Reply With QuoteI say so too. A far more inspiring read than many "positive" ones I've read.
I heard about this book and was really pleased to see this article in the Guardian mag on Saturday.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandsty...ara-ehrenreich
Hear hear.
What say you?
Snaffling sheep from the flock of woo
-bobdezon
I say so too. A far more inspiring read than many "positive" ones I've read.
Slightly off-topic but, isn't this very similar to cognitive behavioural therapy?
There are links. CBT assumes that mental problems are due to your thoughts. It is taken that you are in control of your thoughts. One easy conclusion is: Therefore you are to blame.Originally Posted by asthmatic camel
Many theories of abnormality are deterministic. For example, you are not going to blame someone for having the genes for schizophrenia, making the biological model uninterested in human ideas of blame. While many people feel that CBT is therefore emancipatory in being able to assert human agency, it also has a terribly negative side. This comes out particularly strongly when you apply the power of thinking to cancer.
One comment from that article:
The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything.
-- Marcello Truzzi
That sounds about right. I was once referred for CBT and ended up far more depressed than I already was. The therapist eventually gave up after more or less screaming "You need to empower yourself!"
Had I been able to empower myself, I wouldn't have been there in the first place.
What was it like? It always sounds like someone telling you to 'pull yourself together' when I've seen it described.
It was very much like that. As Stompy says, CBT assumes that it's possible to "retrain your brain" by repeatedly denying negative thoughts and consciously replacing them with positive ones. This includes leaving notes for yourself all around the house to cheer yourself up. I felt as though I was being encouraged to lie to myself and disregard reality, which didn't help at all.
That said, I'm assured that CBT does have a reasonable body of evidence to support its use.
If you're interested, here's a couple of CBT based self-help sites which were recommended by the shrinks.
http://www.livinglifetothefull.com/
http://www.moodgym.anu.edu.au/welcome
They'll give you a good idea of the way it works.
Last edited by asthmatic camel; 12th January 2010 at 02:15 PM.
I guess one problem is that people into positive thinking can often seem to think they have the right/duty to tell everyone else about it, including people who are really not interested.
An environment where enough people keep going on about positive thinking ca be somewhat self-fulfilling, since it is fine for the people who agree with it, but can be a real pain for people who think otherwise. Faced with someone being undesirably positive, many people will pretend to go along to some extent to avoid hurting the other's feelings, which can easily add to someone's misconception that they're actually being helpful even when they're actually just making someone feel worse.
It's understandable that some people want to feel they're in control of things even if they aren't.
It's even more understandable that people who have survived something and had a positive attitude might feel justified in taking some credit for their survival, whether or not any credit is actually due, just as many people who look to alternative treatments or prayer alongside actual medicine may give more credit to the alternatives than they really deserve, possibly partly because those alternatives were also their choice, and so their success reflects positively on the wisdom of the chooser.
I'm in a short course of therapy with a CBT trained therapist. I do find it useful, but then I am "into" language, and it's very much based around language...or what she does is.
Examples include pointing out instances of my using "should", "must" or "can't"- absolutes. It gets me to re-evaluate the automatic assumptions I make. Saying I "can't" do this...the example was being disorganised. I "can't" get myself together. Actually, no, I can, I just find it difficult to do so. Obviously doesn't apply to facts ("I can't breathe underwater"), just behaviours.
I don't feel "blamed"- it's acknowledged that I find it difficult, but by saying "can't" I'm not only being unfairly down on myself, I'm also avoiding responsibility. Ugh, see the thing about therapy is it's so po-faced. I almost feel sometimes like they'd have us speaking like automatons.
I think it largely depends on what issues you have and how you want to address them. The problem, I think, is that it's fine for the usual, standard depressive traits, but anything else, like addictive or obsessive thinking, I'm not so sure it's any good for. In short, YMMV.
Snaffling sheep from the flock of woo
-bobdezon
I wonder if this is really semantics? Teenagers use language in a completely different way to others, but the meaning is different to them. So can't really means don't want to etc (I can't keep up in chemistry - when both you and he/she knows perfectly well that the subject is just of no interest to them).
The question is not what the words mean to the trainer, but what they mean to the person using them.
The art of medicine consists in amusing the patient while nature cures the disease. Voltaire
Well, I'm not a teenager anymore...not sure if I'm happy or not about that!
Is it just semantics? I don't know. CBT says that the words we use reveal the assumptions we have about the world and ourselves. All CBT seems to do is open you up to other ways of looking at it. The idea is that depressed people have cognitive distortions (in which minor events seem huge, e.g. feeling deep shame and thinking that everyone is laughing at you because you dropped a can in the supermarket), they tend to think negatively as a starting point- hence "can't" and "should"- it's like a knee-jerk pessimism and self-flagellation.
It's not just my own words, but how I interpret others', too. I was complaining that whenever I do something creative, you know, art or music or something, my mother instantly starts going on about how I should be making a living out of it. It really annoys me, because it feels like just doing it isn't good enough, I must be successful and paid for it, in her eyes.
It actually took my therapist pointing it out for me to realise that Icould see that as a compliment: I'm good at it, good enough I COULD be paid.
Never occurred to me to look at it that way. Same words, entirely different meaning. I just changed my way of looking at them. Subsequently, my mother clarified (because I was moaning at her) and turns out my therapist was right, it's just her way of being supportive. I cannot change my mother's way of expressing herself (warped though I think it is), but I can look at how I listen to her, if you like.
Note, though, that these are not significant life events like a cancer diagnosis, or a death in the family. I'm talking about minor things ab out how I perceive myself and interact with others. I honestly don't believe that it would work- or even should be applied- to any kind of grieving process, or shock. Being upset and angry at cancer seems right to me, not a problem with how you view it. It's a nasty disease, not your mother's wonky praise.
Snaffling sheep from the flock of woo
-bobdezon
I wonder if these really are examples of cognitive distortions? Some people have the self confidence to shrung off others opinions of them, once ground down by experiences in life that sap that confidence the minor events that others also feel become further evidence of ones own lack of self worth.
I think your interpretation of what your mother said was perfectly valid, even if ultimately incorrect. During a period of optimism you might have retorted - yes I could make millions, and the conversation might have gone on to earlier affirmation, but while pessimistic you might just think of all the hurdles that would prevent your making a go of it and consequently sent negative signals to your mother, so any positive developments are stopped immediately.
The art of medicine consists in amusing the patient while nature cures the disease. Voltaire
I'm going to have to reply in short posts as my comp keeps blue screening!
First of all, I've been reading this since DrS pointed it out but hesitated to respond. I think the only way I can reply genuinely is with a mixture of highly subjective experience and my interpretation of knowledge because it's that mix that forms what I 'believe' about the subject.
To deal with the article first. I think the accounts of conversations are often examined from the 'sufferers' point of view, by sufferer I mean anyone who's trying to reach out for some help rather than just the diseased! Two people are involved though and I don't think enough attention is paid to the needs and vulnerabilities of the one trying to offer the advice or help. Cancer, death, illness, disability, and even abject sadness aren't easy things to face, even if it's to face it happening with someone else. I think much of the pressure to think positively is about easing the discomfort of the advice giver, filling the silent pause, offering the positive, showing their own resilience, trying to solve the problem. None of those things mean that by default what gets said is unhelpful or wrong - that all depends on what the feelings lead to, I'm just saying that the conversations ought to be viewed in the light of both participants as emotional beings. Personally, I don't much worry if someone sticks their foot in it to start with, on another day it'll be me that makes the blunder so it's neither here nor there, what matters to me is what happens next if I say (with superb kindness, perfect english, in a concise and clear manner -) that didn't really help. Expressions like 'we could all get hit by a bus tomorrow' or 'It makes you appreciate life in all it's wonders' I find frustrating but luckily I don't struggle too much with just saying that - at that point, with people I knew, the pack split. On the one hand were people who obviously heard and understood why it didn't help, on the other are those dead set on persuading that it should help and I think the latter is sometimes fuelled by a fear of having said something wrong - obviously that's just a guess.
On another level, I remember reading an article many moons ago on a correlation between happiness index and the way people remembered past traumatic events. It isn't something I'm trying to suggest should inform the debate but it was something that struck a chord with me. How I read and remembered the article was that where people could see something positive in a past traumatic event it lessened the extent to which that event lowered their ongoing happiness. It struck a chord with me because I'm so desperately grateful for the opportunities I've had in life to learn, there are things which at the time seemed entirely negative but which also motivated me to learn new things and if you asked now whether I'd have them removed from my life I'd say 'Not bloody likely!'. That's never been something which has been instant, more how I feel about events from years ago, however reading the article has made me more conscious that I can and do look back at things in that way and that hard things have the potential to push me in a way I end up appreciating. But I think these things are deeply personal, ironically, I think my way of looking at it is part of what I'm grateful to have learned. When I work with people who are circling the drain emotionally, exhausted carers, desperately lonely people, those simply suffering, I don't feel any temptation to 'share' the wonders of it as a rich learning experience, first is to dig in and do what I'm there for well, second to listen and still like them, third to see if the previous two things have made any difference! It's sort of weird because again I'm glad I've been an exhausted miserable sod at times and for much less reason - it makes me write nicer case notes about someone else!
So I think positive thinking is something which can be helpful but not when it's forced on another person, not when it's used to make the helper feel better even after they know the 'helped' isn't exactly grateful for their wondrous positivity, or when it becomes a standard by which people are measured as having passed or failed in terms of coping and sometimes, even worse, in terms of their willingness to cope.
On CBT and REBT.
I've read lots about these approaches but never been through the process myself, although I would given the chance, partly out of interest and partly to see whether I gained something from it. I certainly use some of what I read, but I fall short of buying it lock stock and barrel.
I think both approaches stem from an individualistic culture and that's both a strength and a weakness. The strength is that it can empower people to find new ways to help themselves. In any difficulty I WANT to find where I can do something different because that allows me to alter my own circumstances, there will always be things beyond my control and I accept that but ultimately I don't want passivity, the areas I can alter are my foot and hand holds, like when I used to climb, I look for them, look for something, ask if someone else can see something, even if I'm completely stuck I can look and think.
I think it's weakness is the notion that all can be solved by the above attitude, that the individual is ultimately completely responsible for their own emotions and reactions. One of the primary reasons I don't buy it at that level is that to do so would require a clear and clean line between want and need. As Pebble pointed out not everyone has the same ability to shrug off the opinions of others, my guess is that is related to their own real and perceived level of dependence on others. Where want and need is concerned the far edges in each direction look really easy to assess but the closer to the middle one gets the less sure or certain those initial 'givens' appear, and the actual cross over line between want and need gets ever more elusive.
Going to post 'cos I want a coffee and it'll bloody blue screen!
Back now - flippin' ada, next time I going to respond straight away, as someone not very concise at the best of times this thinking malarkey is leading to way too much typing. Anyone who's got this far down is a bloody star!
People don't start out with the same assets and for that reason alone I find it irrational to expect the same level of independence from each individual, where people are more dependent it seems reasonable to me that social structures move more towards need than want and that's where I think CBT and REBT can begin to unravel and become a negative force.
One thing I've always wished someone would do a spectacular study on is the success of a variety of 'talking therapies' but the language comprehension of both therapist and service user assessed at outset. I have a hunch that success is dramatically effected by linguistic ability, but it remains pure hunch as I've never been able to find anything looking at both factors. I've had traditional counselling and found it was helpful and unhelpful dependent on the person sat opposite me and how well we got on. I don't think there's much I could take from that in terms of generalisation but where it helped it involved complex ideas and two people able to share them, hence my hunch about the need for reasonable language comprehension.
Regarding the language of 'can't' versus 'don't want to' or mustn't, should, ought - there's a whole group of them clustered under awfulising and absolutism. Where people are able and confident to still use them despite being told not to I think the taught trigger to check is helpful. Again, from the totally personal, I found it helpful at times to be more aware of the language I used to think with than I had been prior to learning about CBT/REBT, however, for me it was also important to disagree at times and to accept that sometimes things are just bloody awful. For empowerment to work the person on the other end of it mustn't be enslaved, they must retain their own right to think even though in doing so they cannot avoid errors completely. (And I'm not in the least embarrassed about using so many musts in that sentence). Maybe I want that to be the case because as someone whose job often involves being the listener, advisor I don't want the responsibility if it were not the case!
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks