Re: The Compassionate Mind by Gilbert

[Guest guest]

So far as Gilbert and his work, I will let others better informed speak

about this..but compassion for self and others is probably up there with

acceptance as one of those big meta-values found within ACT. So while I have

some discomfort with the term " ACT-consistent " for a variety of reasons, my

short answer about that is yes, absolutely.

The central purpose of ACT contextual approach (which is largely drawn from the

traditional CBT model) is to gain more psychological flexibility so if we think

in these broader terms vs. wondering if a piece of material is ACT-consistent or

not, if it's going to help us or not, I think it's probably more useful to check

in to your experience and see if the reading resonates for you in terms of this

larger aim. Assuming you value emotional and psychological flexibility, that is.

The " better safe than sorry " automatic go to stance is a fascinating one to me

as well and I've seen it manifest in unhealthy rigid ways in many contexts.

I've experienced this kind of fear nurtured in some communities to the point of

extreme where some look at outside literature as threatening and may overtly

discourage others for exploring all the wonderful varieties of experience,

literature, help available (stick to this, this book is all you need, all your

answers are here).

Thanks for sharing your creative journey with us and I hope you will keep us

posted on how this and other readings are helping! Isn't it just a wondrous

process?

Best,

Terry

>

>

> I'm reading The Compassionate Mind by Gilbert and am quite drawn to his

ideas about generating alternative ways of thinking about our thoughts and

emotions. He advocates going from " old brain/mind " passions and emotions to " new

brain/mind " ways of thinking.

> Here is an excerpt that summarizes his approach:

> Key to the CBT approach is to look at our thoughts and emotions as theories,

or as one construction, experience or viewpoint created by the brain from among

many possibilities. We've seen that the threat/self-protection system operates

on a `better safe than sorry' principle and therefore it will pull us towards

threat-focused thinking. The idea is to learn to generate alternatives because

we understand that these will balance our minds and help us to flourish, grow,

prosper and develop wisdom. We don't want to be caught up in `old brain/mind'

passions and emotions. We want to be able to choose how and which emotions

texture our lives. So we generate alternatives by asking our `new brains/minds'

to do some work by considering some questions.

> Gilbert, (2009-06-01). The Compassionate Mind (p. 336). Constable. Kindle

Edition.

> My question is: Is the book, in general, and the above approach

ACT-consistent. His mention of CBT is a red-flag for me.

> BTW, he does mention ' ACT work in the section of the book that

describes recent developments in psychology.

> Thanks,Bill

>

[Guest guest]

Awesome response, Terry. Took the words right on out of my mouth, so this is all I have left to add! :)D

So far as Gilbert and his work, I will let others better informed speak about this..but compassion for self and others is probably up there with acceptance as one of those big meta-values found within ACT. So while I have some discomfort with the term "ACT-consistent" for a variety of reasons, my short answer about that is yes, absolutely.

The central purpose of ACT contextual approach (which is largely drawn from the traditional CBT model) is to gain more psychological flexibility so if we think in these broader terms vs. wondering if a piece of material is ACT-consistent or not, if it's going to help us or not, I think it's probably more useful to check in to your experience and see if the reading resonates for you in terms of this larger aim. Assuming you value emotional and psychological flexibility, that is.

The "better safe than sorry" automatic go to stance is a fascinating one to me as well and I've seen it manifest in unhealthy rigid ways in many contexts. I've experienced this kind of fear nurtured in some communities to the point of extreme where some look at outside literature as threatening and may overtly discourage others for exploring all the wonderful varieties of experience, literature, help available (stick to this, this book is all you need, all your answers are here).

Thanks for sharing your creative journey with us and I hope you will keep us posted on how this and other readings are helping! Isn't it just a wondrous process?

Best,

Terry

>

>

> I'm reading The Compassionate Mind by Gilbert and am quite drawn to his ideas about generating alternative ways of thinking about our thoughts and emotions. He advocates going from "old brain/mind" passions and emotions to "new brain/mind" ways of thinking.

> Here is an excerpt that summarizes his approach:

> Key to the CBT approach is to look at our thoughts and emotions as theories, or as one construction, experience or viewpoint created by the brain from among many possibilities. We've seen that the threat/self-protection system operates on a `better safe than sorry' principle and therefore it will pull us towards threat-focused thinking. The idea is to learn to generate alternatives because we understand that these will balance our minds and help us to flourish, grow, prosper and develop wisdom. We don't want to be caught up in `old brain/mind' passions and emotions. We want to be able to choose how and which emotions texture our lives. So we generate alternatives by asking our `new brains/minds' to do some work by considering some questions.

> Gilbert, (2009-06-01). The Compassionate Mind (p. 336). Constable. Kindle Edition.

> My question is: Is the book, in general, and the above approach ACT-consistent. His mention of CBT is a red-flag for me.

> BTW, he does mention ' ACT work in the section of the book that describes recent developments in psychology.

> Thanks,Bill

>

[Guest guest]

Thanks Terry and Darrell - The reason for my question is that ACT books seem to warn of the short-term benefits that come from CBT techniques that are often followed with a backfire. I'm getting a real buzz from the ideas of simply replacing old constructs with new ones, especially in the areas where my mind likes to dream up the worst case scenario, usually with just enough factual basis to make it seem necessary to explore it.My short term experience/workability view is positive, but so are many forms of experiential avoidance.BillTo: ACT_for_the_Public From: DarrellGKing@...Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 11:25:55 -0500Subject: Re: Re: The Compassionate Mind by Gilbert

Awesome response, Terry. Took the words right on out of my mouth, so this is all I have left to add! :)D

So far as Gilbert and his work, I will let others better informed speak about this..but compassion for self and others is probably up there with acceptance as one of those big meta-values found within ACT. So while I have some discomfort with the term "ACT-consistent" for a variety of reasons, my short answer about that is yes, absolutely.

The central purpose of ACT contextual approach (which is largely drawn from the traditional CBT model) is to gain more psychological flexibility so if we think in these broader terms vs. wondering if a piece of material is ACT-consistent or not, if it's going to help us or not, I think it's probably more useful to check in to your experience and see if the reading resonates for you in terms of this larger aim. Assuming you value emotional and psychological flexibility, that is.

The "better safe than sorry" automatic go to stance is a fascinating one to me as well and I've seen it manifest in unhealthy rigid ways in many contexts. I've experienced this kind of fear nurtured in some communities to the point of extreme where some look at outside literature as threatening and may overtly discourage others for exploring all the wonderful varieties of experience, literature, help available (stick to this, this book is all you need, all your answers are here).

Thanks for sharing your creative journey with us and I hope you will keep us posted on how this and other readings are helping! Isn't it just a wondrous process?

Best,

Terry

>

>

> I'm reading The Compassionate Mind by Gilbert and am quite drawn to his ideas about generating alternative ways of thinking about our thoughts and emotions. He advocates going from "old brain/mind" passions and emotions to "new brain/mind" ways of thinking.

> Here is an excerpt that summarizes his approach:

> Key to the CBT approach is to look at our thoughts and emotions as theories, or as one construction, experience or viewpoint created by the brain from among many possibilities. We've seen that the threat/self-protection system operates on a `better safe than sorry' principle and therefore it will pull us towards threat-focused thinking. The idea is to learn to generate alternatives because we understand that these will balance our minds and help us to flourish, grow, prosper and develop wisdom. We don't want to be caught up in `old brain/mind' passions and emotions. We want to be able to choose how and which emotions texture our lives. So we generate alternatives by asking our `new brains/minds' to do some work by considering some questions.

> Gilbert, (2009-06-01). The Compassionate Mind (p. 336). Constable. Kindle Edition.

> My question is: Is the book, in general, and the above approach ACT-consistent. His mention of CBT is a red-flag for me.

> BTW, he does mention ' ACT work in the section of the book that describes recent developments in psychology.

> Thanks,Bill

>

[Guest guest]

ACT is worried about some parts of traditional CBT, butCBT is a big tent (ACT is part of CBT) andCompassionate Mind work is a fellow traveler w/ ACT.That section you quoted is entirely ACT consistent:

defusion and perspective taking helps us think in a variety of waysso rigidity can be undermined will be coming to our next ACT conference; and he works alot with a very solid ACT guy in New York (Dennis Tirch).

I don't think you will find any major inconsistencies between ACT and CMT work.- S C. Foundation ProfessorDepartment of Psychology /298

University 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: 

http://contextualpsychology.org/steve_hayesor 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 is 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, join the ACT list: http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy/join

or the RFT list:http://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 that conversation go to: http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/ACT_for_the_Public/join

 

Thanks Terry and Darrell - The reason for my question is that ACT books seem to warn of the short-term benefits that come from CBT techniques that are often followed with a backfire. I'm getting a real buzz from the ideas of simply replacing old constructs with new ones, especially   in the areas where my mind likes to dream up the worst case scenario, usually with just enough factual basis to make it seem necessary to explore it.

My short term experience/workability view is positive, but so are many forms of experiential avoidance.BillTo: ACT_for_the_Public

From: DarrellGKing@...Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 11:25:55 -0500Subject: Re: Re: The Compassionate Mind by Gilbert

 

Awesome response, Terry. Took the words right on out of my mouth, so this is all I have left to add!  :)D

 

So far as Gilbert and his work, I will let others better informed speak about this..but compassion for self and others is probably up there with acceptance as one of those big meta-values found within ACT. So while I have some discomfort with the term " ACT-consistent " for a variety of reasons, my short answer about that is yes, absolutely.

The central purpose of ACT contextual approach (which is largely drawn from the traditional CBT model) is to gain more psychological flexibility so if we think in these broader terms vs. wondering if a piece of material is ACT-consistent or not, if it's going to help us or not, I think it's probably more useful to check in to your experience and see if the reading resonates for you in terms of this larger aim. Assuming you value emotional and psychological flexibility, that is.

The " better safe than sorry " automatic go to stance is a fascinating one to me as well and I've seen it manifest in unhealthy rigid ways in many contexts. I've experienced this kind of fear nurtured in some communities to the point of extreme where some look at outside literature as threatening and may overtly discourage others for exploring all the wonderful varieties of experience, literature, help available (stick to this, this book is all you need, all your answers are here).

Thanks for sharing your creative journey with us and I hope you will keep us posted on how this and other readings are helping! Isn't it just a wondrous process?

Best,

Terry

>

>

> I'm reading The Compassionate Mind by Gilbert and am quite drawn to his ideas about generating alternative ways of thinking about our thoughts and emotions. He advocates going from " old brain/mind " passions and emotions to " new brain/mind " ways of thinking.

> Here is an excerpt that summarizes his approach:

> Key to the CBT approach is to look at our thoughts and emotions as theories, or as one construction, experience or viewpoint created by the brain from among many possibilities. We've seen that the threat/self-protection system operates on a `better safe than sorry' principle and therefore it will pull us towards threat-focused thinking. The idea is to learn to generate alternatives because we understand that these will balance our minds and help us to flourish, grow, prosper and develop wisdom. We don't want to be caught up in `old brain/mind' passions and emotions. We want to be able to choose how and which emotions texture our lives. So we generate alternatives by asking our `new brains/minds' to do some work by considering some questions.

> Gilbert, (2009-06-01). The Compassionate Mind (p. 336). Constable. Kindle Edition.

> My question is: Is the book, in general, and the above approach ACT-consistent. His mention of CBT is a red-flag for me.

> BTW, he does mention ' ACT work in the section of the book that describes recent developments in psychology.

> Thanks,Bill

>

[Guest guest]

OK, I'm going for a compassionate mind. Thanks as always. BillTo: ACT_for_the_Public From: stevenchayes@...Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 09:04:53 -0800Subject: Re: Re: The Compassionate Mind by Gilbert

ACT is worried about some parts of traditional CBT, butCBT is a big tent (ACT is part of CBT) andCompassionate Mind work is a fellow traveler w/ ACT.That section you quoted is entirely ACT consistent:

defusion and perspective taking helps us think in a variety of waysso rigidity can be undermined will be coming to our next ACT conference; and he works alot with a very solid ACT guy in New York (Dennis Tirch).

I don't think you will find any major inconsistencies between ACT and CMT work.- S C. Foundation ProfessorDepartment of Psychology /298

University 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:

http://contextualpsychology.org/steve_hayesor 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 is 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, join the ACT list: http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy/join

or the RFT list:http://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 that conversation go to: http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/ACT_for_the_Public/join

Thanks Terry and Darrell - The reason for my question is that ACT books seem to warn of the short-term benefits that come from CBT techniques that are often followed with a backfire. I'm getting a real buzz from the ideas of simply replacing old constructs with new ones, especially in the areas where my mind likes to dream up the worst case scenario, usually with just enough factual basis to make it seem necessary to explore it.

My short term experience/workability view is positive, but so are many forms of experiential avoidance.BillTo: ACT_for_the_Public

From: DarrellGKing@...Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 11:25:55 -0500Subject: Re: Re: The Compassionate Mind by Gilbert

Awesome response, Terry. Took the words right on out of my mouth, so this is all I have left to add! :)D

So far as Gilbert and his work, I will let others better informed speak about this..but compassion for self and others is probably up there with acceptance as one of those big meta-values found within ACT. So while I have some discomfort with the term "ACT-consistent" for a variety of reasons, my short answer about that is yes, absolutely.

The central purpose of ACT contextual approach (which is largely drawn from the traditional CBT model) is to gain more psychological flexibility so if we think in these broader terms vs. wondering if a piece of material is ACT-consistent or not, if it's going to help us or not, I think it's probably more useful to check in to your experience and see if the reading resonates for you in terms of this larger aim. Assuming you value emotional and psychological flexibility, that is.

The "better safe than sorry" automatic go to stance is a fascinating one to me as well and I've seen it manifest in unhealthy rigid ways in many contexts. I've experienced this kind of fear nurtured in some communities to the point of extreme where some look at outside literature as threatening and may overtly discourage others for exploring all the wonderful varieties of experience, literature, help available (stick to this, this book is all you need, all your answers are here).

Thanks for sharing your creative journey with us and I hope you will keep us posted on how this and other readings are helping! Isn't it just a wondrous process?

Best,

Terry

>

>

> I'm reading The Compassionate Mind by Gilbert and am quite drawn to his ideas about generating alternative ways of thinking about our thoughts and emotions. He advocates going from "old brain/mind" passions and emotions to "new brain/mind" ways of thinking.

> Here is an excerpt that summarizes his approach:

> Key to the CBT approach is to look at our thoughts and emotions as theories, or as one construction, experience or viewpoint created by the brain from among many possibilities. We've seen that the threat/self-protection system operates on a `better safe than sorry' principle and therefore it will pull us towards threat-focused thinking. The idea is to learn to generate alternatives because we understand that these will balance our minds and help us to flourish, grow, prosper and develop wisdom. We don't want to be caught up in `old brain/mind' passions and emotions. We want to be able to choose how and which emotions texture our lives. So we generate alternatives by asking our `new brains/minds' to do some work by considering some questions.

> Gilbert, (2009-06-01). The Compassionate Mind (p. 336). Constable. Kindle Edition.

> My question is: Is the book, in general, and the above approach ACT-consistent. His mention of CBT is a red-flag for me.

> BTW, he does mention ' ACT work in the section of the book that describes recent developments in psychology.

> Thanks,Bill

>

[Guest guest]

It's a very good question and one that I keep active, this looking to see if

material is more of the worrisome sort of traditional CBT. There is much out

there to dive into, but who wants to waste valuable time? (Or worse, have

boomeranging). Learning more about what some of the larger ACT concerns are,

studies and experiences and so forth, can be helpful in this regard. My sniffer

is maybe a bit sensitive for this stuff having chased my tail for years. Anyway,

glad you asked. Sounds like a great read to put on my list!

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > I'm reading The Compassionate Mind by Gilbert and am quite drawn to his

ideas about generating alternative ways of thinking about our thoughts and

emotions. He advocates going from " old brain/mind " passions and emotions to " new

brain/mind " ways of thinking.

>

>

> > Here is an excerpt that summarizes his approach:

>

> > Key to the CBT approach is to look at our thoughts and emotions as theories,

or as one construction, experience or viewpoint created by the brain from among

many possibilities. We've seen that the threat/self-protection system operates

on a `better safe than sorry' principle and therefore it will pull us towards

threat-focused thinking. The idea is to learn to generate alternatives because

we understand that these will balance our minds and help us to flourish, grow,

prosper and develop wisdom. We don't want to be caught up in `old brain/mind'

passions and emotions. We want to be able to choose how and which emotions

texture our lives. So we generate alternatives by asking our `new brains/minds'

to do some work by considering some questions.

>

>

> > Gilbert, (2009-06-01). The Compassionate Mind (p. 336). Constable.

Kindle Edition.

>

> > My question is: Is the book, in general, and the above approach

ACT-consistent. His mention of CBT is a red-flag for me.

>

> > BTW, he does mention ' ACT work in the section of the book that

describes recent developments in psychology.

>

> > Thanks,Bill

>

> >

>