I dont recall any notion of personal truths when i received CBT last decade.
There is a related aspect though, called ‘consider alternative interpretations’ roughly translated from Norwegian which i always found to cohere well with liberalism: An idea that your interlocutors intentions do matter, not our potential misreading of what they said—which has zero veridical purport.
Yes, CBT doesn't talk of 'personal truths' but of perceptions (thoughts/feelings) - under the explicit understanding that these are often fleeting, partly or wholly wrong, in mutual conflict, even in our own head (feeling/thought, good mood/bad mood), and need to be contexualised (I hate you sometimes.... and love you deeply)
Ah, so you did! Utter was not paying full attention. I'm just so used to strawman critiques of CBT - 'CBT says (dumb thing) so it's dumb'. To quote Lennon, 'I should have known better with a girl like you'.
Perhaps the therapist would be more correct if he refereed to it as a ‘personal conviction’ instead of truth, as we implicitly understand that holding conviction doesn’t necessary entail any justified warrant-unlike truth.
It is rather frightening to see even clinical psychology succumb to the vocabulary of post-modernism.
Could be - though it's not clear that this came from clinical psychology (as opposed to social worker/psychotherapy/counselling/nurse practitioner etc). No-one, nothing is perfect, but I think psychologists are doing a reasonable job resisiting the bull (Stephen Pinker, Pail Bloom, Greg Lukianoff, Jonathan Haidt ...)
Unfortunately, there appears to be quite the methodological chasm between clinical psychology and the more scientific paradigms such as cognitive science and neuroscience which Paul Bloom and Steven pinker represent.
Clinical psychology is mainly split between a psychodynamic approach which tracks more along Freudian paradigm— which was and remains quite dubious and the more scientific behavioural approaches. In particular when it comes to social psychology, a significant ideological opposition to cognitive science, intelligence research etc has been documented.
Ooh, I have a quibble with your main point here (first time for everything!). I agree that the language 'I don't recall saying that" etc is clunky and can be received as humouring-patronising - a maddeningly cheesy American therapy speak cliche. Really it's just a textbook example of a strategy - i.e. where the person's anger is based in a misconception (of what you said), point that out in a gentle way; 'Oh, I think there might be a misunderstanding here. It seems like you think I said/meant {xx} - if that's so, I can see why you are pissed off; I would be too. What I actually mean/think is {xx}'. If they persist, 'no, that's what you said', you respond with 'well tbh I can't remember my exact words, but I do know my mind, and this is what I think'.....and even, 'I get that's what you think I meant, but I do live in my own head, which gives me a unique insight into my own thoughts!'.
As with comedy, the delivery is an art, flexible according to speaker and listener - textbooks & flash cards can't do that. The method is a version of 'Non Violent Communication" - a great idea, but one that is (ironically) not always well communicated. Or at least it is a simple idea that takes a bit of wrangling to actually get right.
'Oh, I think there might be a misunderstanding here. It seems like you think I said/meant {xx} - if that's so, I can see why you are pissed off; I would be too. What I actually mean/think is {xx}'
This article hit home. We have a mentally ill daughter, and this is how we have been trained to talk to her so that we minimize psychotic episodes. It is called LEAP - listen, empathize, agree, and partner. This is to get past the anosognosia (a neurological and psychiatric condition where a person is unaware of their own mental or physical illness or deficit, often preventing them from recognizing symptoms, understanding the need for treatment, or acknowledging the illness itself). When we learned about it, my husband and I said - This is how we have to talk to the woke. The agreement part gets tricky because we don't agree with the delusion, yet we agree that her perspective is valid. It becomes so tedious. As I read this article, I just became tired.
That sounds incredibly hard and painful, Eileen. I have had to agree with and validate the beliefs and perceptions of people with brain disease - particularly dementia with lewy bodies - to keep them feeling calm and safe. They cannot benefit from being disagreed with or having the truth argued to them because they no longer have the capacity to consider or retain the information. It would be cruel and pointless to keep bewildering and frightening them. There is no justification for doing this to anybody who can consider that they might be wrong.
I agree. And yet to disagree with a person who cannot entertain that they might be wrong feels like talking to a thought-disordered brain. A loop. A rabbit hole. Thank you for not giving up. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and essays. Your work stands out in the clutter and helps us so much with our other three adult children. Two of them are recent college grads. They are liberals with both progressive and traditional values intact, and they are pretty clear-headed. Thank you a million times!
I love your writing, I’ve loosely followed you since your audacious punking of academia with James and Peter came to light… can you reference a post or posts that walks through how you came to the conclusion that reality exists independent of those participating in it? I’m interested in how you reached that conclusion, as a lot of what you wrote here seems to hinge upon it.
I think is very interesting your comparison to such a smooth listening as way to talk to a child. Indeed, in condition of vulnerability, as in a therapeutic session, we all maybe need to be treated with extraordinary care as children. Makes sense. And also, makes sense if we want to be treated as adults, but this implying be responsible and have the spirit to support criticism and civil opposition. And it is actually good, I mean: only if I know that you are sincere in your judgements toward what I said, I can really build an interesting discourse with you, right?
As a retired member of the nuthouse staff, I agree with your critique Helen. But it is wise to find a soothing start when engaging with nuts or normals. Plus, while I too have publicly ranted at colleagues’ love of total relativism to guide their practice in nuthouses, there are (other) kinds of carefully set up “reflective practice” that are brilliant for creating rich new understanding and steps forward.
Well, I'm sure there can be respectful and honest approaches to conveying that you care about how somebody feels before getting down to the issues. I get very angry when people tell me they respect my truth. But people also seem to find me soothing in my manner. That's actually something of a problem. They tell me my voice, in particular, is soothing when I read my stuff, but I'm actually trying to convey a sense of urgency!
I “hear” you Helen (as they say)! What’s more I (think I) understand and even agree with all five of those sentences! Especially I agree that you address urgent problems so comprehensively that it can be all too soothing!!
Helen, your musings are like medicine that help keep me out of the nuthouse.
I dont recall any notion of personal truths when i received CBT last decade.
There is a related aspect though, called ‘consider alternative interpretations’ roughly translated from Norwegian which i always found to cohere well with liberalism: An idea that your interlocutors intentions do matter, not our potential misreading of what they said—which has zero veridical purport.
Yes, CBT doesn't talk of 'personal truths' but of perceptions (thoughts/feelings) - under the explicit understanding that these are often fleeting, partly or wholly wrong, in mutual conflict, even in our own head (feeling/thought, good mood/bad mood), and need to be contexualised (I hate you sometimes.... and love you deeply)
Yeah, that’s why I said it was claiming to be CBT.
Ah, so you did! Utter was not paying full attention. I'm just so used to strawman critiques of CBT - 'CBT says (dumb thing) so it's dumb'. To quote Lennon, 'I should have known better with a girl like you'.
Perhaps the therapist would be more correct if he refereed to it as a ‘personal conviction’ instead of truth, as we implicitly understand that holding conviction doesn’t necessary entail any justified warrant-unlike truth.
It is rather frightening to see even clinical psychology succumb to the vocabulary of post-modernism.
Could be - though it's not clear that this came from clinical psychology (as opposed to social worker/psychotherapy/counselling/nurse practitioner etc). No-one, nothing is perfect, but I think psychologists are doing a reasonable job resisiting the bull (Stephen Pinker, Pail Bloom, Greg Lukianoff, Jonathan Haidt ...)
Unfortunately, there appears to be quite the methodological chasm between clinical psychology and the more scientific paradigms such as cognitive science and neuroscience which Paul Bloom and Steven pinker represent.
Clinical psychology is mainly split between a psychodynamic approach which tracks more along Freudian paradigm— which was and remains quite dubious and the more scientific behavioural approaches. In particular when it comes to social psychology, a significant ideological opposition to cognitive science, intelligence research etc has been documented.
https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2018-57934-001.html The aforementioned article
Hope you are feeling better and resting at home with a nice cup of tea by the time you read this. Take care.
I am! 😊
Ooh, I have a quibble with your main point here (first time for everything!). I agree that the language 'I don't recall saying that" etc is clunky and can be received as humouring-patronising - a maddeningly cheesy American therapy speak cliche. Really it's just a textbook example of a strategy - i.e. where the person's anger is based in a misconception (of what you said), point that out in a gentle way; 'Oh, I think there might be a misunderstanding here. It seems like you think I said/meant {xx} - if that's so, I can see why you are pissed off; I would be too. What I actually mean/think is {xx}'. If they persist, 'no, that's what you said', you respond with 'well tbh I can't remember my exact words, but I do know my mind, and this is what I think'.....and even, 'I get that's what you think I meant, but I do live in my own head, which gives me a unique insight into my own thoughts!'.
As with comedy, the delivery is an art, flexible according to speaker and listener - textbooks & flash cards can't do that. The method is a version of 'Non Violent Communication" - a great idea, but one that is (ironically) not always well communicated. Or at least it is a simple idea that takes a bit of wrangling to actually get right.
'Oh, I think there might be a misunderstanding here. It seems like you think I said/meant {xx} - if that's so, I can see why you are pissed off; I would be too. What I actually mean/think is {xx}'
Yes! Do that instead!
This article hit home. We have a mentally ill daughter, and this is how we have been trained to talk to her so that we minimize psychotic episodes. It is called LEAP - listen, empathize, agree, and partner. This is to get past the anosognosia (a neurological and psychiatric condition where a person is unaware of their own mental or physical illness or deficit, often preventing them from recognizing symptoms, understanding the need for treatment, or acknowledging the illness itself). When we learned about it, my husband and I said - This is how we have to talk to the woke. The agreement part gets tricky because we don't agree with the delusion, yet we agree that her perspective is valid. It becomes so tedious. As I read this article, I just became tired.
That sounds incredibly hard and painful, Eileen. I have had to agree with and validate the beliefs and perceptions of people with brain disease - particularly dementia with lewy bodies - to keep them feeling calm and safe. They cannot benefit from being disagreed with or having the truth argued to them because they no longer have the capacity to consider or retain the information. It would be cruel and pointless to keep bewildering and frightening them. There is no justification for doing this to anybody who can consider that they might be wrong.
I agree. And yet to disagree with a person who cannot entertain that they might be wrong feels like talking to a thought-disordered brain. A loop. A rabbit hole. Thank you for not giving up. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and essays. Your work stands out in the clutter and helps us so much with our other three adult children. Two of them are recent college grads. They are liberals with both progressive and traditional values intact, and they are pretty clear-headed. Thank you a million times!
I love your writing, I’ve loosely followed you since your audacious punking of academia with James and Peter came to light… can you reference a post or posts that walks through how you came to the conclusion that reality exists independent of those participating in it? I’m interested in how you reached that conclusion, as a lot of what you wrote here seems to hinge upon it.
I’m a pretty agreeable person. And I’ve never realized how damaging it has been until it was too late.
I think is very interesting your comparison to such a smooth listening as way to talk to a child. Indeed, in condition of vulnerability, as in a therapeutic session, we all maybe need to be treated with extraordinary care as children. Makes sense. And also, makes sense if we want to be treated as adults, but this implying be responsible and have the spirit to support criticism and civil opposition. And it is actually good, I mean: only if I know that you are sincere in your judgements toward what I said, I can really build an interesting discourse with you, right?
As a retired member of the nuthouse staff, I agree with your critique Helen. But it is wise to find a soothing start when engaging with nuts or normals. Plus, while I too have publicly ranted at colleagues’ love of total relativism to guide their practice in nuthouses, there are (other) kinds of carefully set up “reflective practice” that are brilliant for creating rich new understanding and steps forward.
Well, I'm sure there can be respectful and honest approaches to conveying that you care about how somebody feels before getting down to the issues. I get very angry when people tell me they respect my truth. But people also seem to find me soothing in my manner. That's actually something of a problem. They tell me my voice, in particular, is soothing when I read my stuff, but I'm actually trying to convey a sense of urgency!
I “hear” you Helen (as they say)! What’s more I (think I) understand and even agree with all five of those sentences! Especially I agree that you address urgent problems so comprehensively that it can be all too soothing!!