Posted: Sep 30, 2017 7:39 am
I typed out a lengthy response to this, only to accidentally close the tab and lose the lot. This is a second attempt.
I think you're catastrophising.
I'm focusing on trying to answer your questions to the best of my ability. I've no idea what he's doing. Could he be bastardising CBT in some way? Sure. However, it seems that your problem, if I can phrase it like that, is at least in part with CBT itself. Any tool can be used for a purpose it was never meant to serve. That's not the fault of the tool. CBT is not a panacea. It's just one therapy model.
Very, very few situations are actually catastrophes, and if you are sitting pondering whether the situation you're in is a catastrophe or not, the chances are it isn't.
Something about this doesn't make sense to me. If you don't come anywhere near perceiving how bad the situation truly is, why would you be trying to decatastrophise it? You'd have to see it as a catastrophe to begin with.
You frame this as a statement of fact, but it's actually your perception. In the years I've been doing this job, I have never met a truly terrible person. Individuals react to experiences in strange and varied ways, sure, but underneath it's always the same - fear, distress, trauma, disorder, mental illness. I'm ready for any calls of 'lily livered liberal' anyone cares to throw, so that's fine. And actually yes, the way to make them 'better' people IS to help them understand that they are not terrible people. It's the difference between punishing and rehabilitating a criminal. It's the difference between blame and fault, and responsibility. It's the difference between hating the 'sin' and hating the 'sinner'.
What about it? It's irrational. I see a lot of that in the problematic gamblers I work with. I just wouldn't use 'normal' CBT for that, because it's generally used for negative emotions. There are other tools and techniques. As I said in my previous post, there is a difference between acknowledging that things CAN go wrong and being convinced that they WILL go wrong.
Ok, but you're talking about perception again. There is no objective definition of beauty. Do you think those mothers need therapy?
No. I read one as a teenager, but I never got on with Terry Pratchett.
Well that's fine crank, after all you're entitled to your beliefs. It's all academic though, isn't it, since from what you've said, it seems pretty obvious that he has no intention whatsoever of sharing even an online space with you. The guy is clearly not firing on all cylinders. Obviously you can go on being hurt and angry and expecting things of him, but it's never really a good idea to hitch your wagon to a spooked horse, for reasons that can be easily imagined.
crank wrote:I think you're focusing on the way things are supposed to be, and I'm looking at how they can go wrong.
I think you're catastrophising.
I'm focusing on trying to answer your questions to the best of my ability. I've no idea what he's doing. Could he be bastardising CBT in some way? Sure. However, it seems that your problem, if I can phrase it like that, is at least in part with CBT itself. Any tool can be used for a purpose it was never meant to serve. That's not the fault of the tool. CBT is not a panacea. It's just one therapy model.I used catastrophizing loosely, what I was attempting to get across is that some situations are catastrophes, or very serious,
Very, very few situations are actually catastrophes, and if you are sitting pondering whether the situation you're in is a catastrophe or not, the chances are it isn't.
if you think you're catastrophizing one of these, but don't actually come anywhere near perceiving how bad the situation truly is, then trying to use CBT to de-catastrophize the situation ain't the right way to go.
Something about this doesn't make sense to me. If you don't come anywhere near perceiving how bad the situation truly is, why would you be trying to decatastrophise it? You'd have to see it as a catastrophe to begin with.
Or put another way, some folks really are terrible people, having them convince themselves they are not isn't the way to make them better people.
You frame this as a statement of fact, but it's actually your perception. In the years I've been doing this job, I have never met a truly terrible person. Individuals react to experiences in strange and varied ways, sure, but underneath it's always the same - fear, distress, trauma, disorder, mental illness. I'm ready for any calls of 'lily livered liberal' anyone cares to throw, so that's fine. And actually yes, the way to make them 'better' people IS to help them understand that they are not terrible people. It's the difference between punishing and rehabilitating a criminal. It's the difference between blame and fault, and responsibility. It's the difference between hating the 'sin' and hating the 'sinner'.
What about an irrational belief that everything will go right? It's back to that bit about pessimists are more realistic than optimists.
What about it? It's irrational. I see a lot of that in the problematic gamblers I work with. I just wouldn't use 'normal' CBT for that, because it's generally used for negative emotions. There are other tools and techniques. As I said in my previous post, there is a difference between acknowledging that things CAN go wrong and being convinced that they WILL go wrong.
It's not ignorance is bliss, it's more like mothers who think they're baby is beautiful. I'll just leave it at that.
Ok, but you're talking about perception again. There is no objective definition of beauty. Do you think those mothers need therapy?
Have you read the Discworld novels? Death gets into these monologues pondering that which is man, in wonder and awe and bewilderment. These passages are not only hilarious but make you really think about a few things.
No. I read one as a teenager, but I never got on with Terry Pratchett.
And I'm still left with my belief that if I can get the guy to talk to me, and stapling his feet to the floor is plan B, maybe C or D, and if we can talk without too much attitude or rancor, I think we could come to some resolution. And I think he''d likely benefit more than me. He's highly intelligent and rational, except for dealing with this issue. If all of that fails, I could just beat the crap out of him, greatly facilitated by having his feet immobilized. It's a joke, a joke! Everyone knows you can't find staples big enough and that you could deploy easily. I'm gonna end up having to use a nail gun I'm pretty sure.
Well that's fine crank, after all you're entitled to your beliefs. It's all academic though, isn't it, since from what you've said, it seems pretty obvious that he has no intention whatsoever of sharing even an online space with you. The guy is clearly not firing on all cylinders. Obviously you can go on being hurt and angry and expecting things of him, but it's never really a good idea to hitch your wagon to a spooked horse, for reasons that can be easily imagined.