Posted by alexandra_k on February 5, 2004, at 16:57:55
In reply to Re: Question for gg., posted by alexandra_k on February 5, 2004, at 3:34:30
Hi. I think that it is a shame that there aren't any studies (to the best of my knowledge) that have been done on whether different kinds of people may be better suited to different kinds of treatment.
I did find that I learned invaluable skills from DBT training - but I think that I would like to use those skills to enable me to make sense of my life and I find that I am not getting that meaning from CBT. That is not to say that other people may indeed be better suited to the CBT style of things..
A scheme is different from a schemata isn't it (??? Not sure - haven't heard the term before and read it wrong..).
Beliefs are interesting. There is much current research being done on how we form beliefs. It is hoped that we may be able to come up with a model of belief formation that may be implemented on a computer simulation... maybe we can explain delusional beliefs by there being a breakdown in one or more componants in the model.
Interesting idea.... relies on delusional beliefs resulting from 'cognitive biases and / or deficiencies' however. An alternative approach would be to consdier that delusional subjects are not so much trying to make false and implausible claims about external reality, but are rather attempting to express their anomalous experience with a public language that is inadequate to the task. Some people develop delusions after head trauma - does the head trauma result in cognitive deficiencies or an anomalous experience? or both -how could we decide? Is the delusion an abnormal experience or an abnormal belief?? The jury is still out. (I pump for the latter - the former seems to imply that we should engage in pointing out the delusional subjects cognitive errors and trying to argue them out of their beliefs by cognitive restructuring and logic. The second seems to imply that we need to engage in radical empathy and attempt to draw the delusional subject away from giving expression to their anomalous experience and back to reporting on the world - as the rest of us (at least try) to do...)
While theory is fairly logically independent of treatment sometimes a theory does seem to flow quite naturally into a course of treatment. I think that sometimes emotions are just primary (as the behaviourists have shown us emotions can be conditioned regardless of cognitive awareness). The difference between a belief and an emotion is supposed to be that an emotion has a motivational force (an urge) that tends to result in action, whereas a belief is 'informational'. In theory people act to satisfy their desires on the assumption that their beliefs are true and they use their beliefs to inform them what the best way to achieve their desires may be. The difference between a belief and a desire is like the difference between a thought and a feeling. Hard to explain, maybe only grasped by introspection...
poster:alexandra_k
thread:309476
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20040131/msgs/309879.html