![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 14 to 38 of 47. Go back in thread:
Posted by alexandra_k on May 13, 2005, at 21:44:15
In reply to Re: Dryden, Ellis, ACT, posted by pedrito on May 13, 2005, at 7:36:37
Ok. So you are having troubling thoughts... There are two things that you can try and do: (1) try and change them (2) accept them.
So, but the sounds of it you have really really really tried to change them - but that doesn't seem to be going all that well for you.
Sometimes medications can help with recurring thoughts. They can make it so they don't occur to you so often, or they can make it so that it is easier for you to not to feel as bothered by them.
I have these two thoguhts occuring to me at many different points during the day:
'I hate myself'
'I wish I was dead'.
They come BAMB! Even at times when I am enjoying myself during the day. They just keep on occuring to me.These aren't even thoughts about external reality. They are thoughts about how I feel or what I think. But it can be hard for me to seperate out the fact that the thoughts do occur to me from whether they are true or not in the sense that I actually do hate myself, or I actually do wish I was dead.
But it is a jump...
>The problem of course is getting to the stage where you don't believe your troubling thoughts!
Indeed. But a thought is just a thought.
It might be true or false...
The only thing that is certain is that you are infact having the thought.> And let's face it, repeatedly having very troubling, obtrusive thoughts..
What I wonder is that you perceive them as 'troubling' and 'obtrusive' because you TAKE THEM SERIOUSLY in the sense that you believe what they tell you..
>and constantly accepting yourself for having them is hardly a good quality of life.
But if you can accept the fact that you are having them
(What a strange thing to think, and it isn't even true!!!)
Then you might not be so troubled by them anymore.
> - Granted. A 20% quality of life is better than a 10% quality of life. But I'd guess ultimately most people require more, or at least the possibility of more out of life.Sure they do.
But the point is:
What is the problem here???\
Is it the fact that you have certain thoguhts.
Or is it the fact that you are finding certain thoguhts to be distressing?
If you cannot change the fact that you have them then all that is left to be done is to try and change your response to them.> - Agreed. It's just crap to have to accept really unpleasant thoughts and feelings all day!
I'm not saying that you have to accept feeling crap.
Well... Sometimes people do.
My point is that if you can accept the thoughts
(just as thoughts - not as being true)
Then you may be able to change your feeling like crap.Acceptance is change...
If that sounds paradoxical the idea is that in accepting one thing you quite often can change another.
Posted by pedrito on May 13, 2005, at 22:44:34
In reply to Re: Dryden, Ellis, ACT » pedrito, posted by alexandra_k on May 13, 2005, at 21:44:15
> Ok. So you are having troubling thoughts... There are two things that you can try and do: (1) try and change them (2) accept them.
- agreed.
>
> So, but the sounds of it you have really really really tried to change them - but that doesn't seem to be going all that well for you.- correct.
> Sometimes medications can help with recurring thoughts. They can make it so they don't occur to you so often, or they can make it so that it is easier for you to not to feel as bothered by them.
- indeed.
> I have these two thoguhts occuring to me at many different points during the day:
> 'I hate myself'
> 'I wish I was dead'.
> They come BAMB! Even at times when I am enjoying myself during the day. They just keep on
occuring to me.- that must be rather crap. FWIW I "crash" when having fun too. It's almost like an anti-fun device installed in my head.
> These aren't even thoughts about external reality. They are thoughts about how I feel or what I think. But it can be hard for me to seperate out the fact that the thoughts do occur to me from whether they are true or not in the sense that I actually do hate myself, or I actually do wish I was dead.- I follow.
> But it is a jump...
>
> >The problem of course is getting to the stage where you don't believe your troubling thoughts!
>
> Indeed. But a thought is just a thought.
> It might be true or false...
> The only thing that is certain is that you are infact having the thought.- In my case, no. I suffer from derealization (I think) which (I'm sure you know, you appear very knowledegable) means I disappear off for most of the day into a distant, anxious World of cognition that bears no resemblance to what I actually think whatsoever.
I know the kind of thinking you are referring to since I also have those kind of disturbing thoughts that just "crop up". Derealization is different though, it's like a different World. A horrible different World, unfortunately.
>
> > And let's face it, repeatedly having very troubling, obtrusive thoughts..
>
> What I wonder is that you perceive them as 'troubling' and 'obtrusive' because you TAKE THEM SERIOUSLY in the sense that you believe what they tell you..- I see where you're coming from but when I'm having a really bad day of DR, nearly all of my thinking is totally unreal/not my own/foreign/distant. It's not obtrusive in nature, it wholly displaces your cognition. I can't have a rational thought if I try.
>
> >and constantly accepting yourself for having them is hardly a good quality of life.
>
> But if you can accept the fact that you are having them
> (What a strange thing to think, and it isn't even true!!!)
> Then you might not be so troubled by them anymore.
>
> > - Granted. A 20% quality of life is better than a 10% quality of life. But I'd guess ultimately most people require more, or at least the possibility of more out of life.
>
> Sure they do.
> But the point is:
> What is the problem here???\
> Is it the fact that you have certain thoguhts.
> Or is it the fact that you are finding certain thoguhts to be distressing?
> If you cannot change the fact that you have them then all that is left to be done is to try and change your response to them.
>
> > - Agreed. It's just crap to have to accept really unpleasant thoughts and feelings all day!
>
> I'm not saying that you have to accept feeling crap.
> Well... Sometimes people do.
> My point is that if you can accept the thoughts
> (just as thoughts - not as being true)
> Then you may be able to change your feeling like crap.
>
> Acceptance is change...
>
> If that sounds paradoxical the idea is that in accepting one thing you quite often can change another.- Think of DR as being in another World where normal thoughts can't reach. It's just not the same as having even frequent, intrusive, disturbing thoughts. For example, when I started on Reboxetine I could not stop picturing suicide for 2 weeks. The images just kept on appearing. However, I just batted them away, knowing it was not something I wanted or was going to do. It was a bloody horrible experience but a fundamentally different one to DR.
I wish I could explain this more clearly or even knew for certain that DR is what I am experiencing. Either way, it's good to talk with someone who has had similar experiences.
Pete
Posted by alexandra_k on May 14, 2005, at 0:53:07
In reply to Re: Dryden, Ellis, ACT, posted by pedrito on May 13, 2005, at 22:44:34
> - I suffer from derealization (I think) which ... means I disappear off for most of the day into a distant, anxious World of cognition that bears no resemblance to what I actually think whatsoever.
Ah.
Thats helpful. I wasn't sure what kinds of thoughts were worrying you.Is it that it isn't so much a problem with your thoughts (your internal verbal dialogue)...
or your mental pictures (I used to get images of myself hanging off one of the rafters in my house)...
But more a problem with the QUALITY of your EXPEREINCE???
Does that seem right???
>Derealization is different though, it's like a different World. A horrible different World, unfortunately.Yeah. I get this sometimes. But I'm not too sure on whether our experiences are similar or not. I haven't really talked about what it is like to anyone in very much detail. Probably because - as you say - it is hard to describe / explain.
> nearly all of my thinking is totally unreal/not my own/foreign/distant. It's not obtrusive in nature, it wholly displaces your cognition. I can't have a rational thought if I try.
> - Think of DR as being in another World where normal thoughts can't reach.Some people experience their thoughts as being alien. Like they aren't produced by them the way that they should be. Some people experience their bodily movements / actions as alien in the same way.
'Less extreme' versions of these are found in de-personalisation (the sense that one isn't real, or all there, somehow). An extreme version can be found in delusions of thought insertion and alien control. Where (apparantly) people come to believe on the basis of their experiences that an external agency is controlling their thinking / feeling / behaviours.
Is that kind of what you mean?
The other way is de-realisation. Thats when the world seems removed or distant somehow. The world doesn't seem real.
Quite often depersonalisation / derealisation can be found together.
Is this what you are getting at???
I'm not at all sure that either cognitive restructuring or acceptance can alter the experience.
But medication may help.???
I don't know...
Posted by badhaircut on May 14, 2005, at 1:26:35
In reply to Re: Dryden, Ellis, ACT, posted by pedrito on May 13, 2005, at 7:36:37
(I didn't realize there were new posts on this thread. Then while I was composing this, Alexandra & Pete posted much more. I apologize if this doesn't account for later posts.)
Alexandra-
Great capsulizing of cognitive therapy.
When I said ACT "doesn't care very much if a patient has irrational thoughts," I was in fact thinking of the classic "Everyone-always-hates-me" variety, but the ACT principle covers your counterexample, too. (For other readers I should add that an ACT therapist would "care" -be concerned- about the troubling thoughts, even if she didn't try to change them.)
As you say, if a client accepts being upset and stops judging himself harshly for it, that is itself a change in thought. But ACT doesn't care very much if a patient has self-judging thoughts, either. It allows him to go on judging himself harshly and hating himself for judging himself and so ad infinitem. ACT holds that to try "removing" any cognitions, even hostile self-judgments, is like trying to turn your own body inside out.
Attempts to push a thought aside, hide it, stuff it back in, vilify it, or even forcibly disbelieve it, will both (a) hijack a lot of mental resources and (b) ironically intensify the unwelcome thought.
ACT realizes that people will have much better lives if they're NOT stewing in a corner with their thoughts of self-hatred or their irrational beliefs or whatever, but it insists that no one can control her own thoughts & feelings very much without enormous, life-destroying costs. Give up on that, it says.
So then, why would anyone write a book about ACT!
This is my summary, not the authors': The less effort is made to control thoughts (bad OR good), the more freedom there is for thoughts of all kinds, including helpful, happy, creative, loving, productive ones, to occur. As you say, they come unchosen. I think in a sense the "better" thoughts are always there, it's just hard to see them when one is struggling for control over the others. If one allows them all to be there, to come & go, freely plaguing & vexing, then the brighter ones can also occur more freely & frequently than they do when one is busy pushing & pulling the darker ones all out of shape.
With more thoughts of all kinds "at the ready," one can act more effectively to improve the life that's *outside* of the head.
Posted by alexandra_k on May 14, 2005, at 6:38:25
In reply to acceptance » alexandra_k, posted by badhaircut on May 14, 2005, at 1:26:35
Disclaimer: I don't know anything about ACT other than that it has the word 'acceptance' in it and Linehan goes on about acceptance and I think I agree with her... So. I am trying to defend acceptance though don't necessarily buy ACT (I don't know if I buy it or not because I don't know anything about it) ok??
:-)
> When I said ACT "doesn't care very much if a patient has irrational thoughts," I was in fact thinking of the classic "Everyone-always-hates-me" variety.
But is it that they 'don't care' or that they don't wet themselves with excitement as a CBT therapist tends to???
> As you say, if a client accepts being upset and stops judging himself harshly for it, that is itself a change in thought.
Lifting judgement... I prefer to talk of 'lifting' judgement rather than 'stopping' judgement. I'll get to *why* in a bit..
Yeah. It is a change in thought. But even more importantly it is a change in FEELING.>But ACT doesn't care very much if a patient has self-judging thoughts, either. It allows him to go on judging himself harshly and hating himself for judging himself and so ad infinitem.
How do you mean 'allows him to'???
Do you mean the t doesn't insist on making the client stoppit??? (Which is a silly thing to insist on anyways because it isn't like the patient CAN just stoppit. I mean, if they could then they wouldn't bloody well be in therapy to start with).>ACT holds that to try "removing" any cognitions, even hostile self-judgments, is like trying to turn your own body inside out.
Attempting to stop having certain thoughts is an ironic process. Example: Do NOT think about oranges.
Did you manage to do it???
Trying just makes it worse.
That is an ironic process.
That is what happens when we try and instruct ourselves not to think about certain things:
suicide
how much we hate ourselves
how depressed we feel
oranges.
Its not about being mentally unwell
Its a fact about human cognition.
> Attempts to push a thought aside, hide it, stuff it back in, vilify it, or even forcibly disbelieve it, will both (a) hijack a lot of mental resources and (b) ironically intensify the unwelcome thought.Absolutely.
Waste of time :-)
> ACT realizes that people will have much better lives if they're NOT stewing in a corner with their thoughts of self-hatred or their irrational beliefs or whatever, but it insists that no one can control her own thoughts & feelings very much without enormous, life-destroying costs. Give up on that, it says.Yeah. Our lives would be much better if those nasty old thoughts never occurred to us in the first place. But fact is, they did. And we can't make them go away.
> This is my summary, not the authors': The less effort is made to control thoughts (bad OR good), the more freedom there is for thoughts of all kinds, including helpful, happy, creative, loving, productive ones, to occur. As you say, they come unchosen. I think in a sense the "better" thoughts are always there, it's just hard to see them when one is struggling for control over the others. If one allows them all to be there, to come & go, freely plaguing & vexing, then the brighter ones can also occur more freely & frequently than they do when one is busy pushing & pulling the darker ones all out of shape.
Oh oh oh!!!
This sounds a bit like mindfulness meditation...
You can't 'make all your thoughts go away'.
You can't make yourself stop thinking...Ah.
But you can.
The trick isn't to try and make yourself stop thinking...
The trick is to take all of your attention
Everybit of it that you can muster
And focus on how your breathing FEELS.
It isn't that your thoughts stop.
It is that all you are aware of is how your breathing feels.
Mostly I feel a kind of dual-awareness.
I'm focusing everything I can on how my breathing feels
But... out of the corner of my mind little clouds of thoughts float past.
After a while you can even watch them
In a spirit of 'I am observing my thoughts' in a 'I am not my thoughts they are merely one thing going on' kind of way.
Guess what?
They come and go.
But if they come
And you grab 'em and say 'go away little thought' over and over
You only make it hang around.
If you just observe the fact that it came...
WEll.
Then it will pass.
It might come back
a hundred times.
But each time...
It passes.
Good thoughts come too.
I used to cling to those.
But then I found that I actually learned a whole heap more by resisting the temptation to cling to them.This is all really hard to explain in a coherent way that doesn't run into paradox.
But I do think there is sense in it.
> With more thoughts of all kinds "at the ready," one can act more effectively to improve the life that's *outside* of the head.:-)
Posted by badhaircut on May 14, 2005, at 11:40:17
In reply to Re: acceptance » badhaircut, posted by alexandra_k on May 14, 2005, at 6:38:25
> But is it that they 'don't care' or that they don't wet themselves with excitement as a CBT therapist tends to???
LOL.
> >But ACT ... allows him to go on judging himself harshly...
> How do you mean 'allows him to'??? Do you mean the t doesn't insist on making the client stoppit???Yes, exactly.
> Attempting to stop having certain thoughts is an ironic process.
> Example: Do NOT think about oranges.
> Did you manage to do it???
> Trying just makes it worse.For sure! I found a really neat book about that: "White Bears and Other Unwanted Thoughts" by Daniel Wegner. It's not a therapy book, but it has applications to therapy. He suggests you "invite the thought back in" as the only way to deal with it.
> Its not about being mentally unwell
> Its a fact about human cognition.Amen!!
> Oh oh oh!!!
> This sounds a bit like mindfulness meditation...Yes, ACT is in that ballpark. The authors put out a book with other mindfulness-type therapists like Marsha Linehan (DBT guru) and Zindel Segal and others. They're calling themselves the "third wave" of behavior therapy. First there was mean old behavior therapy, then thought-attacking CBT, now various mindfulness techniques. ("Mindfulness and Acceptance: Expanding the Cognitive-Behavioral Tradition")
> It isn't that your thoughts stop.
> It is that all you are aware of is how your breathing feels.
> Mostly I feel a kind of dual-awareness.
> I'm focusing everything I can on how my breathing feels
> But... out of the corner of my mind little clouds of thoughts float past.
> After a while you can even watch themYes. I am becoming more aware of the "observer-I." For example, Thursday I was too anxious or whatever to leave my house (yet again!). But I was able to step back from my feelings & beliefs a little without giving them up. My usual thought "I'M A JACKASS!!" came up. I observed it sorta like a cloud, as you say, but it didn't float past, it just enveloped me like a mist — and stayed. But I saw it as separate from me, from observer-me. I thought something like, "I see myself and I may be a jackass. I see I have jackass-feelings. I can watch myself leave the house and 'be' a jackass outside..." So I did, I went outside and observed myself feeling and –sorta– being a jackass. I was not quite indifferent to it: 'being' a jackass did not feel good. But better feelings were no longer my target. I was outside.
Logically, I know I'm not a jackass (well, not very often one). But my heartfelt belief is that I am the braying Jackass King. Doing this mindfulness tactic Thursday, I was surprised to see how much I struggle against this belief — I try to avoid it over & over all day long. So much energy goes into this.
"Do THIS and you won't be a jackass!"
"Do THAT and you won't care if you're a jackass!"
"Oh god! You did that one wrong! YOU JACKASS!!"> Good thoughts come too.
> I used to cling to those.
> But then I found that I actually learned a whole heap more by resisting the temptation to cling to themIt's interesting. The good thoughts can loose their "effect" as quickly as the bad ones.
> This is all really hard to explain in a coherent way that doesn't run into paradox
Very hard to talk about. I'm glad you take the time to do it.
Posted by alexandra_k on May 14, 2005, at 19:54:32
In reply to Re: acceptance » alexandra_k, posted by badhaircut on May 14, 2005, at 11:40:17
>I found a really neat book about that: "White Bears and Other Unwanted Thoughts" by Daniel Wegner. It's not a therapy book, but it has applications to therapy. He suggests you "invite the thought back in" as the only way to deal with it.
Mmm.
Books.
I might have to interloan that.> Yes, ACT is in that ballpark. The authors put out a book with other mindfulness-type therapists like Marsha Linehan (DBT guru) and Zindel Segal and others. They're calling themselves the "third wave" of behavior therapy.
Ah. I had heard of Segal but didn't know anything more about him. This is verrrrrrry interesting to me :-)
>First there was mean old behavior therapy,
(LOL!!! shocking dogs to learn about 'learned helplessness')
>then thought-attacking CBT,
(LOL!!!)
>now various mindfulness techniques.
("Mindfulness and Acceptance: Expanding the Cognitive-Behavioral Tradition")
Hmm. I might just have to buy that one...
> My usual thought "I'M A JACKASS!!" came up. I observed it sorta like a cloud, as you say, but it didn't float past, it just enveloped me like a mist — and stayed.Yup. But lots of processes are going on in you at the same time. Thoughts, feelings, sensations from your different sense modalities. I think I only become aware of things 'floating past' when I am attempting to focus all my attention on something different. I'm only aware of my thoughts floating past when I'm trying to concentrate on how my breathing feels. If I try to focus all my attention on my thoughts then they don't seem to 'float past' - but my breathing does.
>But I saw it as separate from me, from observer-me. I thought something like, "I see myself and I may be a jackass. I see I have jackass-feelings. I can watch myself leave the house and 'be' a jackass outside..." So I did, I went outside and observed myself feeling and –sorta– being a jackass. I was not quite indifferent to it: 'being' a jackass did not feel good. But better feelings were no longer my target. I was outside.
Shot.
Well done :-)
You got yourself outside YAY!!!!!Though...
There what you seemed to be doing was accepting that you are in fact a jackass. And if you are a jackass inside then you may as well go be one outside. You brought into the belief that you were one and tried to accept that it was true and realised that it being true didn't mean that you had to stay inside. Thats a kind of 'worst case scenario thing'. It is like the belief (though I prefer to think of it as a thought) 'Everybody hates me'. You could try to accept it as fact - but come to realise that it doesn't matter because you don't HAVE to be loved by everyone. You don't NEED that. But IMO that strategy is limited. It buys into the truth of the thought where it need not do so. So the CBT alternative is to try and challenge the thought so that you don't have to believe it is true. But that doesn't seem to get rid of the sense of conviction that one has that they are true when the thought occurs to one.
> Logically, I know I'm not a jackass (well, not very often one).But you seemed to accept the fact that you were above.
>But my heartfelt belief is that I am the braying Jackass King. Doing this mindfulness tactic Thursday, I was surprised to see how much I struggle against this belief — I try to avoid it over & over all day long. So much energy goes into this.
> "Do THIS and you won't be a jackass!"
> "Do THAT and you won't care if you're a jackass!"
> "Oh god! You did that one wrong! YOU JACKASS!!"Yup.
Hmm.
It is an undeniable fact that you do have those thoughts. They are about the only thing that is certain, actually. But where room for doubt creeps in is when you jump from the fact that you have the thought (that you do have the thought is necessarily true) to whether the thought is an accurate representation of reality (that you actually are a jackass).You have to accept having the thoughts you have. Because they just occur to you. There isn't squat you can do about whether they occur to you or not. In a sense thoughts are something that happen to you - or in you.
But... What we do seem to have control over is our attention processes. Whether we attend to those thoughts or not. Lots of processes are going on in us at any given point in time. We seem to be able to choose what we attend to.
(Trying hard to avoid paradox here.....)
A feeling of conviction or certainty has become attached to the content of a thought being veridical, where really the sense of conviction or certainty should be attached to the fact that they are having the thought....
I wonder how things would have gone if you were able to try to focus your attention on something like how your breathing feels for a while. A few minutes. You should get better at being able to do this fairly quickly with practice. Then to become aware 'out of the corner of your mind' that you are having thoughts that are coming and going... Whenever it starts to become a big cloud then focus your attention back on your breathing... Maybe... Maybe... You could see it AS a thought. And see that while it is certain that you are having a thoguht - it is just a thought. And what I mean by seeing that it is JUST a thought is seeing that it isn't something that you do believe. It is just a thought. Not even a belief.
Because logically you know that - right?
You don't believe you are a jackass.
But the thought occurs to you and the sense of conviction becomes associated with the thoguhts being true rather than with the fact that you are having the thoguht.Does that make any sense at all???????
> > Good thoughts come too.
> > I used to cling to those.
> > But then I found that I actually learned a whole heap more by resisting the temptation to cling to them
> It's interesting. The good thoughts can loose their "effect" as quickly as the bad ones.Well. Thoughts do come and go. If I try to cling then I get mad / pissed / upset when they go - as they invariably do. That just makes it harder to let the bad ones go. Clinging hurts. Basically. Clinging to the good only results in the bad. Better to remain detached to a degree and just take what comes as it comes...
> > This is all really hard to explain in a coherent way that doesn't run into paradox> Very hard to talk about. I'm glad you take the time to do it.
:-)
Thanks for the book links.
I really should check those out..
:-)
Posted by pedrito on May 15, 2005, at 17:33:00
In reply to Re: Dryden, Ellis, ACT, posted by alexandra_k on May 14, 2005, at 0:53:07
> Is it that it isn't so much a problem with your thoughts (your internal verbal dialogue)...
> or your mental pictures (I used to get images of myself hanging off one of the rafters in my house)...
> But more a problem with the QUALITY of your EXPEREINCE???
> Does that seem right???- Errrm that's more like it, yes. Some days (like Friday) I disappear off to this "external viewpoint" pretty much the whole day and cannot seem to snap out of it. Other days (like Saturday) I'm relatively fine and have occasional periods of intrusive thoughts, which I sidestep or challenge, depending on what I think's most likely to help (neither techniques help mostly).
> Yeah. I get this sometimes. But I'm not too sure on whether our experiences are similar or not. I haven't really talked about what it is like to anyone in very much detail. Probably because - as you say - it is hard to describe / explain.
>- Yes, it's phenominally difficult to describe. I'm still not 100% sure I have DP/DR. Pretty confident though. Plus it's not talked about or worked on that much by the looks of it.
> 'Less extreme' versions of these are found in de-personalisation (the sense that one isn't real, or all there, somehow). An extreme version can be found in delusions of thought insertion and alien control. Where (apparantly) people come to believe on the basis of their experiences that an external agency is controlling their thinking / feeling / behaviours.
>
> Is that kind of what you mean?- Yes and no. I certainly don't believe another party is controlling my thoughts. That's bonkers (no offence to anyone who thinks that). However, I do believe, and have considerable, painful evidence that I "zone out" to what feels like a place where I'm not doing the thinking. This, I'm certain goes back to 10 years ago where I spent 3 months 24/7 generating vivid imagery of people loathing me. I think I incidentally trained myself into DR/DP =0(
>
> The other way is de-realisation. Thats when the world seems removed or distant somehow. The world doesn't seem real.
>
> Quite often depersonalisation / derealisation can be found together.
>
> Is this what you are getting at???
> I'm not at all sure that either cognitive restructuring or acceptance can alter the experience.
> But medication may help.
>
> ???
>
> I don't know...- Neither do I. It's a f_cker. Friday was almost unbearable and yet Saturday was fine. That's not your regular anxiety/depression scenario. At least I get the occasional OK day I suppose.
Pete
Posted by pedrito on May 15, 2005, at 17:46:21
In reply to acceptance » alexandra_k, posted by badhaircut on May 14, 2005, at 1:26:35
> Attempts to push a thought aside, hide it, stuff it back in, vilify it, or even forcibly disbelieve it, will both (a) hijack a lot of mental resources and (b) ironically intensify the unwelcome thought.
- Amen.
> ACT realizes that people will have much better lives if they're NOT stewing in a corner with their thoughts of self-hatred or their irrational beliefs or whatever, but it insists that no one can control her own thoughts & feelings very much without enormous, life-destroying costs. Give up on that, it says.
- I read that ACT was radical but that still sounds insane to a hardened thought-fighter like myself. However, considering that I've been working my t*ts off at various belief/thought-attacking therapies for probably 5 years now and still have a crap quality of life, I'm all ears.
>
> So then, why would anyone write a book about ACT!
>
> This is my summary, not the authors': The less effort is made to control thoughts (bad OR good), the more freedom there is for thoughts of all kinds, including helpful, happy, creative, loving, productive ones, to occur. As you say, they come unchosen. I think in a sense the "better" thoughts are always there, it's just hard to see them when one is struggling for control over the others. If one allows them all to be there, to come & go, freely plaguing & vexing, then the brighter ones can also occur more freely & frequently than they do when one is busy pushing & pulling the darker ones all out of shape.- This is very interesting. I know for a fact that my CBT/REBT "defences" are like a house of cards. Once one of these unwelcome/unhealthy thoughts comes in, the whole defence collapses. Additionally I then generate a deluge of unwelcome thoughts that I just can't repel.
I guess the key, which is something that Alexandra alluded to earlier, is to somehow learn not to pay the unwelcome thoughts much attention, to learn how to treat them just as thoughts. To "bend like a willow" and watch the thought go whizzing past. A bit like an Agent in the Matrix =0) (God, how tragic do I sound...)
>
> With more thoughts of all kinds "at the ready," one can act more effectively to improve the life that's *outside* of the head.- Well that'd be just top-banana. bhc - have you tried these techniques? have you had much success?
pete
Posted by pedrito on May 15, 2005, at 18:09:21
In reply to Re: acceptance » badhaircut, posted by alexandra_k on May 14, 2005, at 6:38:25
> Attempting to stop having certain thoughts is an ironic process. Example: Do NOT think about oranges.
> Did you manage to do it???
> Trying just makes it worse.
> That is an ironic process.
> That is what happens when we try and instruct ourselves not to think about certain things:
> suicide
> how much we hate ourselves
> how depressed we feel
> oranges.
> Its not about being mentally unwell
> Its a fact about human cognition.- lol. I COMMAND YOU TO STOP THINKING ABOUT LAWNMOWERS - YES, SIR!
> Ah.
> But you can.
> The trick isn't to try and make yourself stop thinking...
> The trick is to take all of your attention
> Everybit of it that you can muster
> And focus on how your breathing FEELS.
> It isn't that your thoughts stop.
> It is that all you are aware of is how your breathing feels.
> Mostly I feel a kind of dual-awareness.
> I'm focusing everything I can on how my breathing feels
> But... out of the corner of my mind little clouds of thoughts float past.
> After a while you can even watch them
> In a spirit of 'I am observing my thoughts' in a 'I am not my thoughts they are merely one thing going on' kind of way.
> Guess what?
> They come and go.
> But if they come
> And you grab 'em and say 'go away little thought' over and over
> You only make it hang around.
> If you just observe the fact that it came...
> WEll.
> Then it will pass.
> It might come back
> a hundred times.
> But each time...
> It passes.
> Good thoughts come too.
> I used to cling to those.
> But then I found that I actually learned a whole heap more by resisting the temptation to cling to them.
>
> This is all really hard to explain in a coherent way that doesn't run into paradox.
>
> But I do think there is sense in it.- Cool. So do you find this technique helpful? Has it helped lift your mood? Have you found the troubling thoughts decrease in frequency? Is your quality of life higher now?
This seems a technique that could sit quite nicely alongside some REBT style beliefs. E.g. upon receiving a really nasty thought:
There's that thought again. I really wish I didn't have these thoughts but there's no law of the universe dictating that I mustn't. They're unpleasant and difficult to bear at times but I can bear it and will do so.pete
Posted by badhaircut on May 16, 2005, at 0:31:48
In reply to Re: acceptance, posted by pedrito on May 15, 2005, at 17:46:21
>> So I did, I went outside and observed myself feeling and –sorta– being a jackass.
> There what you seemed to be doing was accepting that you are in fact a jackass....
> You bought into the belief...
> But where room for doubt creeps in is when you jump from the fact that you have the thought (that you do have the thought is necessarily true) to whether the thought is an accurate representation of reality (that you actually are a jackass)
This is indeed hard to talk about without paradox.
You're right. From what I wrote it sounds as though I bought into the idea. Like I was applying Albert Ellis' snarly rhetorical question: "Whaaat's so baaaad about being a jaaackass?" (I can hear his voice saying it. And hey, Pete, it sounds like Ellis would know! LOL)
But that's not what I meant. I guess I've lived with the intense I'm-a-jerk mindset for so long that I didn't realize quite how I was applying mindful detachment.
For me, "jackass" comes as a set, cemented to a ton of loud, persistent thoughts like:
•People think I'm annoying.
•No one will sincerely like me.
•I don't know anything about wine.
•etc etc etc
And feelings of shame, humiliation, fear, and shame.I guess by " 'being' a jackass" (and what I now realize I meant by the ironic quotes and the "sorta") I was talking about the whole set. Accepting Me as the guy who has all those thoughts all the time. Wow! That is what I meant.
On any checklist of boorish behavior I would score very low. In this sense I am not a jackass. But that sense is inseparable in my mind from all those other senses that do apply to me. Senses like, "One who thinks he is a jackass." And they're not merely inseparable: they turn into each other so rapidly & sneakily that if I say any one sense is false I could end up trying to deny my own existence.
I'm not a jackass except that I think that I am, and anyone who thinks that he is one, is.
There's no way out of that.
> A feeling of conviction or certainty has become attached to the content of a thought being veridical, where really the sense of conviction or certainty should be attached to the fact that they are having the thought....
A feeling of certainty is itself a sort of mental event one can watch float by like a cloud.
Sometimes I cannot separate a feeling of certainty from the crazy thought it's attached to. But I can separate myself (my core sense of self-recognition, the mindful "observer-me") from both the crazy thought and its attached feeling of certainty. Both of which walk along with me, but neither of them is me or even part of me.
Easier to write about than to practice, of course.
> I know for a fact that my CBT/REBT "defences" are like a house of cards. Once one of these unwelcome/unhealthy thoughts comes in, the whole defence collapses.
Been there. The ACT position is that our fantastic, symbol-manipulating, complexity-untangling, question-solving, verbal faculties that serve us so amazingly well in controlling the physical world and influencing other people and predicting hurricanes are completely unsuited to controlling one's own thoughts & feelings. But misusing them this way is an early-acquired, universal, and easy mistake. A tool (language skills) so broadly effective in virtually every other application is an obvious choice to use for reducing anxiety.
And it works, to a degree. But the same persistent, complex connectivity among ideas that enables us to build bridges and find off-season bargains is a disaster when applied inside one's own head. Use a mental trick to avoid thinking about some scary thing and voila! anxiety decreases. But soon enough that trick itself becomes as scary as the thing we avoided thinking about. Now you have to use another trick to avoid thinking of the first trick. And so on. This sort of contagion does not happen in the real world: Chop a tree down with an axe, and the axe doesn't turn into a tree.
ACT says, Apply problem-solving to the exterior world; apply acceptance to the interior. Though the authors do go into more detail than "Just accept it."
> bhc - have you tried these techniques? have you had much success?
I got outside my house on Thursday! This is no small thing. ACT says start somewhere and keep broadening the circle of un-avoided experiences, moving toward the things that are most personally important to you, and only you. But I don't know what's important to me, and I'm afraid to find out, so I haven't continued broadening my experience much. This exact situation wasn't covered in the literature.
In these posts I sound like a recruiter for the local ACT house. I'm not. I've been burned by NEW! & IMPROVED! Psychology enough times to be jaded. But I'd love to get people interested enough in ACT issues to tear through the theory with me. As you two have been doing.
-bhc
Posted by pedrito on May 17, 2005, at 8:18:15
In reply to Re: acceptance » alexandra_k, posted by badhaircut on May 14, 2005, at 11:40:17
> For sure! I found a really neat book about that: "White Bears and Other Unwanted Thoughts" by Daniel Wegner. It's not a therapy book, but it has applications to therapy. He suggests you "invite the thought back in" as the only way to deal with it.
- again, that sounds like big trouble to me. Intentionally and obsessively generating imagery was what got me into troublesville in the first place. At this juncture though, I’m willing to try anything =o]
>
> > It isn't that your thoughts stop.
> > It is that all you are aware of is how your breathing feels.
> > Mostly I feel a kind of dual-awareness.
> > I'm focusing everything I can on how my breathing feels
> > But... out of the corner of my mind little clouds of thoughts float past.
> > After a while you can even watch them- sounds cool. Sounds hard to do.
> Yes. I am becoming more aware of the "observer-I." For example, Thursday I was too anxious or whatever to leave my house (yet again!). But I was able to step back from my feelings & beliefs a little without giving them up. My usual thought "I'M A JACKASS!!" came up. I observed it sorta like a cloud, as you say, but it didn't float past, it just enveloped me like a mist — and stayed.
- that’s exactly what I get. A lot of the time I’m deep into the mist, completely lost in it, before I even realise. At that point, I’m stuffed usually. I think this is where the DR is a killer, it’s as if you’re in the mist withing 3 minutes of waking up and it’s all your used to – you don’t know what it’s like not to be in the mist. If that makes any sense. Last night, even when playing in a wicked game of soccer I could not stop picturing/thinking “I am utterly loathesome”. I finally gave up and agreed, in a slightly sarcastic manner, that I was wholly loathesome and felt a lot better within 30 minutes. Hmmm.
> But I saw it as separate from me, from observer-me. I thought something like, "I see myself and I may be a jackass. I see I have jackass-feelings. I can watch myself leave the house and 'be' a jackass outside..." So I did, I went outside and observed myself feeling and –sorta– being a jackass. I was not quite indifferent to it: 'being' a jackass did not feel good. But better feelings were no longer my target. I was outside.
- cool.
> Logically, I know I'm not a jackass (well, not very often one). But my heartfelt belief is that I am the braying Jackass King. Doing this mindfulness tactic Thursday, I was surprised to see how much I struggle against this belief — I try to avoid it over & over all day long. So much energy goes into this.
> "Do THIS and you won't be a jackass!"
> "Do THAT and you won't care if you're a jackass!"
> "Oh god! You did that one wrong! YOU JACKASS!!"
>
> > Good thoughts come too.
> > I used to cling to those.
> > But then I found that I actually learned a whole heap more by resisting the temptation to cling to them
>
> It's interesting. The good thoughts can loose their "effect" as quickly as the bad ones.
>
> > This is all really hard to explain in a coherent way that doesn't run into paradox
>
> Very hard to talk about. I'm glad you take the time to do it.- yes. Clinging rigidly to any kind of thinking is bad news. It’s inflexible thinking that gets us into trouble in the first place. One thing I’ve learned of late is, if I have a good morning for example, DO NOT go crazy trying to remember exactly what I did and then “replay” those actions rote. Bad move.
Posted by badhaircut on May 17, 2005, at 15:15:16
In reply to Re: acceptance, posted by pedrito on May 17, 2005, at 8:18:15
>> He suggests you "invite the thought back in" as the only way to deal with it.
> - again, that sounds like big trouble to me. Intentionally and obsessively generating imagery was what got me into troublesville in the first place.
It's a subtle distinction in mental activity. Acceptance/inviting-back does NOT mean to deliberately invoke unwanted imagery. I've seen those suggestions in some of the OCD literature (like by Edna Foa, I think). If you're plagued with thoughts of, say, dead animals, they suggest forcing yourself to think of dead animals until the imagery is boring to you, for example. This technique has been found to have dangerous consequences, and ACT authors advise against it. It is an attempt at mental/emotional control, not acceptance of what occurs unchosen in the mind.
This can seem like an impossible distinction to make. They say mindful acceptance of thoughts is not hard-as-in-effortful but it is hard-as-in-tricky.
Wegner's "invite the thought back in" phrase is helpful when I find myself trying (and failing) to gain control over an obnoxious thought that's already there. It's a way to stop struggling against an existing intrusion. To stop struggling against ideas is not so obvious to get the hang of.
My picture is of a huge polar bear pushing himself into my tent. I'm straining to hold him out. Then I give up and say, "Okay, you can come back in," and I turn around and do something else in the tent and I don't really know if the bear comes in or goes away or just hangs around the doorway. Anyway, as soon as I've "said" to a thought, "Okay, come back in," an intensity of *strain* goes away, even if the thought doesn't.
> Last night, even when playing in a wicked game of soccer I could not stop picturing/thinking “I am utterly loathesome”. I finally gave up and agreed, in a slightly sarcastic manner, that I was wholly loathesome and felt a lot better within 30 minutes.
I can relate to this experience. I think that "slightly sarcastic manner" may be the key toward the mindful aspect of it. The sarcastic manner doesn't buy into the literal "truth" of being loathesome even as it doesn't directly challenge it, either. It seems to allow a little space between things that are usually cemented together, to have the thought without being ruled by it. It sounds like what I've sometimes done recently — though that doesn't mean it's safe or wise, LOL!
I might say the sarcasm is justified not because the thought is wrong or untrue... but because it's a thought. It's a thought trying to pass itself off as something way beyond its pay scale.
Hmm....
I'm glad you get to play soccer. Sounds great.
Posted by alexandra_k on May 17, 2005, at 16:52:15
In reply to subtle distinctions » pedrito, posted by badhaircut on May 17, 2005, at 15:15:16
Sorry I have been quiet..
I have been following the discussion..
I will post something tomorrow
(busy busy busy at the moment)
I have been thinking about this thread a lot.
Have been having the recurring thoughts pretty bad over the last few days.It is strange that...
Sometimes the strategies just seem to work...
And other times they don't seem to work so well...
I wonder if it is that I do something different
Or whether (as is most often the case) things are fairly easy when one is in a good space but that things turn to custard when one is not.But that is the problem...
(Things turning to custard - I mean)
Sigh.
Posted by pedrito on May 20, 2005, at 15:05:40
In reply to » pedrito , » alexandra_k, posted by badhaircut on May 16, 2005, at 0:31:48
> You're right. From what I wrote it sounds as though I bought into the idea. Like I was applying Albert Ellis' snarly rhetorical question: "Whaaat's so baaaad about being a jaaackass?" (I can hear his voice saying it. And hey, Pete, it sounds like Ellis would know! LOL)
-- Apparently, yes. He’s quite “unique” from what I hear!
> But that's not what I meant. I guess I've lived with the intense I'm-a-jerk mindset for so long that I didn't realize quite how I was applying mindful detachment.
-- Yes, I often find that I am employing well-known psychological techniques without ever having heard of them. It’s quite pleasing in some ways (since it makes me think I am clever =o) but also a bit gutting since it’s one more technique you’ve already tried without much success. D’oh.
> For me, "jackass" comes as a set, cemented to a ton of loud, persistent thoughts like:
> •People think I'm annoying.
> •No one will sincerely like me.
> •I don't know anything about wine.
> •etc etc etc
> And feelings of shame, humiliation, fear, and shame.-- Yes. Negative thinking is so insidious. It’s lightning fast and strikes hard. Really hard. Sickening.
> I guess by " 'being' a jackass" (and what I now realize I meant by the ironic quotes and the "sorta") I was talking about the whole set. Accepting Me as the guy who has all those thoughts all the time. Wow! That is what I meant.
-- Bueno.
> On any checklist of boorish behavior I would score very low. In this sense I am not a jackass. But that sense is inseparable in my mind from all those other senses that do apply to me. Senses like, "One who thinks he is a jackass." And they're not merely inseparable: they turn into each other so rapidly & sneakily that if I say any one sense is false I could end up trying to deny my own existence.
>
> I'm not a jackass except that I think that I am, and anyone who thinks that he is one, is.
>
> There's no way out of that.-- Not even if you accept yourself for having the thoughts that you are a jackass?
> > A feeling of conviction or certainty has become attached to the content of a thought being veridical, where really the sense of conviction or certainty should be attached to the fact that they are having the thought....
>
> A feeling of certainty is itself a sort of mental event one can watch float by like a cloud.
>
> Sometimes I cannot separate a feeling of certainty from the crazy thought it's attached to. But I can separate myself (my core sense of self-recognition, the mindful "observer-me") from both the crazy thought and its attached feeling of certainty. Both of which walk along with me, but neither of them is me or even part of me.
>
> Easier to write about than to practice, of course.-- Yes. I am learning, slowly, that just because I have powerful visions, images and thoughts that I am loathesome and worthless, that I don’t have to believe them. I’m slowly beginning to believe that no amount of rational challenging could address that thinking and that I just do it. Lexapro is certainly helping here, I can feel it. It’s weird.
>
> ACT says, Apply problem-solving to the exterior world; apply acceptance to the interior. Though the authors do go into more detail than "Just accept it."
>
> > bhc - have you tried these techniques? have you had much success?
>
> I got outside my house on Thursday! This is no small thing. ACT says start somewhere and keep broadening the circle of un-avoided experiences, moving toward the things that are most personally important to you, and only you. But I don't know what's important to me, and I'm afraid to find out, so I haven't continued broadening my experience much. This exact situation wasn't covered in the literature.-- Good on you son!
> In these posts I sound like a recruiter for the local ACT house. I'm not. I've been burned by NEW! & IMPROVED! Psychology enough times to be jaded. But I'd love to get people interested enough in ACT issues to tear through the theory with me. As you two have been doing.
>
> -bhc-- Well I’m along for the ride. Apologies for going quiet this week, I’ve been feeling OK for once and have been maxing out on making the most of it. I am studious and battle-scarred enough not to take this for granted and to keep working. Thus I will be reading up on ACT still.
Cheers,
pete
Posted by pedrito on May 20, 2005, at 15:10:28
In reply to Re: subtle distinctions, posted by alexandra_k on May 17, 2005, at 16:52:15
> Sorry I have been quiet..
-- No problemo.
> I have been following the discussion..
> I will post something tomorrow
> (busy busy busy at the moment)
> I have been thinking about this thread a lot.
> Have been having the recurring thoughts pretty bad over the last few days.-- Sorry to hear that. Do you think that you're possibly provoking the recurring thoughts because of the thinking you're doing about this thread and other techniques? I often find that.
> It is strange that...
> Sometimes the strategies just seem to work...
> And other times they don't seem to work so well...-- Yes. I can be desperate one day and 7/10 good the next. I do not understand and never will.
> I wonder if it is that I do something different
> Or whether (as is most often the case) things are fairly easy when one is in a good space but that things turn to custard when one is not.-- "good space" ?
> But that is the problem...
> (Things turning to custard - I mean)
> Sigh.-- Head up, bad patches end by the very definition of "patch".
pete
Posted by rabble_rouser on July 6, 2005, at 16:13:57
In reply to top CBT book, posted by pedrito on May 2, 2005, at 16:55:10
Is this ellis dryden the same as 'Windy Dryden'?
He has written great stuff on REBT.
I have had a lot of success with mixing many different schools of thought: CBT, REBT, Neurolinguistic Programming, Emotional Intelligence, Neurological science, nutritional science, meditation and spirituality.
All this stuff seems to feed back in on itself and become clearer and more powerful. I would recommend watching seminars on self-actusalisation also - it is very useful to get a feel for how these guys think and behave. When it rubs off, its powerful stuff.
Recommendations:
Wayne Dyer
Deepak Chopra
Windy Dryden
David DeAngelo (yes the dating guy - its about more than just sex - trust me!)
Richard Wiseman (The Luck Factor - its what got me into Western Meditation)Search around for audio books and avi's.
Blue skies
Rabble rouser
Posted by rabble_rouser on July 6, 2005, at 16:21:27
In reply to top CBT book, posted by pedrito on May 2, 2005, at 16:55:10
are any of you guys from england?
My CBT therapist has trained with Windy.
OOh small world
rabble
Posted by pedrito on July 6, 2005, at 16:44:25
In reply to Re: top CBT book » pedrito, posted by rabble_rouser on July 6, 2005, at 16:13:57
> Is this ellis dryden the same as 'Windy Dryden'?
>
> He has written great stuff on REBT.-- Sort of =0] It's two people actually, Albert Ellis (who founded REBT) and Windy Dryden (REBT exponent in UK). Yes, I've read a couple of Windy's books and they're pretty good. He was also pretty awesome in therapy.
>
> I have had a lot of success with mixing many different schools of thought: CBT, REBT, Neurolinguistic Programming, Emotional Intelligence, Neurological science, nutritional science, meditation and spirituality.
>
> All this stuff seems to feed back in on itself and become clearer and more powerful. I would recommend watching seminars on self-actusalisation also - it is very useful to get a feel for how these guys think and behave. When it rubs off, its powerful stuff.-- This is interesting to know. I'm learning that REBT isn't enough for me, I have a lot of problems with obsessional thinking and derealization that I've had little success with. Of late I've been getting into ACT which is very, very interesting.
>
> Recommendations:
>
> Wayne Dyer
> Deepak Chopra
> Windy Dryden
> David DeAngelo (yes the dating guy - its about more than just sex - trust me!)
> Richard Wiseman (The Luck Factor - its what got me into Western Meditation)
>
> Search around for audio books and avi's.
>
> Blue skies
>
> Rabble rouser-- I'll check 'em out... Thanks for the info,
Pete
Posted by rabidreader on July 31, 2005, at 20:09:50
In reply to Re: top CBT book, posted by pedrito on July 6, 2005, at 16:44:25
What is ACT? I've read several books on REBT and am getting into the thoughts and philosophies of DBT. Please explain ACT if possible, and recommend and books you might know of for me to check out. Thanks!
Posted by pseudoname on March 7, 2006, at 19:02:27
In reply to Dryden, Ellis, ACT » pedrito, posted by badhaircut on May 9, 2005, at 10:44:04
In case anyone comes on this thread in the archive, here's some updated links about Acceptance and Commitment Therapy.
The new ACT web site is http://www.contextualpsychology.org/
A long article on ACT and creator Steve Hayes was in Time Magazine: "Happiness Isn't Normal" by John Cloud. TIME, Feb 13, 2006; 167(7), pgs 58-67: http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1156613,00.html
Hayes published a new (Oct 2005) self-help book on ACT called "Get Out of Your Mind and into Your Life".
There was a Salon interview with Hayes http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2006/02/25/happiness/index.html and a forum discussion about ACT with Hayes & friends http://letters.salon.com/mwt/feature/2006/02/25/happiness/view/index1.html?show=all&order=asc
Posted by pseudoname on April 14, 2006, at 19:42:11
In reply to ACT links update, posted by pseudoname on March 7, 2006, at 19:02:27
A Yahoo group / mailing list Acceptance and Commitment Therapy forum for “lay people” is up & running. It's for non-professionals to talk about general issues of going through the ACT process and books. Founder Steve Hayes and his top adherents have been contributing a remarkable amount, answering questions & so on. It's explicitly not for discussing “deep” theoretical issues — more just applying the therapy. Registration required to post but not to read.
It's at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ACT_for_the_Public/
I've looked at the first 400 posts there and they're 100% civil. I think future uncivil posts are no more likely there than they are here.
(BTW, I absolutely LOATHE the Yahoo format and listservs. Another reason to appreciate Dr Bob.)
Posted by honeybee on May 30, 2006, at 17:11:14
In reply to ACT links update, posted by pseudoname on March 7, 2006, at 19:02:27
Hey, pseudoname,
Are you hooked up with an ACT therapist? My brother (a therapist) recommended Stephen Hayes's book and I've been busily doing some of the exercises. I'm curious to hear what your experience has been with it. At this point, I don't even know if I care if there's been improvement! As that's not the point, is it? But it's a befuddling and compelling paradox to more or less accept the pain, the heartache, and the dysfunction, and just see what happens, good or bad.
Thanks, bh
> In case anyone comes on this thread in the archive, here's some updated links about Acceptance and Commitment Therapy.
>
> The new ACT web site is http://www.contextualpsychology.org/
>
> A long article on ACT and creator Steve Hayes was in Time Magazine: "Happiness Isn't Normal" by John Cloud. TIME, Feb 13, 2006; 167(7), pgs 58-67: http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1156613,00.html
>
> Hayes published a new (Oct 2005) self-help book on ACT called "Get Out of Your Mind and into Your Life".
>
> There was a Salon interview with Hayes http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2006/02/25/happiness/index.html and a forum discussion about ACT with Hayes & friends http://letters.salon.com/mwt/feature/2006/02/25/happiness/view/index1.html?show=all&order=asc
Posted by pseudoname on May 30, 2006, at 19:06:58
In reply to Re: ACT links update » pseudoname, posted by honeybee on May 30, 2006, at 17:11:14
Hi, hb! -- or, bh :-)
> Are you hooked up with an ACT therapist?
About 18 months ago, I saw one who got a PhD in Hayes' UN-Reno program, but we didn't hit it off, and I only went 3 times. I was not impressed. As of last year, there were only a handful of Ts in my state who'd been exposed to ACT, but there may be more now.
> My brother (a therapist) recommended Steven Hayes's book
Interesting! Has your brother been to Hayes's seminars? If so, what did he think of him? I wonder what it's like to have a therapist in the family.
> I'm curious to hear what your experience has been with it.
Complex. Very complex. I even started a blog to try and help myself figure out what I think of ACT (and Hayes), but I'm not yet ready to blog there about ACT. I have a lot of problems with Hayes & company, AND I have a lot of respect for what he's come up with.
ACT's effects in my life are clouded by me also finally finding an effective antidepressant a few months ago for the first time in 20 years, but I think I can say this about ACT's benefit for me:
• I'm a *lot* less freaked out by my thoughts and feelings than ever before.
• I no longer tear myself to pieces with self-criticism AFTER I've done or said something. The criticism still pops into my head, but I have a lot of space between me and it.
• I'm even getting so I can mindfully accept my depressive feelings, although that's not easy.
• I'm getting better at finding motivation by considering ACT-like "Values"But my ultimate standard for judging any drug or therapy's effectiveness on me is how much of my "BIZARRELY IMPOSSIBLE" tasks I can do. Everything else (depression, obsessions, happiness, "meaning", etc) I'm willing to set aside or deal with on my own. From therapy, I just want to be able to brush my teeth when it's time to do so, or go to the store, or read a book, or pick up a piece of paper, etc: things that I have to or want to do and know I can do but that I find bizarrely impossible actually to perform.
ACT's approach seems to promise a lot in that regard, but so far it hasn't paid off — in that regard — for me.
Still working on it, though. I have not given up. Even if ACT can help with that problem, I am going to be a very tough case.
> But it's a befuddling and compelling paradox to more or less accept the pain, the heartache, and the dysfunction, and just see what happens, good or bad.
Nothing else has worked for me.
Have you gone to the ACT Yahoo forum, honeybee? I don't care to post there because a few strident converts reply to everything, and I find that sort of rigidity tiring.
How long have you been doing the exercises in the book?
I'm glad you posted. Thanks!
Posted by honeybee on May 31, 2006, at 9:27:37
In reply to What I think of ACT » honeybee, posted by pseudoname on May 30, 2006, at 19:06:58
So, do I get to call you PN, then? I hope so. You can call me HB or BH or anything you'd like. Sometimes one finger strikes the keyboard just a bit faster than the other because it has important things to do.
My brother hasn't been to any of Hayes' seminars and, from what I understand, his exposure has been to him mainly through the literature. My brother has fairly strictly cleaved to the CBT line but has also found Buddhist thought and practice to be helpful in his own life. The two together prepped him for Hayes's work and, I think, made him appreciate it more. Part the reason that he suggested the workbook, too, was that I was having a lot of trouble finding anyone on my health plan who practiced something other than psychodynamic (I live in NYC, the stronghold of the psychodynamic/psychoanalytic approach). I didn't want to deal with having to go over the same territory with a new therapist when what I want is some practical direction in how to
a) deal with this depression and its rather crippling intensity,
b) safeguard my marriage while it's going on,
c) maintain my friendships in the meantime,
d) develop a "treatment plan,"
e) accept some of the really awful things going on that I simply can't change right now (though I'd really, really, really like to!)
Anyway, my brother sent me the workbook and said, sometimes, when we can't find good therapists, we have to treat ourselves. (I'm still just starting up with someone new, but working on the ACT material on the side.) How were you exposed to it? Through the crappy acolyte of Hayes? Mixed blessings, redux!It's a mixed blessing having a therapist in the family. Perhaps it's tragically narcissistic of me, but I imagine that my own struggles have something to do with pushing him that direction. He's very rigorous about talking to me "as my brother" and not as a therapist, so I don't get to benefit from his expertise. Truly, I think it's a bummer, because I think he's so good, I respect his perspective immensely, and I *trust* him, which is something that I've not done with a therapist for so, so long. Even if I want to clock when he tells me that maybe it's time to stop struggling. DAMMIT. But he is my brother.
Back to ACT. For what it's worth, I've been plowing through the workbook for the last three weeks or so and have dipped into "Acceptance and Behavior Therapy" that Hayes and several of his colleagues wrote for therapists (sometimes, workbooks strike me as a bit puerile). The book for therapists has done a lot to help me understand a bit more of the rationale for the approach. Again, the paradox of being willing to accept the suffering, anxiety, and whatever of else of life, and just getting on with it.
Thus far, the benefit to me has been simply that I'm not trying so hard. So many of us on Babble, I think, want to understand, quantify, figure out the why's and how's and how-to-fix's of our depressions/anxieties/and so on. But Hayes's work is the first that I've seen to question that approach and to suggest that "dropping the rope" in the endless tug-of-war with the vastly superior monster at the other end may be an option. That's somewhat freeing.
I have only just peeked at the ACT yahoo forum. Hayes does seem to have provoked a cultlike adulation from his converts. Luckily, though I've heard about it, I haven't seen it. It's difficult enough to find a CBT therapist in NYC (who takes insurance), let alone find someone who does ACT, as well. Do you post there?
Any other babblers out there who've started exploring ACT? I'd love to hear what people think.
hb
p.s. What med did the trick for you? I love hearing success stories.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Books | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.