![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 26 to 50 of 89. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on July 23, 2004, at 11:56:13
In reply to Re: Matt DDS? Other CBT'ers? » Dinah, posted by AuntieMel on July 23, 2004, at 11:54:46
Posted by AuntieMel on July 23, 2004, at 12:07:16
In reply to Re: I believe we have an agreement in principle :) (nm) » AuntieMel, posted by Dinah on July 23, 2004, at 11:56:13
Posted by Miss Honeychurch on July 23, 2004, at 12:09:17
In reply to Re: Matt DDS? Other CBT'ers? » Miss Honeychurch, posted by Dinah on July 23, 2004, at 10:51:05
Your example is a good one and I wish I were advanced enough at CBT to be able to self-talk myself out of that one!
I admire the theory behind CBT, but alas, I am not that good at it. It has helped me get out of the horriblehabit of wanting to please everyone and basing my self-worth on the opinion of others. That lesson alone has been invaluable.
Posted by Larry Hoover on July 23, 2004, at 13:40:55
In reply to Re: Matt DDS? Other CBT'ers? » fires, posted by Dinah on July 23, 2004, at 11:35:32
> CBT is very rational and unemotional. I know it appeals to a lot of people because of its appeal to logic. As I said, I think it's a useful set of skills to have. But sometimes I find the logical underpinnings of CBT to be a bit less than logical in light of the complexity of human beings and the biological needs that are built in us.
Cognition is a whole lot more than logic alone. And I fear your impression overlooks entirely the second word, behavioural.
One of the foundations of the cognitive approach is to try to develop an oversight of the transition from the experience of an event to the resulting feelings. Many people believe that an event leads directly to a feeling, which might be symbolically represented as:
E --> F
However, cognitive approaches attempt to focus on an intervening (and automatic) step, the interpretation, symbolically:
E --> I --> F
Our interpretation can be simple, or it can be complex. A physical threat to a child is not very hard to interpret. Other interpretations, though, call on a host of cognitive characters, including: attitudes, beliefs, religion, innate traits (e.g. shyness), memories, mores, and on and on. These, collectively, create one or more schemata, the psychological term for the way (or ways) we view the world.
Cognitive analysis, then, is an attempt to bring to conscious awareness the components bearing on the interpretation of an event. First, those techniques are applied to past events, in hopes of making it easier to recognize those same characteristics in subsequent events. One trains oneself to become aware of the interpretative elements which shape the emotive response.
I hope it is not a trite example, but consider someone who has lost everything they own in a tornado. It's pretty likely that a fair number of people would feel devastated by the loss. However, adherents of the Buddhist philosophical traditions would be elated, as they have been provided with an opportunity to learn from the loss of material wealth. The event doesn't necessarily and predictably lead to a feeling, but the interpretation always does.
Upon learning of the E --> I --> F model, I quickly grasped that the only place I have effect is on I (me).
It is a vastly liberating feeling to become aware of interpretation in real-time experience. It takes practise, but the rewards are immense. You get to choose.
The second part is behaviour. You have to do things differently to actually effect change. I'm sure that many of you have heard these two sayings: "If you keep on doing what you always did, you'll keep on getting what you always got." and "You can't think your way into a new way of acting, but you can act your way into a new way of thinking."
Thinking about the past is not cognitive-behavioural therapy. Trying to develop new thinking rules is not CBT either, unless you actually put them to use, and experience new opportunities to generate feelings that otherwise may not have had the chance to exist. Cognitive insight gives you the chance to choose. Behavioural change *is* the choice. You become proactive, rather than reactive.
Kids coming. Gotta run.
Lar
Posted by AuntieMel on July 23, 2004, at 14:05:30
In reply to Re: Matt DDS? Other CBT'ers? » Dinah, posted by Larry Hoover on July 23, 2004, at 13:40:55
With the behaviour part of Lar's post. This is exactly what you have done recently with gracious gestures. You didn't allow feelings to muck with your behaviour.
Good job
Mel
Posted by Larry Hoover on July 23, 2004, at 14:10:56
In reply to Re: Dinah, we've come full circle, posted by AuntieMel on July 23, 2004, at 14:05:30
> With the behaviour part of Lar's post. This is exactly what you have done recently with gracious gestures. You didn't allow feelings to muck with your behaviour.
>
> Good job
>
> MelAnd that new insight becomes part of the cognitive processing (positive feedback), and you have a gradual "drift" towards adaptive behaviour from the old maladaptive stuff. Good work, Mel. I left that part out on purpose. :-)
Lar
Posted by fires on July 23, 2004, at 14:20:03
In reply to Re: Ah, the tyranny of the Should... » fires, posted by AuntieMel on July 23, 2004, at 11:48:46
I'm not sure what a T-in-training is? I know some schools hand out degrees for money, and eventually get caught for being unaccredited.
Ph.D. + training? Also, do theapists have issues of their own? How can they be helpful to others, while busy with their own issues? Maybe they are minor issues.
thanks
Posted by Dinah on July 23, 2004, at 14:21:11
In reply to Re: Dinah, we've come full circle, posted by AuntieMel on July 23, 2004, at 14:05:30
And I fear that I am in a quandary. :)
Part of my reservations to CBT - and in particular the B part - come from my own history, which I don't feel safe sharing here anymore. lol.
But it's the reason that my therapist doesn't do straight CBT with me. In fact CBT hasn't been a strong emphasis for some time.
But I will say it did wonders for my OCD.
Posted by partlycloudy on July 23, 2004, at 14:25:46
In reply to Re: Ah, the tyranny of the Should..., posted by fires on July 23, 2004, at 14:20:03
> I'm not sure what a T-in-training is? I know some schools hand out degrees for money, and eventually get caught for being unaccredited.
>Wouldn't a T-in-training be a therapist who has not finished their training yet? That seems very straightforward.
> Ph.D. + training? Also, do theapists have issues of their own? How can they be helpful to others, while busy with their own issues? Maybe they are minor issues.
>Most therapists have therapists of their own, to my knowledge.
> thanks
you are quite welcome.
Posted by Dinah on July 23, 2004, at 14:32:14
In reply to Re: Ah, the tyranny of the Should..., posted by fires on July 23, 2004, at 14:20:03
This is just the sort of thing that gets people in trouble! So many people here are fond of Gardenergirl, and your post might be seen as being critical of her. If you have questions, perhaps you should ask her with an inquiring spirit.
Something along the lines of:
I'm not familiar with the training of psychotherapists. I think I'd be interested in learning more about it. What does t in training mean?
Now, to answer your question to the best of *my* knowledge. Gardenergirl is not here primarily as a therapist in training, she is here as a therapy client just as we are. But we often find her experience from the other side of the couch very helpful to us, as well. Many programs for therapists strongly encourage if not require therapists in training to seek psychotherapy themselves. Don't you think it's helpful for therapists to understand their own issues?
And everyone has issues. I'd much rather have a therapist who recognizes their issues, wouldn't you? Perhaps that's what went wrong with your own therapy.
And no, Gardenergirl is not in a diploma mill. Do you think that was the best possible way you could have phrased your post? Can you think of other ways to phrase your questions? Less challenging ways? Ways that would allow a friendship to develop between you and the person you were questioning.
I'll bet you can. C'mon, I have confidence in you here. You learned something in CBT, can you think of how CBT might apply to your last post? Maybe something about assumptions?
Posted by AuntieMel on July 23, 2004, at 14:46:07
In reply to Re: Dinah, we've come full circle » AuntieMel, posted by Dinah on July 23, 2004, at 14:21:11
Well, the one thing I like about good behaviour is it gives you wiggle room (grinning). That way if a person decides later that they read something wrong or whatever, there isn't a problem with backtracking.
I'm just the type that needs the wiggle room. Otherwise, if I just reacted when I felt like it (way too often), I wouldn't have any friends at all.
I've had good behaviour (literally) beaten into me, and one of the things I need to work on is opening up more, but sometimes it does serve me well.
Posted by fires on July 23, 2004, at 15:16:55
In reply to Re: Ah, the tyranny of the Should... » fires, posted by partlycloudy on July 23, 2004, at 14:25:46
>>Wouldn't a T-in-training be a therapist who has not finished their training yet? That seems very straightforward.<<
Very straight forward, but extraordinarily vague! At last count I believe that there were over 250+ different types of "therapy" (and the number just keeps on rising).
>>Most therapists have therapists of their own, to my knowledge.<<
I had an MD who once said, "the sick should not be caring for the sick."
Just how far into the "disturbed" arena can a therapist "go" until they become too sick to care for the sick?
Thanks
Posted by TexasChic on July 23, 2004, at 15:22:08
In reply to Re: Ah, the tyranny of the Should..., posted by fires on July 23, 2004, at 15:16:55
I just have to say that having a therapist doesn *not* mean you are sick. Why would you assume that? In my opinion, everybody should have one. Therapy is a way of maintaining good mental health.
Posted by Dinah on July 23, 2004, at 15:26:32
In reply to Re: Ah, the tyranny of the Should..., posted by fires on July 23, 2004, at 15:16:55
Why did you feel you needed to do that. Were we being too kind to you? Did you feel you needed to chase us away?
I'm very very interested in why you made the choice you made, when there were so many other choices you *could* have made.
Posted by Dinah on July 23, 2004, at 15:47:08
In reply to Re: Dinah, we've come full circle, posted by AuntieMel on July 23, 2004, at 14:05:30
It remains to be seen if my behavior has any merit whatsoever to it. Or if I am complicit in hurting my friends. There is no honor in helping people hurt others.
Posted by AuntieMel on July 23, 2004, at 15:53:40
In reply to Re: Dinah, we've come full circle » AuntieMel, posted by Dinah on July 23, 2004, at 15:47:08
It has merit in it because you believed (and I still do) that it was the right, fair thing to do. That is *not* something you should ever feel sorry for.
You're doing a mitzvah.
Posted by fires on July 23, 2004, at 15:59:41
In reply to Re: Now, fires, posted by Dinah on July 23, 2004, at 14:32:14
So many questions! I have time for only a few. Hopefully my point will answer more than one.
There are so many types of T and so many types of Ts. I was wondering what type she is in training for? Or, do they now train to cover all the types of Ts?
I got all of these types from just *one* web site:
http://www.pip.com.au/~chenderson/types.htm
•Art therapy
•Cognitive behavioural therapy
•Existential therapy
•Gestalt
•Hakomi
•Jungian
•Neurolinguistic programming (NLP)
•Process Work
•Psychoanalysis
•Psychodrama
•Rebirthing
•Shamanism
•Somatic therapy
•Voice dialogueThe following link is to Amazon.com, Crazy Therapies(Singe & Lalich):
Scroll down page to "Editorial Reviews"
Thanks
Posted by Dinah on July 23, 2004, at 16:03:31
In reply to Re: Now, fires, posted by fires on July 23, 2004, at 15:59:41
Well, now. You've come up with a better way you could have asked that question. You could have said that there are many types of therapy and listed them. You could have asked GG what sort she was training for.
All that could have been done without saying:
"I know some schools hand out degrees for money, and eventually get caught for being unaccredited."
So my specific question is why did you add that sentence in a post directed at the training program of a poster? How did you mean *that sentence* and why was it necessary to include it. Aren't there other, more charitable, ways to find out what you were interested in finding out?
Posted by AuntieMel on July 23, 2004, at 16:03:32
In reply to Re: Ah, the tyranny of the Should..., posted by fires on July 23, 2004, at 15:16:55
Please don't let your admittedly horrid experiences taint your opinion of someone who genuinely wants to help people. One of the kindest people around.Peace,
Mel
Posted by gardenergirl on July 23, 2004, at 16:47:10
In reply to Re: Ah, the tyranny of the Should..., posted by fires on July 23, 2004, at 11:42:30
>
> >>I had a client<<???
>
> Care to share your credentials? State lic. #?
>
> ThanksWhy fires, thank you so much for showing an interest in my training. I have a MA in clinical psychology from an accredited university which I earned after completing my second year in the doctoral program. I have finished my fourth year of course work in the PsyD (doctor of psychology, a more clinically applied program than PhD programs) program in clinical psychology and next will be doing my internship and my dissertation. My specialty is geropsychology, but my training has also included working with college students and adults in my community.
The client I referred to was one I worked with while under the supervision of a licensed psychologist. I have never used the term psychologist nor made any claim to licensure, as in my state it requires a significant number of hours of supervised post-doctoral work before you can sit for licensure. This usually takes between one to two years after the degree is awarded to accumlate enough supervised clinical contact hours.
I'm quite proud that my university gained accreditation from APA for its clinical psychology doctoral program for the maximum number of years before renewal. I believe that speaks for itself as to the quality of my training, as APA accreditation is a rigorous process.
Does that answer your questions, dear?
gg
>
>
Posted by fires on July 23, 2004, at 16:53:22
In reply to My credentials » fires, posted by gardenergirl on July 23, 2004, at 16:47:10
Please don't call me Dear or Shirley.:)
Actually, all your info. doesn't quite answer my question. What type(s) of therapy are you training in? Which of the several hundreds of types of PT are you receiving training in?
I believe I have asked the Q. as clearly as possible. Also, do you have to undergo a psych. exam to prove fitness to be a T?
bye
Posted by pinkeye on July 23, 2004, at 17:27:57
In reply to Re: My credentials, posted by fires on July 23, 2004, at 16:53:22
Or anybody else who posts such obviously hurting messages. What is your problem mister fires?
If you can't help, atleast don't hurt others.I think all of us should boycott reading his posts or replying.
Posted by Larry Hoover on July 23, 2004, at 17:38:00
In reply to We don't read Fires, posted by pinkeye on July 23, 2004, at 17:27:57
> Or anybody else who posts such obviously hurting messages. What is your problem mister fires?
> If you can't help, atleast don't hurt others.
>
> I think all of us should boycott reading his posts or replying.Probably a good idea. But fires didn't answer the question. I think XX chromosomes. Maybe XXX.
Lar
Posted by gardenergirl on July 23, 2004, at 17:42:54
In reply to Re: My credentials, posted by fires on July 23, 2004, at 16:53:22
> Please don't call me Dear or Shirley.:)
Sorry snookums, just a habit of mine.
> Actually, all your info. doesn't quite answer my question. What type(s) of therapy are you training in? Which of the several hundreds of types of PT are you receiving training in?
My program is in clinical psychology. It is heavily influenced by CBT-oriented faculty, but we are taught a broad range of therapy orientations as per APA requirements. The broad categories of psychotherapy include behavioral, cognitive-behavioral, psychodynamic, humanistic, existential, and integrative. My program focuses mostly on CBT and psychodynamic orientations. Training in specific models comes during field work and is usually influenced by one's supervisor. My own preference is for self psychology work and I am most influenced by the theories of Kohut, Klein, and Erikson. Specific models I have been trained in during practicums include internal systems theory, DBT, CBT, BT, Kohut, Gestalt, Systems theory, Family systems theory, and Process-Experiential.
I am not aware of any program that requires a psych. eval in order to begin work. Training for psychoanalysts, however, which is undertaken after the doctorate, requres one to undergo an analysis first. Some programs require that students undergo psychotherapy as part of their training. While mine does not, it is strongly encouraged, and I have found my own therapy to be an invaluable learning experience as well as a facilitator of personal growth.
I'm curious...did you have to undergo some kind of fitness eval before you were able to work in your profession or occupation?
Regards,
gg
Posted by gardenergirl on July 23, 2004, at 17:44:39
In reply to Re: We don't read Fires » pinkeye, posted by Larry Hoover on July 23, 2004, at 17:38:00
Thanks to you all and to anyone I missed for jumping in for me until I could answer the question myself. And hugs and thanks for your kind words as well. I am humbled.
gg
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Psychology | 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.