Has anyone tried Cognitive Behavioral Therapy(tm)?
Is it anything other than 'just try don't to think thoughts you don't like okay m8?'?
>>24318149
No but I did dialectal behavioral therapy for a while and i actually think it helped. at first it kinda seems like bullshit but the more you open up to it it helps out
fuck off..we know what life is and what it isnt. trying to persuade us so you can delude yourself..get rekt
>>24318181
Also, if OP's picture is instrumental in it, then it appears that it involves affirmation, 'I am a...'. That doesn't strike me as intellectually sane at all; the broad current I want to follow is to find the truest words with which to describe me, and not apply words to myself that *don't* fit and hope this entails some change; and *definitely* not implying to myself that it is fine to abuse language for the sake of something as lowly as becoming happier.
been referred for it but have yet to go
heard theyre quick to give you medication if it doesnt pan out well
>>24318258
From what I know, it has its roots on Stoicism.
I seriously doubt the focus will be just becoming happy.
>>24318232
Don't get triggered.
>>24318230
>dialectal behavioral therapy
What is that like?
You should put the supportive in quotes too
>>24318372
>it has its roots on Stoicism
Ah, >act if possible, accept if impossible?
The problem with this, which its creators, promoters, and practitioners are fully aware of (they've invented it, after all), is that, while superficially flawless, this dichotomy *gets* people to think in terms of judging feasibility as opposed to considering the *ways* in which to solve your problems. In other words, in spite of all of therapists' assertions that their coincidence is possible, therapy causes a slow and insidious (naturally -- it is harmful, after all) shift from 'there is a problem! how to solve it? solution #1 won't work... how about solution #2? let's consider subfactor #1 and #2...' to 'there is a problem! do I like it? what is my relation to it? do I want to accept the challenge? is it needed at all? who said I need to do anything to begin with, anyway?'. In other words, a person is insidiously put in a faux contemplative mindset in which hardly anything actually gets done. Sure, you're happier in it. But eventually your coping skills suffer, because they are honed by actually addressing your problems (occupational, relational, educational). Not by pleasantly, comfortably mulling over whether you care about them overly or not.
>>24318541
This harmful effect is only magnified by 'mindfulness' co-recommended with it.
All this isn't very interesting; marginally more interesting are the reasons therapists have constructed this scam.
>>24318541
>from 'there is a problem! how to solve it? solution #1 won't work... how about solution #2? let's consider subfactor #1 and #2...' to 'there is a problem! do I like it? what is my relation to it? do I want to accept the challenge? is it needed at all? who said I need to do anything to begin with, anyway?'
Observe the focus on the objective and the external in the first mindset opposed to the therapy-induced focus on the subjective and internal.
>>24318670
Also be aware of the sophistry whereby therapists will refer to therapy as 'getting you to focus on the objective and the external'. This is fallacious; you get people to focus on their problems by discussing *those very problems*, and nothing else. Otherwise you are like a person who runs from person to person crying that they should read books, disallowing them to read any.
>>24318541
I'd been thinking about pursuing CBT and mindfulness, and I didn't like the lack of solid criticism out there. Thank you for this perspective.
I feel like it likely has uses, but I'd been very suspicious of how it gets recommended for anything and everything.
>>24318785
The first thing to do with respect to psychology is to dismiss free will. The harmful consequences of 'mindfulness' and therapeutic self-questioning of motivations are always going to be waved away as long as you believe that you 'can' just will those consequences away, preferably with even more 'mindfulness'. 'Mindfulness' is designed to habituate your brain to have self-referential thoughts, whose frequency will effectively disallow you to experience unpleasant self-critical thoughts. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The way it works is, you are made to associate daily behaviour (walking, consuming culture) with sensations (breath, senses; the exercises involve e.g. focusing on the texture of material you touch). This way, when you, for instance, go outside, your attention will be captured and chained to the sights and smells, or when, when you talk with someone, by their 'body language' and intonation -- as opposed to factual concerns such as, for instance, finding logical inconsistencies in their words. There in no sense exists any 'self-control' in which this effect can be counteracted, no way (again, in spite of proponents' claims) to 'remind oneself to think about important things such as school or job or logical structure of the argument of the person I'm talking to' as soon as it is required. Functioning of a human brain, what they think about, is physically determined by freedom and range of its cortical associations, which 'mindfulness' diminishes.
This is an EXTREMELY condensed description; it is a very big subject.
>>24319053
In fact, I am so removed from the popular acceptation of therapy and 'mindfulness' and 'meditation' that I think the chasm is casually unbridgeable, and if someone recommended e.g. 'mindfulness' to me, I wouldn't even bother to try to explain. The number of issues to first clarify is too big.
>>24319095
Can you list some, please?
I'm not a /r9k/ regular.
>>24319135
>ambiguity of definition of (self-)awareness which 'M&M's' ('mindfulness' and 'meditation') purportedly expand: observation of thoughts and feelings vs of environment; confusion of external observations with internal assumptions, 'I realized people don't like it when I'm mad'; exemplification ('does mindfulness get you to notice that a person is walking behind you whom you should pass?'), operationalization; difference between controlled and spontaneous conditions of measurement of consequences; free will and purported capacity to notice impairments which is considered separately from the brain, immaterialism; relationship between 'M&M's' and will to address impairments; unknowing shift of definition of impairment; the 'I could, I just don't want to' argument; etc.
I'm almost sure he's the antibuddha, he speaks too much and yet he's interesting to read.
>>24319348
Ch-cheers.
I think I'm losing my grasp on the subject anyway. I'm not a writer, I'm a replier. I can't remember all my arguments on my own; I can only re-remember then when someone argues something specific in a thread. (This is the way the brain works.)
Sage.
>>24319348
Also I'd be less verbose if I typed more slowly. But my hands are faster than my brain (~100 WPM vs, well, definitely less), and massage themselves with typing while the latter still remembers things to say. Sage.
>>24319343
Thanks, mane.
>>24319927
No problem, and sorry for ionism (overuse of words ending with -ion).
>>24318149
I perform CBT on my patients with jaw problems (in the dental setting). It works quite well and the whole premise is basically just reassurance that the problem will resolve.
>>24320008
>the whole premise is basically just reassurance that the problem will resolve
So basically implying to them that it's fine to take things (no less than those things' eventual positive resolution, too) on faith?
And by extension, that it's fine to imply to other people that they should consider something acceptable?
Sounds a shitty thing to do, especially from a medical professional.
>>24320163
In fact, I think I dislike in therapy the whole implied notion that manipulation is conditionally okay. It's one thing to unconsciously manipulate somebody by telling them, say, 'it's going to be fine', and then realizing, when someone points it out, that one shouldn't have abused language and reason so, because strictly speaking one cannot tell for sure if it's going to be fine or not. And then apologizing and never doing it. What's worse is insisting that such manipulation is acceptable because 'some situations call for manipulation that's not strictly true because everything depends on the situational context'. It's the same way therapists will, for instance, justify 'not telling the whole truth from the start to the client, instead dosing it', or insist that 'sometimes, a strict scheme of progression of therapy must be followed', thus implying that roleplaying the patient-therapist relationship is desirable. And again, every time you imply something, you implicitly teach that implication is fine.
Therapists are just power-trippers.
>>24320401
Not to mention the disingenuousness when you point this out to them and they agree merely so to uphold their image as objective, self-critical people, even though it is too late and that image has been proven false already.
