- Randy

[Guest guest]

Hi , you are right; it is an incomplete, and overgeneralised statement – and therefore inaccurate. More accurate to say that ‘one of the main purposes is to reduce the intensity and frequency of ‘negative’ emotions’. All the best,Cheers, Russ www.actmindfully.com.auwww.thehappinesstrap.com From: ACT_for_the_Public [mailto:ACT_for_the_Public ] On Behalf Of BauerSent: Tuesday, 23 August 2011 2:36 PMTo: ACT_for_the_Public Subject: Re: Russ on Shrink Rap Radio Russ,In this interview you said that in CBT one uses disputation to get rid of negative emotions. That's not quite correct. Definitely in REBT, but also in most other forms of CBT, you don't dispute to eliminate negative emotions. You dispute to change unworkable negative emotions such as rage or deep depression to more workable and appropriate but still negative emotions such as sadness and irritation or frustration.I think you are setting up a straw-man to knock down when you say the purpose of disputation in CBT is to get rid of negative emotions. http://www.shrinkrapradio.com/ #272 – The Happiness Trap with Russ , MDJULY 29, 2011Dr Russ , MD is a physician, psychotherapist and executive coach. As a GP he became increasingly interested in the psychological aspects of health and wellbeing (and increasingly disenchanted with writing prescriptions). Ultimately this interest led to a total career change, and he now works in two different, yet complementary roles: as a therapist and as a life coach. He is also the author of the 2007 self-help book, The Happiness Trap, a best-seller, now published in over twenty-two countries and seventeen different languages.Read More Standard Podcast [59:35m]: Hide Player | Play in Popup | Download

[Guest guest]

Yeah, I’m definitely NOT putting those guys down. Much respect for both of them; I’ve found their books very useful in years gone by, before I discovered ACT. I think Ellis, and REBT, was much closer to ACT than Burns and traditional CBT, though. In fact, one of my personal heroes in the ACT community is an amazing psychologist called Hank Robb - who uses both REBT and ACT - and has written papers on combining the two approaches. All the best,Cheers, Russ www.actmindfully.com.auwww.thehappinesstrap.com From: ACT_for_the_Public [mailto:ACT_for_the_Public ] On Behalf Of RandySent: Tuesday, 23 August 2011 8:45 PMTo: ACT_for_the_Public Subject: Re: Russ on Shrink Rap Radio I don't think Russ means to put down or over-simplify either Burns's books or those of Al Ellis.But I do think his post to this thread was largely correct inhighlighting both the significant similarities, and the significantdifferences between ACT, REBT, and CBT - especially the oldervariations of CBT as found in Burns's first two books, " FeelingGood " and the " Feeling Good Handbook. " Yet even with the " Feeling Good " books, it is very hard to speak of " CBT " as if it were a single type of therapy. For example, Burnsmost definitely promotes thought disputation. I know this becausethe " Feeling Good Handbook " was my bible for two years & like I did his thought-disputing exercises over and over. Yet " FeelingGood, " like CBT in general, also incorporates " behavioralactivation, " in which the goal for depressed or anxious persons isto get out of bed and resume doing the things they care about & enjoy, so as to start a feedback loop of positive re-engagement withlife.And surprise - ACT too makes use of behavioral activation! Sametechnique, but a very different context - because where ACT is aboutfeeling feelings AS feelings, the Burns of 1999 was quiteliterally about feeling " good " rather than anxious or depressed.Changing mood from negative to positive was a key part of hisdefinition of mental health. He has a 2007 book about anxiety that Ihaven't read; I'd be curious to see what's changed and what's stillthe same.As for Al Ellis, I never knew the man but am very fond of him as anauthor. Back in 2004, having gotten completely disenchanted withCBT, I had started looking for something better, and discovered atthe same time both Buddhism and Al Ellis. I read about a half-dozenof Ellis's books and enjoyed them. But I never tried REBT, mostlybecause early in 2005 I came across ACT and haven't looked back.Ellis was charismatic, funny, and keenly insightful, yes - but hisbooks are idiosyncratic and REBT was in the end a one-man show.There is no school of research that I know about that is using REBTas a theoretical model for improving psychotherapy, as ACT and RFTare attempting to do. So much as I admire Ellis, and as much as hewas a seminal thinker in modern psychotherapy, I think things haveprogressed beyond him.Which brings us to CBT today. It is still too amorphous andpolitical to cast in simple terms, but for at least 20 years nowthere have been many researchers & therapists in CBT working onadding mindfulness and acceptance to other CBT techniques -Teasdale, Linehan, etc. Thought disputation is starting to fade as afavored CBT technique. Techniques from positive psychology, some ofwhich are ACT-friendly, are starting to drift into CBT too. CBTstill has no unified research model to give it direction, which is aproblem, but at least some aspects of it are moving forward. And Ipersonally know some excellent therapists who have done good workwith both CBT and ACT.- Randy

[Guest guest]

This may be strength of CBT not problem. Look at modern physics.Sent from my iPhone

>

> CBT has no unified research model - what does that mean? How

> is CBT different from anyone else?

ACT is built around a very strong model (Relational Frame Theory, or

RFT) of how language processes can create psychological

inflexibility. It's fairly sleek in this regard. So research can

progress to try & improve the RFT model where it does not seem

accurate. And research driven by RFT can suggest new or better

therapeutic techniques for ACT. At least that is the general idea -

you could ask an ACT/RFT researcher and they could tell you more.

CBT, on the other hand, has a zillion proposed models to try and

handle a zillion different observed phenomena. It is a vast

confusion, really. The one thing that the models have in common is

that in each case, the mind is compared to a kind of computer or

other machine. And each module is like an internal part in this

machine, and is proposed as a way of explaining one or another

aspect of human behavior.

It's a little weird, though, because the modules are entirely

hypothetical - they can never verified. It's somewhat like the way

you might try and imagine the inside of a car engine if you were

never actually able to take the car engine apart. Lots of guesswork.

And because the models are so vague, they keep being dreamed up &

they keep competing with each other and there is no way to prove

which model is more "real."

Meanwhile, we now have cognitive neuroscientists spending big bucks

(REALLY big) trying to show that one or another of these models maps

onto structures or patterns of activation in the human brain - but

the problem here is that the research is often extremely sloppy. I

mean, ridiculously sloppy. In my opinion, and the opinion of quite a

few other skeptical observers, it is too often like a bunch of kids

playing with MRI machines because MRI machines are "cool." And the

results often seem exciting and convincing to the public because the

public thinks that MRI scans are "hard science." For an interesting

article on this, see "Brain Imaging Can Be An Illusion," by the

excellent science journalist Sharon Begley, March 18 2005 in the

Wall Street Journal. You can find the article online here:

http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB111110678590183261,00.html

And you can also check out this blog, by an anonymous but apparently

well-informed skeptical neuroscientists (the anonymity is probably

so he can keep his job, whatever that job is!):

http://neuroskeptic.blogspot.com/

Of course there is interesting & good work being done by CBT

researchers and neuroscientists alike. But the label "CBT" is

becoming less and less useful. It is almost more of a political tag

now than anything else, in my opinion.

- Randy

[Guest guest]

Sorry I'm replying late.

I'm not a psychology major but I agree that from what I see of CBT, it is very

splintered. And of course for a study to be replicable, the CBT treatment will

need to be the same as in the original study - which likely does not happen on

the ground.

But I don't feel sure about the criticism that there is no unified research

models BEHIND CBT. I have studied some ABA and there's nothing really behind it.

Its simple enough to be understood on its own.

Why do we need brain scans to verify a study's results? The intervention is

successful if the target behavior is shown to have changed.

Re: Russ on Shrink Rap Radio

>

> CBT has no unified research model - what does that mean? How

> is CBT different from anyone else?

ACT is built around a very strong model (Relational Frame Theory, or

RFT) of how language processes can create psychological

inflexibility. It's fairly sleek in this regard. So research can

progress to try & improve the RFT model where it does not seem

accurate. And research driven by RFT can suggest new or better

therapeutic techniques for ACT. At least that is the general idea -

you could ask an ACT/RFT researcher and they could tell you more.

CBT, on the other hand, has a zillion proposed models to try and

handle a zillion different observed phenomena. It is a vast

confusion, really. The one thing that the models have in common is

that in each case, the mind is compared to a kind of computer or

other machine. And each module is like an internal part in this

machine, and is proposed as a way of explaining one or another

aspect of human behavior.

It's a little weird, though, because the modules are entirely

hypothetical - they can never verified. It's somewhat like the way

you might try and imagine the inside of a car engine if you were

never actually able to take the car engine apart. Lots of guesswork.

And because the models are so vague, they keep being dreamed up &

they keep competing with each other and there is no way to prove

which model is more " real. "

Meanwhile, we now have cognitive neuroscientists spending big bucks

(REALLY big) trying to show that one or another of these models maps

onto structures or patterns of activation in the human brain - but

the problem here is that the research is often extremely sloppy. I

mean, ridiculously sloppy. In my opinion, and the opinion of quite a

few other skeptical observers, it is too often like a bunch of kids

playing with MRI machines because MRI machines are " cool. " And the

results often seem exciting and convincing to the public because the

public thinks that MRI scans are " hard science. " For an interesting

article on this, see " Brain Imaging Can Be An Illusion, " by the

excellent science journalist Sharon Begley, March 18 2005 in the

Wall Street Journal. You can find the article online here:

http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB111110678590183261,00.html

And you can also check out this blog, by an anonymous but apparently

well-informed skeptical neuroscientists (the anonymity is probably

so he can keep his job, whatever that job is!):

http://neuroskeptic.blogspot.com/

Of course there is interesting & good work being done by CBT

researchers and neuroscientists alike. But the label " CBT " is

becoming less and less useful. It is almost more of a political tag

now than anything else, in my opinion.

- Randy

------------------------------------

For other ACT materials and list serves see www.contextualpsychology.org

If you do not wish to belong to ACT_for_the_Public, you may

unsubscribe by sending an email to

ACT_for_the_Public-unsubscribe@...! Groups Links

[Guest guest]

Wanting a research model and principles behind interventionsis really more of a long term issue regarding progress ...so it is more " inside baseball " for professionals.It could make a difference for the public long term tho.

Why? a) When we understand the principles the methodscan be applied with greater precision for those who really need it, andb) in the history of humankind when principles are understood applicationtypically advances.

e.g., we did OK for many years not knowing how aspirin worked.Still helped, but when we knew how it worked we developedseveral other pain meds from that knowledge and wesaw how aspirin could be useful for other things.

Behavioral principles (e.g., reinforcement) are behind ABA and there is a strategy for developing new principles.CBT -- nothing quite like that.You'd think " cognitive psychology " right?

Nope. Almost nothing in CT comes fromcognitive psychology.- S C. Foundation ProfessorDepartment of Psychology /298University of NevadaReno, NV 89557-0062

" Love isn't everything, it's the only thing " hayes@... or stevenchayes@...

Fax: Psych Department: Contextual Change (you can use this number for messages if need be): Blogs: Psychology Today  http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/get-out-your-mind

Huffington Post  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-c-hayes-phdIf you want my vita, publications, PowerPoint slides, try my training page or my blog at the ACBS site: 

http://www.contextualpsychology.org/steven_hayes http://www.contextualpsychology.org/blog/steven_hayes

or you can try my website (it is semi-functional) stevenchayes.comIf you have any questions about ACT or RFT (articles, AAQ information etc), please first check the vast resources at website of the Association for Contextual Behavioral Science (ACBS): www.contextualpsychology.org. You have to register on the site to download things, but the cost if up to your own values.

If you are a professional or student and want to be part of the world wide ACT discussion or RFT discussions go to http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy/join

orhttp://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/relationalframetheory/joinIf you are a member of the public reading ACT self-help books (e.g., " Get Out of Your Mind and Into Your Life " etc) and want to be part of the conversation go to: http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/ACT_for_the_Public/join

 

Sorry I'm replying late.

I'm not a psychology major but I agree that from what I see of CBT, it is very splintered. And of course for a study to be replicable, the CBT treatment will need to be the same as in the original study - which likely does not happen on the ground.

But I don't feel sure about the criticism that there is no unified research models BEHIND CBT. I have studied some ABA and there's nothing really behind it. Its simple enough to be understood on its own.

Why do we need brain scans to verify a study's results? The intervention is successful if the target behavior is shown to have changed.

Re: Russ on Shrink Rap Radio

>

> CBT has no unified research model - what does that mean? How

> is CBT different from anyone else?

ACT is built around a very strong model (Relational Frame Theory, or

RFT) of how language processes can create psychological

inflexibility. It's fairly sleek in this regard. So research can

progress to try & improve the RFT model where it does not seem

accurate. And research driven by RFT can suggest new or better

therapeutic techniques for ACT. At least that is the general idea -

you could ask an ACT/RFT researcher and they could tell you more.

CBT, on the other hand, has a zillion proposed models to try and

handle a zillion different observed phenomena. It is a vast

confusion, really. The one thing that the models have in common is

that in each case, the mind is compared to a kind of computer or

other machine. And each module is like an internal part in this

machine, and is proposed as a way of explaining one or another

aspect of human behavior.

It's a little weird, though, because the modules are entirely

hypothetical - they can never verified. It's somewhat like the way

you might try and imagine the inside of a car engine if you were

never actually able to take the car engine apart. Lots of guesswork.

And because the models are so vague, they keep being dreamed up &

they keep competing with each other and there is no way to prove

which model is more " real. "

Meanwhile, we now have cognitive neuroscientists spending big bucks

(REALLY big) trying to show that one or another of these models maps

onto structures or patterns of activation in the human brain - but

the problem here is that the research is often extremely sloppy. I

mean, ridiculously sloppy. In my opinion, and the opinion of quite a

few other skeptical observers, it is too often like a bunch of kids

playing with MRI machines because MRI machines are " cool. " And the

results often seem exciting and convincing to the public because the

public thinks that MRI scans are " hard science. " For an interesting

article on this, see " Brain Imaging Can Be An Illusion, " by the

excellent science journalist Sharon Begley, March 18 2005 in the

Wall Street Journal. You can find the article online here:

http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB111110678590183261,00.html

And you can also check out this blog, by an anonymous but apparently

well-informed skeptical neuroscientists (the anonymity is probably

so he can keep his job, whatever that job is!):

http://neuroskeptic.blogspot.com/

Of course there is interesting & good work being done by CBT

researchers and neuroscientists alike. But the label " CBT " is

becoming less and less useful. It is almost more of a political tag

now than anything else, in my opinion.

- Randy

------------------------------------

For other ACT materials and list serves see www.contextualpsychology.org

If you do not wish to belong to ACT_for_the_Public, you may

unsubscribe by sending an email to

ACT_for_the_Public-unsubscribe@...! Groups Links

[Guest guest]

Seems to me fMRI scans are at the level of Rorschach inkblot tests so far so being a diagnostic instrument is concerned. They're interpreted according to the particular "religion" of the interpretor. I'm interested in evidence to the contrary, though.My 0.2 cents' worth.Regards,Detlef

> >

> > CBT has no unified research model - what does that mean? How > > is CBT different from anyone else?

> > ACT is built around a very strong model (Relational Frame Theory, or

> RFT) of how language processes can create psychological

> inflexibility. It's fairly sleek in this regard. So research can

> progress to try & improve the RFT model where it does not seem

> accurate. And research driven by RFT can suggest new or better

> therapeutic techniques for ACT. At least that is the general idea -

> you could ask an ACT/RFT researcher and they could tell you more.

> > CBT, on the other hand, has a zillion proposed models to try and

> handle a zillion different observed phenomena. It is a vast

> confusion, really. The one thing that the models have in common is

> that in each case, the mind is compared to a kind of computer or

> other machine. And each module is like an internal part in this

> machine, and is proposed as a way of explaining one or another

> aspect of human behavior.

> > It's a little weird, though, because the modules are entirely

> hypothetical - they can never verified. It's somewhat like the way

> you might try and imagine the inside of a car engine if you were

> never actually able to take the car engine apart. Lots of guesswork.

> And because the models are so vague, they keep being dreamed up &

> they keep competing with each other and there is no way to prove

> which model is more "real." > > Meanwhile, we now have cognitive neuroscientists spending big bucks

> (REALLY big) trying to show that one or another of these models maps

> onto structures or patterns of activation in the human brain - but

> the problem here is that the research is often extremely sloppy. I

> mean, ridiculously sloppy. In my opinion, and the opinion of quite a

> few other skeptical observers, it is too often like a bunch of kids

> playing with MRI machines because MRI machines are "cool." And the

> results often seem exciting and convincing to the public because the

> public thinks that MRI scans are "hard science." For an interesting

> article on this, see "Brain Imaging Can Be An Illusion," by the

> excellent science journalist Sharon Begley, March 18 2005 in the

> Wall Street Journal. You can find the article online here:

> > http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB111110678590183261,00.html

> > And you can also check out this blog, by an anonymous but apparently

> well-informed skeptical neuroscientists (the anonymity is probably

> so he can keep his job, whatever that job is!):

> > http://neuroskeptic.blogspot.com/

> > Of course there is interesting & good work being done by CBT

> researchers and neuroscientists alike. But the label "CBT" is

> becoming less and less useful. It is almost more of a political tag

> now than anything else, in my opinion.

> > - Randy

> > > > > ------------------------------------

> > For other ACT materials and list serves see www.contextualpsychology.org

> > If you do not wish to belong to ACT_for_the_Public, you may > unsubscribe by sending an email to > ACT_for_the_Public-unsubscribe@...! Groups Links>

[Guest guest]

Your last comment has got me wondering about the origins of CBT. Could

you direct me to any books which cover the development of CBT - where and how

and by whom did it evolve? If there really isn't a solid underlying base to it

I find that fascinating - was it just concocted up in a therapists equivalent to

a backyard shed?

Kate

>

>

> CBT -- nothing quite like that.

> You'd think " cognitive psychology " right?

> Nope. Almost nothing in CT comes from

> cognitive psychology.

>

> - S

>

>

>

>

> C.

> Foundation Professor

> Department of Psychology /298

> University of Nevada

> Reno, NV 89557-0062

>

> " Love isn't everything, it's the only thing "

>

> hayes@... or stevenchayes@...

> Fax:

> Psych Department:

> Contextual Change (you can use this number for messages if need be): (775)

> 746-2013

>

> Blogs:

> *Psychology Today* http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/get-out-your-mind

> *Huffington Post * http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-c-hayes-phd

>

> If you want my vita, publications, PowerPoint slides, try my training page

> or my blog at the ACBS site:

> http://www.contextualpsychology.org/steven_hayes

> http://www.contextualpsychology.org/blog/steven_hayes

>

> or you can try my website (it is semi-functional) stevenchayes.com

>

> If you have any questions about ACT or RFT (articles, AAQ information etc),

> please first check the vast resources at website of the Association for

> Contextual Behavioral Science (ACBS): www.contextualpsychology.org. You have

> to register on the site to download things, but the cost if up to your own

> values.

>

> If you are a professional or student and want to be part of the world wide

> ACT discussion or RFT discussions go to

> http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy/join

>

> or

>

> http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/relationalframetheory/join

>

> If you are a member of the public reading ACT self-help books (e.g., " Get

> Out of Your Mind and Into Your Life " etc) and want to be part of the

> conversation go to:

> http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/ACT_for_the_Public/join

>

>

[Guest guest]

Not that badThe tale depends on who is telling it ... but here is a geekypaper in which I walk thru what I take to be the history andhow we got to acceptance / mindfulness- S C.

Foundation ProfessorDepartment of Psychology /298University of NevadaReno, NV 89557-0062 " Love isn't everything, it's the only thing " hayes@... or stevenchayes@...

Fax: Psych Department: Contextual Change (you can use this number for messages if need be): Blogs: Psychology Today  http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/get-out-your-mind

Huffington Post  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-c-hayes-phdIf you want my vita, publications, PowerPoint slides, try my training page or my blog at the ACBS site: 

http://www.contextualpsychology.org/steven_hayes http://www.contextualpsychology.org/blog/steven_hayes

or you can try my website (it is semi-functional) stevenchayes.comIf you have any questions about ACT or RFT (articles, AAQ information etc), please first check the vast resources at website of the Association for Contextual Behavioral Science (ACBS): www.contextualpsychology.org. You have to register on the site to download things, but the cost if up to your own values.

If you are a professional or student and want to be part of the world wide ACT discussion or RFT discussions go to http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy/join

orhttp://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/relationalframetheory/joinIf you are a member of the public reading ACT self-help books (e.g., " Get Out of Your Mind and Into Your Life " etc) and want to be part of the conversation go to: http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/ACT_for_the_Public/join

 

Your last comment has got me wondering about the origins of CBT. Could you direct me to any books which cover the development of CBT - where and how and by whom did it evolve? If there really isn't a solid underlying base to it I find that fascinating - was it just concocted up in a therapists equivalent to a backyard shed?

Kate

>

>

> CBT -- nothing quite like that.

> You'd think " cognitive psychology " right?

> Nope. Almost nothing in CT comes from

> cognitive psychology.

>

> - S

>

>

>

>

> C.

> Foundation Professor

> Department of Psychology /298

> University of Nevada

> Reno, NV 89557-0062

>

> " Love isn't everything, it's the only thing "

>

> hayes@... or stevenchayes@...

> Fax:

> Psych Department:

> Contextual Change (you can use this number for messages if need be): (775)

> 746-2013

>

> Blogs:

> *Psychology Today* http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/get-out-your-mind

> *Huffington Post * http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-c-hayes-phd

>

> If you want my vita, publications, PowerPoint slides, try my training page

> or my blog at the ACBS site:

> http://www.contextualpsychology.org/steven_hayes

> http://www.contextualpsychology.org/blog/steven_hayes

>

> or you can try my website (it is semi-functional) stevenchayes.com

>

> If you have any questions about ACT or RFT (articles, AAQ information etc),

> please first check the vast resources at website of the Association for

> Contextual Behavioral Science (ACBS): www.contextualpsychology.org. You have

> to register on the site to download things, but the cost if up to your own

> values.

>

> If you are a professional or student and want to be part of the world wide

> ACT discussion or RFT discussions go to

> http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy/join

>

> or

>

> http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/relationalframetheory/join

>

> If you are a member of the public reading ACT self-help books (e.g., " Get

> Out of Your Mind and Into Your Life " etc) and want to be part of the

> conversation go to:

> http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/ACT_for_the_Public/join

>

>

1 of 1 File(s)

318 ACT RFT and the Third Wave BT 2004.pdf

[Guest guest]

> > >

> > >

> > > CBT -- nothing quite like that.

> > > You'd think " cognitive psychology " right?

> > > Nope. Almost nothing in CT comes from

> > > cognitive psychology.

> > >

> > > - S

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > C.

> > > Foundation Professor

> > > Department of Psychology /298

> > > University of Nevada

> > > Reno, NV 89557-0062

> > >

> > > " Love isn't everything, it's the only thing "

> > >

> > > hayes@ or stevenchayes@

> > > Fax:

> > > Psych Department:

> > > Contextual Change (you can use this number for messages if need be):

> > (775)

> > > 746-2013

> > >

> > > Blogs:

> > > *Psychology Today* http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/get-out-your-mind

> > > *Huffington Post * http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-c-hayes-phd

> > >

> > > If you want my vita, publications, PowerPoint slides, try my training

> > page

> > > or my blog at the ACBS site:

> > > http://www.contextualpsychology.org/steven_hayes

> > > http://www.contextualpsychology.org/blog/steven_hayes

> > >

> > > or you can try my website (it is semi-functional) stevenchayes.com

> > >

> > > If you have any questions about ACT or RFT (articles, AAQ information

> > etc),

> > > please first check the vast resources at website of the Association for

> > > Contextual Behavioral Science (ACBS): www.contextualpsychology.org. You

> > have

> > > to register on the site to download things, but the cost if up to your

> > own

> > > values.

> > >

> > > If you are a professional or student and want to be part of the world

> > wide

> > > ACT discussion or RFT discussions go to

> > > http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy/join

> > >

> > > or

> > >

> > > http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/relationalframetheory/join

> > >

> > > If you are a member of the public reading ACT self-help books (e.g., " Get

> > > Out of Your Mind and Into Your Life " etc) and want to be part of the

> > > conversation go to:

> > > http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/ACT_for_the_Public/join

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> , I am able to download almost all files except PDF.

I use pdf on my computer .... an emac.

This group process is terrific!

Marty K