Guest guest Posted October 5, 2011 Report Share Posted October 5, 2011 ,Does it help? How do you feel about your therapist? Do you understand and practice what she teaches you? And how could anyone here know that what your therapist is working on with you is harmful? It seems to me your exploration of yourself is of more consequences than a whimsical discussion around labels. What do you think of the comparison between ACT and CBT? Have you investigated it? D Maybe I've got the wrong end of the stick but as much as I love ACT,there is something that angers me about it... I find it very distressing how the 'creators' of ACT suggest that CBT is an inadequate and even a harmful therapy ( as underlying CBT is the message that one needs to modify their thoughts and beliefs in order to feel better). I find this a terrifying suggestion as CBT is the main treatment offered on the NHS in the UK and so how can one trust in this offerred treatment when ACT advocates are saying it's harmful? This is really upsetting me because I feel trapped, I suffer with intense anxiety and panic and would like to at least have some faith in the CBT that I am being offered. It feels like the ACT advocates are saying that ACT is the only way, when I feel unable to implement ACT myself and there is a lack of ACT therapy offered. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 5, 2011 Report Share Posted October 5, 2011 Darrell, I haven't started my CBT yet but my issue is that before i've even began, I am worrying that in the long run it will not help me because of what ACT says about it, Act says that CBT advocates control etc... And I am suffering and this is made worse by ACT which suggests that ACT should be favoured over CBT. To: ACT_for_the_Public Sent: Wednesday, 5 October 2011, 11:49Subject: Re: ACT's attack on CBT ,Does it help? How do you feel about your therapist? Do you understand and practice what she teaches you? And how could anyone here know that what your therapist is working on with you is harmful? It seems to me your exploration of yourself is of more consequences than a whimsical discussion around labels.What do you think of the comparison between ACT and CBT? Have you investigated it? D Maybe I've got the wrong end of the stick but as much as I love ACT,there is something that angers me about it... I find it very distressing how the 'creators' of ACT suggest that CBT is an inadequate and even a harmful therapy ( as underlying CBT is the message that one needs to modify their thoughts and beliefs in order to feel better). I find this a terrifying suggestion as CBT is the main treatment offered on the NHS in the UK and so how can one trust in this offerred treatment when ACT advocates are saying it's harmful? This is really upsetting me because I feel trapped, I suffer with intense anxiety and panic and would like to at least have some faith in the CBT that I am being offered. It feels like the ACT advocates are saying that ACT is the only way, when I feel unable to implement ACT myself and there is a lack of ACT therapy offered.Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 5, 2011 Report Share Posted October 5, 2011 Thanks for that explanation I've been under the impression that ACT was more emphatic than this, perhaps I need to do a bit more reading of the ACT literature. I always thought that disputing thoughts was " O-U-T out " in the ACT approach. Kate > > > > > > > > > > > > So, who are these ACT 'creators' who have outright rejected CBT as > > > > > > harmful? I think you will be able to find scientists from outside > > > > > > the ACT treatment development community saying we have said this, > > > > > > but if you look at what we have actually said, you will find much > > > > > > more tentative and measured claims. > > > > > > > > > > All true. At the same time, it is only common sense to expect that > > > > > if the basic stance of the ACT/RFT community implies that other > > > > > models of psychotherapy are " less adequate to the human condition, " > > > > > exponents of these other models will pick up on this as a general > > > > > criticism & get a little ticked off. > > > > > > > > > > A good example of this stance on the part of ACT/RFT is the 1999 ACT > > > > > book for professionals. I remember the first time I picked it up (as > > > > > a layperson) and read its opening salvos, I privately went " Whoa! " > > > > > My " Whoa " was composed of excitement, but I can imagine that certain > > > > > other readers might have been being less than pleased. The book did > > > > > not name CBT as such, but it kicked the crap out of the failure of > > > > > syndromal thinking & the inadequacy of current treatments to address > > > > > pervasive human suffering, etc. etc. And it must have been clear to > > > > > most folks as it was to me that CBT, as the much-burnished gold > > > > > standard of contemporary psychotherapy, was thereby having the crap > > > > > kicked out of it as well. > > > > > > > > > > Beyond that, from my perspective as an outsider I have noticed the > > > > > ACT community over the past two or three years doing a certain > > > > > amount of bridge-building and possibly even some slight backpeddling > > > > > to reduce a friction that threatened to be unhealthy from a > > > > > political POV and therefore from a scientific POV. A very healthy & > > > > > smart thing to have done. > > > > > > > > > > I will be very interested to see the 2nd edition of the 1999 ACT > > > > > book to see how the opening salvos cited above have been modified. I > > > > > hope they keep their vigor in one form or another. > > > > > > > > > > - Randy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 6, 2011 Report Share Posted October 6, 2011 Good post , Apparently it is very difficult for psychologists to be critical of the medical model if they want to get somewhere in their career. But Dr Burns, a psychiatrist, CBT practioner, and brain chemistry/ emotions researcher, is an exception. He is an established professor and so he can't be toppled which means he can speak his mind. In his book, Panic Attacks, he goes into quite a lot of detail about the genes / brain chemistry myth and openly states that it is just marketing. So, Burns, psychologist Bentall, psychiatrist Joanna Moncrief, Dorothy Rowe, the ACT crew, and a host of others, are heroes in my oppinion. They certianly filled me with hope. Kv > >> > >> So, who are these ACT 'creators' who have outright rejected CBT as > >> harmful? I think you will be able to find scientists from outside > >> the ACT treatment development community saying we have said this, > >> but if you look at what we have actually said, you will find much > >> more tentative and measured claims. > > > >All true. At the same time, it is only common sense to expect that > >if the basic stance of the ACT/RFT community implies that other > >models of psychotherapy are " less adequate to the human condition, " > >exponents of these other models will pick up on this as a general > >criticism & get a little ticked off. > > > >A good example of this stance on the part of ACT/RFT is the 1999 ACT > >book for professionals. I remember the first time I picked it up (as > >a layperson) and read its opening salvos, I privately went " Whoa! " > >My " Whoa " was composed of excitement, but I can imagine that certain > >other readers might have been being less than pleased. The book did > >not name CBT as such, but it kicked the crap out of the failure of > >syndromal thinking & the inadequacy of current treatments to address > >pervasive human suffering, etc. etc. And it must have been clear to > >most folks as it was to me that CBT, as the much-burnished gold > >standard of contemporary psychotherapy, was thereby having the crap > >kicked out of it as well. > > > >Beyond that, from my perspective as an outsider I have noticed the > >ACT community over the past two or three years doing a certain > >amount of bridge-building and possibly even some slight backpeddling > >to reduce a friction that threatened to be unhealthy from a > >political POV and therefore from a scientific POV. A very healthy & > >smart thing to have done. > > > >I will be very interested to see the 2nd edition of the 1999 ACT > >book to see how the opening salvos cited above have been modified. I > >hope they keep their vigor in one form or another. > > > >- Randy > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.