Posted by Dr. Bob on May 31, 2003, at 14:29:31
In reply to Re: Larry, your take on CBT? » Squiggles, posted by Larry Hoover on May 31, 2003, at 11:15:44
>
> > As for CBT, my view on that is that a person
> > must first be in a mental and emotional condition
> > where that kind of therapy is possible. After
> > all to be cognitively capable means to be
> > unperturbed psychologically - making this
> > a bit of a paradox.
>
> I don't even know how to answer you.....there is no paradox, except if you hold the belief that there must be one. Anyone can do it, barring acute psychosis or some such phenomenon.
>
> > And nutrition and life-style -- well they may
> > be the road to a successful life - the kind i
> > envy in some people - but that is a matter
> > of fate and circumstances in a person's life.
>
> Nutrition and life-style are not fate, they're choices.
>
> > There is not much we can do about grief, terror,
> > rape, war, etc. which leave victims in a
> > a bad condition.
>
> Those conditions are not immutable, and there is much that can be done. However, if you believe that nothing can be done, nothing can.
>
> > Nor, is there much we can
> > we do with people who inherit mental illness.
>
> That's exactly what all this nutrition talk is about, accomodating special biochemical needs associated with genetically determined characteristics.
>
> > So, it's complex.
>
> No, it's quite simple, really. Feed the need.
>
> Fatalistic or deterministic cognition, sometimes associated with what is called "black and white" thinking, is certainly an obstacle in applying CBT and other augmentative strategies, such as supplemented nutrition. But that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the alternative approaches, as you seem to suggest. The problem is the "stinking thinking".
>
poster:Dr. Bob
thread:230443
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20030529/msgs/230443.html