Re: ACT's attack on CBT

[Guest guest]

ooh wooow:-)

this was intense!:-) i just wanted to share my expereince, mine is based on the

following knowledge:

read 1/2 way through the happiness trap,

1/2way trhough get out of ur mind ...

being in an intensive act therapy program twice as a patient..

recently joined an OCD support group (cbt/erp approach) moderated by dr.

jenkins, dr. clairborne,and i more person i forgot. sorry.

From what i had read in the Happiness (and the lecture i just gave to my

community), it very clearly said, control stratergies r OK IF

1) used in moderation

2)used in situtaions where they really work

3) using them doesn't stop u from actually taking actions in the things u value

in life.

and it gives egs of where control starteriges works just fine.

even says the degree of control over ur internal world depends on HOW INTENSE UR

LEVEL OF DISTRESS IS AND UR ENVORINMENT. and gives eg.s

egs of where control stargeties don't work. coz as ur level of distress

incraeses, ur control over ur internal world decraeses, and i can surely vouch

to that from my own expreince for 8 years. so ACT did not state clearly that

control stratergies r haraam in ACT.

i went through ACT first, then came to LA, didn't find an act therapist, went to

cbt/erp group theray for social anxiety, i have great respect and am extremely

fond of my x -cbt therapist here, and while cbt was not working for ME, i don't

think there is anything wrong with it. To me it felt like a loong route. Imagine

holding ur nose with ur left hand,just like u would normally do, with ur left

elbow bent. instead now imagine liftnig ur left hand, put it behind and around

ur head and bring it to the front of ur face to hold ur nose from the right

side... purpose is the same, to get to ur nose, just route seems longer, also

sorta more painful, sorta more difficult and hence frustrating. i apologize i

could not think of a better example. i am a mum of 2 little boyz hence my

examples r so weird:-)

i also have a very bad habbit of befriendling clients in every therapy i join.

So basically i am always asking them everytime i meet em, not just how r u, how

is therapy working, how was ur day, week, what skill helped u etc. etc., so i

get a lotta inside info. including any frustrations from therapy/therpists etc.

everything! while i have no intention in ever disclosing anything anyone ever

mentions to me, coz i ask coz i am genuinly concerned, plus whatever they tell

me is becoz they trust me enough to confide in me, but the ONLY thing in common

i noticed in most was frustration. and i actually include myself. frustration

only becoz we sorta alreday know in our hearts what " we should be doing " . and

cbt/erp confirms that what we had been doing is infact wrong all along, so does

act.ways to control our distress, so CBT/ERP tells u what u should do...BUT

'how' to do it is where i feel like ACT gives u a lotta detail, walks u through

the whole " how to process " .

from recently joining the ocd support group, the dr.s and

psycologists/therapists there don't say anything diff. from what act says, from

their replies to posts, coz they use a lotta mbct in their approach. But like i

said, u ruminating is a compulsion, u should avoid doing it, if obsessive

thoughts , indulging in them is a compulsion, then avoid doing it, or do

something else without trying to supress, rid, or control those thoughts, or any

discomfort from not doing a compulsion, sit with that discomfort, but HOW TO DO

IT? (in detail), is what i myself would question and all those non-muslim

freinds i have who confided in me, too had exactly the same problem...(btw i

only encouraged them go to the therapist and ask about the concerns they

expressed to me).

ACT shows u in soooo much detail HOW to do it. and this detail i am talking

about is simply from reading 1/2 of 1 book, if i read all, then i will know

even more in debth about the details.

if act says difuse from ur thought, it SHOWS U HOW TO difuse from it.

i am having the though..i am noticing that i am having the though...musical

thought etc. etc....try one, try them all, and u will learn what it means when

they say " don't take them so literally, EVEN if they may be true, bottom line,

who cares, coz r they helpful?

the concept of thinking self vs observing self. it is huge. if act says focus on

the present moment it tells u IN GREAT DETAIL HOW TO focus on the here and now.

the self as content vs self as context.

The main thing act shows u how to show kindnesss and self compassion towards ur

pain, or when u get off track. And how everytime u fall, u can keep coming

back. so the hope factor seems more (to me).

y would u not ruminate? y would u not indulge in some compulsion? if only becoz

ur not supposed to, then eventually u might give up saying, i know what im not

supposed to do, and what is the right thing to do, but i just can't get myself

to do it anymore. i really can't! as one of my non muslim friend from another

therapy said. well when do u do things when u really can't get urself to doing

it?, when there is THAT value attached to it! that's what gives u that x-tra

push and that willingness to bear the anxiety or to 'sit with the discomfort'

(cbt lingo). value- driven actions is explained in great detail in act

and guess what, act says ur effort for simply walking in that valued direction

is ur victory. so theres hope again. rewwards and compassion for trying. an

approach with kindness and self compassion gives me hope. makes me WANNA still

live WITH pain being present in my life.

I joined the ocd group to c how cbt/erp works for their clients, and i think

that group is awesome. just as awesome as act here, and i think those therapists

r just as amazing in their replies. i wrote there saying though i practise 3rd

wave therapy (act) and these r the psychologists who inspire me......., i am not

in their group to bash anyone, negate their approach, or preach what i know, i

am only there to share my coping skills (which is ACt)and learn from them as

well and c why and how or what parts of act would not work for ocd.

I wrote a bit about values there. someone came back and said sometimes values is

not easy for ocd sufferes to grasp. eapeically those who have severe compulsions

and sevre obession. so i agreed, maybe talking about values 'first' is not sucha

good idea.

I wrote a bit about urge surfing once, got feed back, 2 positive, 1 neg. then i

thought next time i wanna write from where perhaps ocd or any ohter diorder

first orginates - from that first 1 thought. how about if we catch that 1st

thought in flight..then c how to react to it from there... so i am planning to

write there soon.

(if cbt/erp infcat shows in detail the HOW TO's, plz lemme know, coz i don't

have enough knowledge and would genuinly like to know. )

i wrote more here, but just deleted 3 paras right now as once again i am writing

a thesis...sorry!

wasalaam:-)

[Guest guest]

Lou said: 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,

Goes to show how different people perceive things quite differently. That statement sounds quite the opposite of ego-based to me. Sounds like he's saying these different approaches are all in the same boat - sisters - same family!

To: "ACT for the Public" <ACT_for_the_Public >Sent: Thursday, October 6, 2011 3:30:39 AMSubject: 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]

I thought that too, Helena! Funny how we read things differently.But I have also picked up on ACT's displeasure with CBT approaches elsewhere, so I think the general point is valid. 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. ACT says there is no abnormality to be found in the mind of the mentally ill (well, mostly) and we shouldn't say there is. Indeed, giving the impression to people that their mind is broken and can be fixed is actually harmful. But the disagreement with CBT is largely in the back-story, rather than in the treatment,

perhaps. xTo: ACT for the Public <ACT_for_the_Public >Sent: Thursday, 6 October 2011, 14:50Subject: Re: Re: ACT's attack on CBT

Lou said: 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,

Goes to show how different people perceive things quite differently. That statement sounds quite the opposite of ego-based to me. Sounds like he's saying these different approaches are all in the same boat - sisters - same family!

To: "ACT for the Public" <ACT_for_the_Public >Sent: Thursday, October 6, 2011 3:30:39 AMSubject: 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]

> 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.