10-28-2006, 05:03 PM | #41 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Your mom's house
Posts: 588
|
Quote:
__________________
Tobias: You know, Lindsay, as a therapist, I have advised a number of couples to explore an open relationship where the couple remains emotionally committed, but free to explore extra-marital encounters. Lindsay: Well, did it work for those people? Tobias: No, it never does. I mean, these people somehow delude themselves into thinking it might, but...but it might work for us. |
|
10-28-2006, 05:12 PM | #42 | |
Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Ames, IA
Posts: 469
|
Quote:
I could go on for a while on this topic, so I'll try to be concise. I have no problem with CBT per se. I have a problem with mindless implementation of any set of techniques at the expense of the effort it takes to try to understand the person in front of you. I have a problem with therapists that, when faced with the complexity and ambiguity of trying to help another human being, assuage their own anxiety by just picking up their favorite hammer and assuming everyone is a nail. I have a problem with those who sing the praises of CBT or other similar techniques but whose eyes glaze over with confusion when you ask them about the implications and philosophical assumptions of what they're doing and why. IMO, some of the most dangerous therapists out there are those who use technique for technique's sake, with no ability to explain why they are doing what they are doing. The ones that are constantly looking to fill up their tool belt with cute little in-session activities and techniques, and take a flavor-of-the-month approach to their client's problems. I believe that fortunately, sometimes these therapists succeed in spite of themselves, because thankfully our clients are often capable of distilling from the therapy experience those things that are actually helpful to them. But it's interesting to me that, despite every camp's efforts to prove the greater efficacy of their approach (CBT, DBT, Cognitive, dynamic, etc etc etc), the meta-analytic research simply does not bear that out. In other words, we're not very good as a profession at identifying how it is that we're actually most helpful to people (see anything by Bruce Wampold, or google therapy and the Dodo Bird effect). I hope that explains my position a little better. I use cognitive and behavioral principles all the time in my work, and successfully.
__________________
On the other hand, you have different fingers. -- Steven Wright Last edited by OhioBlue; 10-28-2006 at 05:21 PM. |
|
10-28-2006, 05:22 PM | #43 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
there are many things that are common to almost all therapies that are helpful. Positive regard, therapeautic alliance. Someone just danged listening to you and giving a damn.
CBT in many way requires more effort in my opinion. You have to be more verbal, you have to explore their worldview, their cognitions. CBT is hardly plug and play in my opinion. Because everyone has a different set of issues, beliefs, and behaviors. The dangerour therapist can be the one that knows more about the philosophy that you would ever care to listen to, and is very invested in that school or this school, etc. I picked up a Freudian journal once, started reading an article. It made Sleeping in EQ writing seem like a kids book. So much jargon, back story, etc. as to be meaningless but to about 200 people in the country. I'm much more interested in efficacy that philosophy. One needs to be careful not to say "I won't use a SSRI because I don't understand how it really treats depression, despite a lot of evidence to show that if helps people." You look at most discoveries in medicine, and it was efficacy that was noted, and mechanism was explored secondarily. |
10-28-2006, 05:23 PM | #44 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Your mom's house
Posts: 588
|
Quote:
__________________
Tobias: You know, Lindsay, as a therapist, I have advised a number of couples to explore an open relationship where the couple remains emotionally committed, but free to explore extra-marital encounters. Lindsay: Well, did it work for those people? Tobias: No, it never does. I mean, these people somehow delude themselves into thinking it might, but...but it might work for us. |
|
10-28-2006, 05:24 PM | #45 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Your mom's house
Posts: 588
|
Quote:
__________________
Tobias: You know, Lindsay, as a therapist, I have advised a number of couples to explore an open relationship where the couple remains emotionally committed, but free to explore extra-marital encounters. Lindsay: Well, did it work for those people? Tobias: No, it never does. I mean, these people somehow delude themselves into thinking it might, but...but it might work for us. |
|
10-28-2006, 05:33 PM | #46 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
|
10-28-2006, 05:37 PM | #47 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Your mom's house
Posts: 588
|
Well, it's more effective than birthing therapy and other wacko stuff. But compared to emotion focused therapy (humanistic), brief psychodynamic therapy, or other generally accepted approaches, the results are consistently equivalent.
__________________
Tobias: You know, Lindsay, as a therapist, I have advised a number of couples to explore an open relationship where the couple remains emotionally committed, but free to explore extra-marital encounters. Lindsay: Well, did it work for those people? Tobias: No, it never does. I mean, these people somehow delude themselves into thinking it might, but...but it might work for us. |
10-28-2006, 05:39 PM | #48 | |
Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Ames, IA
Posts: 469
|
Quote:
That's before we even get to the complexity of the person sitting in front of us, and how that whole picture interacts with the treatment modality we might intend to use. As for CBT not being plug and play, that's good if it's true for you. I assure you that for many many clinicians, that is not the case, and plug and play is most assuredly what happens. Lastly, you are going to do what you're most comfortable with, but allow me to implore you (and me and us) to continue to make efforts to combine conclusions about efficacy with critical thinking about those same conclusions (ie, philosophy). I don't necessarily mean reading Kierkegaard or Heidegger, I mean the enterprise and practice of critical examination beyond the surface level. I need not point out the dangers evident throughout our world's history in imposing practices based on assumptions about their efficacy, without ever critically thinking about them. There is a place, and a need, for both. To ignore the philosophy side is in my humble opinion to be lazy and unprofessional.
__________________
On the other hand, you have different fingers. -- Steven Wright |
|
10-28-2006, 05:48 PM | #49 |
Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Ames, IA
Posts: 469
|
I think we all know that in our field it is possible, easy even, to comb the research out there and find things that will justify just about any position. We all also know that despite what we were taught in research method classes, people do research intent on finding things, and voila they do.
The literature on efficacy of therapy outcomes is full of disagreement and debate. EST and EBP folks put a lot of money into justifying their position and ultimately hope to change policies so that we all end up with tx manuals and protocols based on DSM diagnoses. The other side argues that it's all bunk, that we're identifying specific ingredients responsible for change that just don't hold up in the final analysis. That's before we even get to what I believe is one of the biggest questions we don't like to deal with in our field--and that is, what do we mean when we say a treatment works? If you want to read an interesting book, pick up Wampold's The Great Psychotherapy Debate. THere's plenty others out there, but he tears apart the outcomes research and shows convincing meta-analytic results. Then go and read the responses to Wampold, and his critiques. Then decide for yourself. But at least notice that there is hardly anything in our fields upon which we universally agree, or which we ratify as 'Truth.' Which is all the more reason to critically examine why we do what we do, and know the costs/benefits, implications of our practices. The responsibility to help other people is a huge one, an honorable one (most times), and bears IMO significant weight to not gloss over the difficult questions. I'm off to watch the game. Fascinating discussion, I loved it. It would be fun to get us all together sometime for lunch.
__________________
On the other hand, you have different fingers. -- Steven Wright |
Bookmarks |
|
|