Re: ACT's attack on CBT @ randy:-)

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

You are right - I am setting up a contrast with ACT to come later.

- R.

> >

> > > In particular, I've found ACT to be fairly unforgiving of CBT's

> > > association with a medical model of care more aligned with physical

> > > ailments, which looks at " abnormalities " and tries to heal them.

> >

> > Earlier in this thread I said this too, and referenced the 1999 ACT

> > book as evidence. But to be fair, that book wasn't picking on CBT

> > alone, or even CBT by name. And to me this view of mental illness as

> > abnormality goes way, way back in the psychotherapeutic culture.

> > Pretty much any traditional talk therapy you can name assumes that

> > therapy is something you do to get fixed, after which you no longer

> > need it, any more than you would need to wear a splint once a broken

> > bone has mended.

> >

> > I am working my way up to a piece of writing about ACT that may touch

> > on this subject. Below is an excerpt from an EXTREMELY rough draft

> > that gives the general flavor.

> >

> > - Randy

> >

> > (Excerpt)

> >

> > Most therapies are like dental floss: we use dental floss when we have

> > to, at night before we go to bed; but otherwise we would rather not

> > waste time talking or thinking about it. Dental floss is mundane,

> > utilitarian, something we do only to keep our gums healthy; if we

> > could skip it, we would. It plays no part in our romantic view of

> > ourselves and our lives. If we were to write a memoir a thousand pages

> > long about our life, in all its glory and shame, we would not waste

> > even a single paragraph describing our flossing habits.

> >

> > Talk therapy is like that. Or at least, most talk therapies are.

> > Freudian psychoanalysis assumes we are a mass of sick tendencies that

> > even in a healthy person are threaten to destroy us: defense

> > mechanisms that defend too well; drives for sex and death that must be

> > reined in by an ego that is itself prone to becoming monstrous; an

> > unconscious that resembles a cave of permanent darkness, brimming with

> > bones and bodies and nightmarish memories from infancy. Newer

> > therapies like cognitive behavior therapy are much more crisp and

> > modern: they assume that our brains are essentially computers, and

> > like computers, are prone to bugs that distort proper information

> > processing. A new program is installed, fully of rational rather than

> > irrational thoughts, and voila - we can get back to the business of

> > living.

> >

> > And in fact that is something nearly all talk therapies have in

> > common: regardless of their particular philosophy or method of

> > treatment, they assume that once therapy has done its job, it is no

> > longer needed. In other words, there is an absolute division between

> > " therapy " and " living " such that therapy can make healthy living

> > possible where previously it was not, but is otherwise like dental

> > floss.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Being

a therapist (and also a human), I tend to see therapy as something we can move

in and out of. Somewhat like a beloved book which has influenced your thinking,

perspective on life, & feelings, and thus changes you; you might be drawn

to open that book again so you can revisit (and perhaps deepen/extend) that

awareness. We influence each other in therapy, & growing often happens in

the space and connection between therapist and client. As travelers in this

life, we may need a reminder. Sitting in a familiar chair with someone who

knows you well, can provide that opportunity. Like says below, we

keep going with our learning because the challenges from within and without

keep on coming.

(Of

course we all know that therapy is more than a technique applied to a passive

recipient. These are just thoughts stimulated by the posts below.)

Being

in community mental health center settings for a number of years (7 in my first

job, 7 in another, 4 in this one, etc.) I’ve had the experience of people

coming in and out of therapy over time, when various life-events arise, or when

they feel a darkness descending that they are not finding their way out of.

Hopefully

it’s a process that endures, whether in that room and sitting in that

chair, or out there in the world.

I think

self-as-context can arise in therapy in certain moments, and then be recognized

again in spontaneous moments as we live our lives (like that moment of addressing

our “issues” & feeling/knowing, ‘I’m not getting

sucked into the “I AM this!”’). Ah, what a moment.

From: ACT_for_the_Public [mailto:ACT_for_the_Public ] On Behalf Of K.

Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011

11:47 AM

To: ACT_for_the_Public

Subject: Re:

ACT's attack on CBT @ randy:-)

Hi randy:-)

i love how u write...i might not make any sense AT ALL right now, but i dunno y

, i am not seeing ACT therapy as a dental floss. Or any mindfulness based

therapy for that matter. perhaps u r gonna talk about act and mbct later, hence

i am misunderstanding ur

email

<<<they assume that once therapy has done its job, it is no

> longer needed. >>>>

RANDY, i have this strange feeling i live in la-la land, coz to me

incorporating ACT principles in ur life is like

attaching a " value " to ur

action. E.g. i value being a giving spouse. It's not a goal, so i won't say, ok

now i'm done, now i can go back to being selfish.

to me, It will be needed as long as our mind will keep generating positives and

negatives. negativilty from within us, or from the outside world will never

end, then how can u applying a perticular theraputic approach end? i dunno

randy, i am just wondering. plz don't get me wrong, i am not telling u, but

asking, coz that's where sometimes i really wonder y am i soooo off?

i have been telling my community this, and i dunno if i am telling them the

wrong thing, but i tell em if u take therapy as a " treatment for mental

health disorders " than ur chances of going through it r unlikely, but if u

c it as a 'tool to cope with what is an envitable part of life and living' then

u r more liekly to incorporate it into ur life with open arms, and maybe use it

as a toothbrush? , and it is such an imp. part of ur daily living, and the great benefits that

come out of it daily e.g. fresh breathe.

>

> > In particular, I've found ACT to be fairly unforgiving of CBT's

> > association with a medical model of care more aligned with physical

> > ailments, which looks at " abnormalities " and tries to heal

them.

>

> Earlier in this thread I said this too, and referenced the 1999 ACT

> book as evidence. But to be fair, that book wasn't picking on CBT

> alone, or even CBT by name. And to me this view of mental illness as

> abnormality goes way, way back in the psychotherapeutic culture.

> Pretty much any traditional talk therapy you can name assumes that

> therapy is something you do to get fixed, after which you no longer

> need it, any more than you would need to wear a splint once a broken

> bone has mended.

>

> I am working my way up to a piece of writing about ACT that may touch

> on this subject. Below is an excerpt from an EXTREMELY rough draft

> that gives the general flavor.

>

> - Randy

>

> (Excerpt)

>

> Most therapies are like dental floss: we use dental floss when we have

> to, at night before we go to bed; but otherwise we would rather not

> waste time talking or thinking about it. Dental floss is mundane,

> utilitarian, something we do only to keep our gums healthy; if we

> could skip it, we would. It plays no part in our romantic view of

> ourselves and our lives. If we were to write a memoir a thousand pages

> long about our life, in all its glory and shame, we would not waste

> even a single paragraph describing our flossing habits.

>

> Talk therapy is like that. Or at least, most talk therapies are.

> Freudian psychoanalysis assumes we are a mass of sick tendencies that

> even in a healthy person are threaten to destroy us: defense

> mechanisms that defend too well; drives for sex and death that must be

> reined in by an ego that is itself prone to becoming monstrous; an

> unconscious that resembles a cave of permanent darkness, brimming with

> bones and bodies and nightmarish memories from infancy. Newer

> therapies like cognitive behavior therapy are much more crisp and

> modern: they assume that our brains are essentially computers, and

> like computers, are prone to bugs that distort proper information

> processing. A new program is installed, fully of rational rather than

> irrational thoughts, and voila - we can get back to the business of

> living.

>

> And in fact that is something nearly all talk therapies have in

> common: regardless of their particular philosophy or method of

> treatment, they assume that once therapy has done its job, it is no

> longer needed. In other words, there is an absolute division between

> " therapy " and " living " such that therapy can make

healthy living

> possible where previously it was not, but is otherwise like dental

> floss.

>

[Guest guest]

Hi , (and anyone following this thread still) -

I'm not arguing against therapy having value, nor that

any particular therapy is per se " bad " therapy. Nor

that therapists view their work as teaching clients

to floss better. (And I have nothing against flossing,

by the way. It's important.)

But based on my experience inside & outside of therapy,

and on listening to the experiences of more people

than I can possibly count, and on the literature of

many different modesl of therapy, I would argue that the

therapeutic circle of influence and light as commonly

conceived, applied, and understood in a wide variety

of settings is really quite narow. And often pushed

aside once it is over - even by people who " move in

and out of therapy. " A willingness to re-enter therapy

does not necessarily mean that therapy is seen as part

of a whole life.

Again, I am really not trying to diss anyone or say

that therapists should stop their good efforts. Quite

the contrary, I would encourage them to continue.

Rather, I am talking about a view of the culture at

large and where people see themselves fitting into it

and where therapy fits into their lives as defined

not only by themselves, but by what therapy says about

itself.

And I think we are fooling ourselves if we think that

therapy as it has commonly been practiced comes anywhere

near to satisfying the human thirst for meaning and

significance outside of " mental illness, " trauma, life

catastrophes such as addiction or divorce, etc. Some may

argue that this is not the role of therapy - which I would

say only proves my point.

Re-read the beginning of the 1999 ACT book and see if it

doesn't gesture towards something similar to what I am

saying. Or read pages 199-200 in " Mindfulness For Two, " under

the heading " Entering a Different Sort of Conversation. "

A different sort of conversation is a conversation of

the type that ought to be useful to just about everyone -

whether or not they are in therapy - and that does not

necessarily take place just *because* someone is in therapy.

- R.