Schmegaloooooo, I love the picture you posted of Big Al Ellis.
It makes me think of his work in an entirely different way...
Specifically, I wondered about the role that certain "client characteristics" might play in explaining the efficacy/effectiveness of CBT in some patients, compared to others...
For example, in order for a client to benefit from CBT, it is implied that he/she must assume a certain level of responsibility for his/her beliefs, attitudes, behaviors, etc. What about those who may be content blaming others, dwelling on the past, etc.?
More to come.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
White Fronted Bee Eaters
To suggest that the client-therapist relationship has no impact on treatment outcome would just be silly given consideration of the past few weeks’ readings and discussions. It also seems sort of silly to say that any strategy implemented to facilitate psychological treatment is anything but “person-centered.” While the role of the therapist may vary depending on theoretical orientation, it can be argued that the “person,” or “client” (a term popularized by Rogers), represents the key variable in the therapeutic equation. Specifically, regardless of the approach (ie. CBT, interpersonal, even electro-shock therapy), assessment, evaluation and monitoring of a treatment’s success or failure is ultimately communicated (directly via patient self-report, indirectly via behavioral observations, etc.) by the person/client. Thus, while Castonguay and Kirschenbaum address a crucial issue, the novelty is…well…the opposite of found.
On a different note, I would like to briefly address one of the “core” conditions Rogers identified as a crucial component of effective psychotherapy. Rogers and his followers report that “therapists or counselors who are accurately empathic, nonpossessively warm in attitude, and genuine, are indeed effective.” That said, I know of at least 4 lovely human beings who will make fabulous, effective therapists. However, if one defines empathy strictly and literally as “the capability to share and understand another's emotions and feelings,” it can be suggested that, taken to the extreme, empathizing with others (all others) may stress/strain one’s own capacity to cope. Thus, as therapists, actively excessive empathy may just give us that little extra boost allowing us to surpass the African white-fronted bee eater and claim the title of the most altruistic species ever.
On a different note, I would like to briefly address one of the “core” conditions Rogers identified as a crucial component of effective psychotherapy. Rogers and his followers report that “therapists or counselors who are accurately empathic, nonpossessively warm in attitude, and genuine, are indeed effective.” That said, I know of at least 4 lovely human beings who will make fabulous, effective therapists. However, if one defines empathy strictly and literally as “the capability to share and understand another's emotions and feelings,” it can be suggested that, taken to the extreme, empathizing with others (all others) may stress/strain one’s own capacity to cope. Thus, as therapists, actively excessive empathy may just give us that little extra boost allowing us to surpass the African white-fronted bee eater and claim the title of the most altruistic species ever.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Screech was on Celebrity Fit Club
I might liken my initial response to the pseudo-question posed by David A. Smith in his paper entitled: “The end of theoretical orientations?” to that which I experienced when rumors of Zack and Kelly’s “real life break-up” triggered heated discussion between network reps as to whether or not this was “The end of Saved By The Bell.”
As you can imagine, this news caused quite the frenzy among Saved By The Bell (SBTB) fans. This is not to say that the mounting tension among the cast members went unnoticed following the dissolution of the hit musical sensation, Zack Attack. While it appeared on the surface that Zack was happy to assume the role of talent manager for the all girl group, Hot Sundae, I would contend that things were never quite the same with “the crew.” It seemed as though they were on the divide…Zack (ie. integration), Slater (standardized practice), Lisa (managed care) and Screech (eclecticism) on one side, Jessie (structure) and Kelly (voted most popular), and perhaps, Milo (the middle school hall monitor who represents historical precedence) on the other.
What can be done? Do the network execs really think that they can "send Jessie to rehab” and Kelly to “Paris on a modeling scholarship" and things will all be ok? Do they really think that Tory, the motorcycle-riding, leather jacket-wearing “hot girl” who keeps Zack and Slater in line, can cut it? As I recall, Tory wasn't even a very good dancer. And where, might I ask, has Mr. Belding been this whole time? We haven’t so much as heard him say: “Hey, hey, hey, hey…”
Alas, if the analogy between SBTB and theoretical orientation stands, what can we expect? Well, the “New Class” may not be so great...and “The College Years” may introduce us to some pretty wacky characters, and while SBTB may ultimately be canceled, we will always have the reruns. Every morning from 7:00 to 9:00 on TBS...and don't you forget it.
As you can imagine, this news caused quite the frenzy among Saved By The Bell (SBTB) fans. This is not to say that the mounting tension among the cast members went unnoticed following the dissolution of the hit musical sensation, Zack Attack. While it appeared on the surface that Zack was happy to assume the role of talent manager for the all girl group, Hot Sundae, I would contend that things were never quite the same with “the crew.” It seemed as though they were on the divide…Zack (ie. integration), Slater (standardized practice), Lisa (managed care) and Screech (eclecticism) on one side, Jessie (structure) and Kelly (voted most popular), and perhaps, Milo (the middle school hall monitor who represents historical precedence) on the other.
What can be done? Do the network execs really think that they can "send Jessie to rehab” and Kelly to “Paris on a modeling scholarship" and things will all be ok? Do they really think that Tory, the motorcycle-riding, leather jacket-wearing “hot girl” who keeps Zack and Slater in line, can cut it? As I recall, Tory wasn't even a very good dancer. And where, might I ask, has Mr. Belding been this whole time? We haven’t so much as heard him say: “Hey, hey, hey, hey…”
Alas, if the analogy between SBTB and theoretical orientation stands, what can we expect? Well, the “New Class” may not be so great...and “The College Years” may introduce us to some pretty wacky characters, and while SBTB may ultimately be canceled, we will always have the reruns. Every morning from 7:00 to 9:00 on TBS...and don't you forget it.
Hmmm...
In reviewing the literature and assigned readings (not just for this class), I often find myself overwhelmed by this sort of disconnect or divide between the theoretical and practical approaches to cultural issues, particularly as they relate to psychology.
Below I will briefly address but one of these contradictions:
Often times it seems as though we refer to our culture as something that makes us unique…an individual. However, it can be suggested that we created culture and that by identifying with it, we imply that we share common beliefs, goals, etc. Along these lines, it can be suggested that identifying with a certain culture is efficient and essential for survival/success because we can base our behaviors and actions on the beliefs, attitudes, and experiences of others “like us,” thus providing an unconditional sense of community, belonging, support. Further, by identifying with a certain culture we may embrace and implement the positive attributes associated with our culture and be better equipped to deal with our experiences, attain our goals etc. Conversely, when it comes to negative attributes associated with our cultures, we might be expected to surrender such cultural collectiveness or unification and consider ourselves culturally unique.
In addition to the “culturally unique vs. culturally unified” contradiction, other dichotomies pertaining to culture and psychology come to mind: culture as a product of psychology vs. psychology as a product of culture; culture is created vs. inherent/inherited; past, present, future cultural values; implementation/active participation vs. rejection of cultural values/norms; majority vs. minority; awareness vs. ignorance; acknowledgement vs. bias; individual experience vs. experience of a group; and the list could go on.
From an evolutionary perspective, “culture” seems to have replaced food, water and shelter as the most critical resource for human survival. Specifically, it can be argued that certain aspects of our culture influence what we eat, how and where we live, how we define, measure and attain success, etc. However, unlike some natural mechanisms, culture can be changed. And apparently, psychology can be changed. It is very nice to know that so much attention and discussion have been devoted to this issue. I guess for the sake of continuity, I will conclude with another kind of paradox (?): with respect to psychology and culture as interdependent entities, I have great hope for and major concern about what the future will hold. But…mostly hope.
Below I will briefly address but one of these contradictions:
Often times it seems as though we refer to our culture as something that makes us unique…an individual. However, it can be suggested that we created culture and that by identifying with it, we imply that we share common beliefs, goals, etc. Along these lines, it can be suggested that identifying with a certain culture is efficient and essential for survival/success because we can base our behaviors and actions on the beliefs, attitudes, and experiences of others “like us,” thus providing an unconditional sense of community, belonging, support. Further, by identifying with a certain culture we may embrace and implement the positive attributes associated with our culture and be better equipped to deal with our experiences, attain our goals etc. Conversely, when it comes to negative attributes associated with our cultures, we might be expected to surrender such cultural collectiveness or unification and consider ourselves culturally unique.
In addition to the “culturally unique vs. culturally unified” contradiction, other dichotomies pertaining to culture and psychology come to mind: culture as a product of psychology vs. psychology as a product of culture; culture is created vs. inherent/inherited; past, present, future cultural values; implementation/active participation vs. rejection of cultural values/norms; majority vs. minority; awareness vs. ignorance; acknowledgement vs. bias; individual experience vs. experience of a group; and the list could go on.
From an evolutionary perspective, “culture” seems to have replaced food, water and shelter as the most critical resource for human survival. Specifically, it can be argued that certain aspects of our culture influence what we eat, how and where we live, how we define, measure and attain success, etc. However, unlike some natural mechanisms, culture can be changed. And apparently, psychology can be changed. It is very nice to know that so much attention and discussion have been devoted to this issue. I guess for the sake of continuity, I will conclude with another kind of paradox (?): with respect to psychology and culture as interdependent entities, I have great hope for and major concern about what the future will hold. But…mostly hope.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Based on previous discussions regarding the evolution of psychology “as a science,” it is not surprising that much attention has been devoted to defining and comparing therapeutic interventions using an empirical approach. As in any field, developing, evaluating and optimizing therapeutic interventions is crucial not only in improving patient/client care, but in providing valuable insight regarding the causes, underlying mechanisms, pathological features, etc. of the condition in question. Given that the objective is to provide the highest quality of care, it seems valid to employ treatment strategies that are supported by evidence. According to Hunsley, evidence based practice as it relates to psychotherapy has received quite a bit of attention over the past couple of decades. While it can certainly be argued that evidence based practice is highly desirable in this context, it may be difficult to implement routinely, especially for persons with psychological conditions, where symptoms, responses to treatment, and definitions of improvement can be so variable and unpredictable.
Thus, it can be suggested that developing and evaluating outcome measures to determine clinical efficacy of new treatments in clinical trials, to monitor progress in clinical practice, and to modify treatment strategies could be the egg to the therapy’s [dream] chicken, or vice versa, if that makes any sense. Further, how can we decide which treatment is better if we do not know how to define “better?” How do we know if the treatment treats the problem, if more than one problem exist?
Thus, it can be suggested that developing and evaluating outcome measures to determine clinical efficacy of new treatments in clinical trials, to monitor progress in clinical practice, and to modify treatment strategies could be the egg to the therapy’s [dream] chicken, or vice versa, if that makes any sense. Further, how can we decide which treatment is better if we do not know how to define “better?” How do we know if the treatment treats the problem, if more than one problem exist?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)