For Lou / was Re: Re: ACT's attack on CBT

[Guest guest]

I'm so sorry, Lou. I didn't see the postscript at the bottom of your email when I first read your post, and when I did, I wasn't sure if it was you or your friend who found the person; either way, it is a tragic loss of a life and of a friend and a horrific way to discover it. Give yourself time to mourn and heal, and don't forget to make space for all the lovely things in life while you do that, as much as you can.

My best,

Helena

To: "ACT for the Public" <ACT_for_the_Public >Sent: Friday, October 7, 2011 3:39:39 AMSubject: Re: Re: ACT's attack on CBT

Thank you for your acknowledgement.

True....I have found it a challenge to stop the incessant crying for my friend (I spent today in bed....avoiding...missed an appointment...damn it). It makes it hard to relate to the world that doesn't know anything...('cause I wont tell, lest they hurt me). I'm happy that at least one person is brave enough in this world to acknowledge the suffering of my friend and me. Thanks for the compassion. It does make a difference.

Lou

P.S. I'm over reacting again, my mate found his mate dead! Now I fear my mate will kill himself....stupid me.....

To: ACT_for_the_Public Sent: Friday, 7 October 2011 8:21 AMSubject: RE: Re: ACT's attack on CBT

Lou,

I am so very sorry to hear about your friend. And sad for you that you found him...I can’t imagine how painful that was, and is. So many do not make it through addiction alive. My sister just barely did (after liver and kidney failure, then 7 months in the hospital, she received a liver transplant. 16 years later, she is still here, but it could have so easily gone the other way.)

My heart goes out to you as you mourn your dear friend.

From: ACT_for_the_Public [mailto: ACT_for_the_Public ] On Behalf Of Lou LouSent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 3:31 AMTo: ACT_for_the_Public Subject: Re: Re: ACT's attack on CBT

Hi group,

I'd like to buy into this thread (just briefly although I haven’t read it all yet so forgive me if I repeat).

I think what is saying is echoed in relation to other therapies as well. As has been said, it is likely the result of the perception of individuals or their opinions. I have experienced the same as in relation to DBT.

Since I have had the utter privilege to be taught them both, I understand the value each has as a stand-alone therapy. However, they complement each other to the greatest extent.

asked “Who said that?â€, referring to ACT and CBT……here’s an example in relation to DBT……

In one of Steve’s blog posts he referred to DBT as a “sister approachâ€, (quote: “... there are thousands of ACT clinicians around the world, and many more in sister approaches such a Mindfulness Based Cognitive Therapy or Dialectical Behavior Therapyâ€).

For me, (an individual perception) that statement is full of ego (not a judgement, an observation, (I love your work mate)), I have been wrong many times and I accept that. I think also it is such a challenge to write when readers pick on every word (...get the big picture, right!). I feel that Marsha worked just as vigilantly (with her specialisation) as has Steve et. al. And if I were Marsha...well I’m not sure how I would receive that...given my lifes work...(well practiced in many agencies and in mental health education in Australia ...even in Cert. IV).

So...I hear what you are saying and my advice is to lap it up with openness and curiosity and see what each therapy, both ACT ‘and’ CBT has to offer you in practice when you have more information.

Best wishes,

Lou

P.S. Truly...this pales in comparison when you receive an email from a VALUED friend saying, “...I'm drinking today as I did the last 3 days. I found...[my friend]...face down and thought he was passed out, but when I rolled him over I saw that he was dead. His face was black and purple and I will miss my best buddy....â€. Hurts right! Ohhhh, my lovely friend! ACT, CBT, DBT...I wish there was something I could offer him.

To: ACT_for_the_Public < ACT_for_the_Public >Sent: Thursday, 6 October 2011 1:10 AMSubject: Re: Re: ACT's attack on CBT

CBT is a large tradition and ACT is part of it.The main CBT society in the UK is the British Association of Behavioural and Cognitive Therapies (BABCP).The ACT special interest group in the BABCP has 1500 people in it.The science battles are within the tradition. (By the way, as a result of those battles, traditional CBT is moving very rapidly in an ACT directionso if you get "CBT" now it may not be the same CBT you wouldhave gotten 10 years ago.)I want to come back to 's core concern tho."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."I'd bet this is not a new thought if you make it more general. Something like"In order for me to improve I have to firstbelieve that someone knows how to remove my panic."My question is this.Would it be possible to take positive steps even withoutthat worrisome thought changing? In the past have you struggledto believe as a precondition to change (believe in therapists; believe in advice you were being given)?and has that held you back? Have you found that sometimes you do believeyou've found the answer and then your hopes were dashed?I suffered from panic disorder and I know what it is like from the inside out.But look to see if your mind is as smart as it says it is.Does your experience tell you that the "solutions" and "conditions for improvement" it lays outare reliable guides that consistently lead you forward?If not, waiting to it to be soothed and reassured may actually slowdown progress. It might be time to learn how to move forwardeven when Mr. Mind says it is not possible and how to be kind to yourselfeven when anxiety is peaking.That is a chunk of what ACT is up to.- 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-mindHuffington 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/joinorhttp://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

In ACT for the Public, wrote:> > 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 thatif the basic stance of the ACT/RFT community implies that othermodels of psychotherapy are "less adequate to the human condition,"exponents of these other models will pick up on this as a generalcriticism & get a little ticked off.A good example of this stance on the part of ACT/RFT is the 1999 ACTbook for professionals. I remember the first time I picked it up (asa layperson) and read its opening salvos, I privately went "Whoa!"My "Whoa" was composed of excitement, but I can imagine that certainother readers might have been being less than pleased. The book didnot name CBT as such, but it kicked the crap out of the failure ofsyndromal thinking & the inadequacy of current treatments to addresspervasive human suffering, etc. etc. And it must have been clear tomost folks as it was to me that CBT, as the much-burnished goldstandard of contemporary psychotherapy, was thereby having the crapkicked out of it as well.Beyond that, from my perspective as an outsider I have noticed theACT community over the past two or three years doing a certainamount of bridge-building and possibly even some slight backpeddlingto reduce a friction that threatened to be unhealthy from apolitical 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 ACTbook to see how the opening salvos cited above have been modified. Ihope they keep their vigor in one form or another.- Randy

[Guest guest]

Lou, I totally understand - no apology needed! I hope you have fun at your blackjack party and it is good to see that you are able to keep your commitments in spite of the grief in your heart. Good going, girl!Helena

To: "ACT for the Public" <ACT_for_the_Public >Sent: Friday, October 7, 2011 7:09:59 PMSubject: For Lou / was Re: Re: ACT's attack on CBT

Helena and ,I appreciate your responses, thank you.I feel like I need to say sorry for everything lately. My mind seems to have me seeking evidence of kindness and compassion. Ye ol' treadmill. I don't really know what I want from you guys and know even less of what I have to offer. I know this list is a rollercoaster for me and an ideal place to practice, mess up and come back, to learn, laugh sometimes and cry at others.Committed action has been a saviour to me on more than one occasion. To carry on regardless. Not always successful but over time I have moved forward. ACT has taken me a long way. About a month ago I made a commitment to work tonight so I'll need to pull out my toolkit and prepare. I have to go and deal blackjack at someones party so it is a part of my job to entertain and the boss has another gig to do so she asked if I would run my gig solo. If I am to continue moving forward I must meet my commitments. She has so much faith in me and I have an opportunity to rise to the occasion.Thanks again for your kind sentiments. I'm happy to be out of bed today and so far, dry eyed.With heart,Lou > > > > 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 2 nd 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 > Â > Â >

[Guest guest]

I like this part: " To carry on regardless. Not always successful but over time I have moved forward. " A two-sentence summary of life....D

 

Helena and ,

I appreciate your responses, thank you.

I feel like I need to say sorry for everything lately. My mind seems to have me seeking evidence of kindness and compassion. Ye ol' treadmill. I don't really know what I want from you guys and know even less of what I have to offer. I know this list is a rollercoaster for me and an ideal place to practice, mess up and come back, to learn, laugh sometimes and cry at others.

Committed action has been a saviour to me on more than one occasion. To carry on regardless. Not always successful but over time I have moved forward. ACT has taken me a long way. About a month ago I made a commitment to work tonight so I'll need to pull out my toolkit and prepare. I have to go and deal blackjack at someones party so it is a part of my job to entertain and the boss has another gig to do so she asked if I would run my gig solo.

If I am to continue moving forward I must meet my commitments. She has so much faith in me and I have an opportunity to rise to the occasion.

Thanks again for your kind sentiments. I'm happy to be out of bed today and so far, dry eyed.

With heart,

Lou

> >

> > 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 2 nd 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

>  

>  

>