The CBT surf-ride continues.... but for how long?

CBT (Cognitive Behavioural Therapy), on the platform of NICE, is riding the political wave of popularity... still.

I was interested, though, to listen to a segment on Radio 4 recently. A psychoanalyst took a rare opportunity to present a robust defence of non-CBT therapies. The fact is that the Evidence presented on CBT is matched by other therapies; additionally, the 'gold-standard' methodology of the randomised-controlled-trial is easily questioned by intelligent minds.

Why, then, do people still think of CBT as 'better' than other therapies?
Why do national services favour cognitively-based work (apart from the cost of short-term treatment, of course...!)

Think of the world of supermarkets. You can buy a product because you know it's what you need, or you can be told what you need by smart packaging, clever ad campaigns, and because everyone else says it's great.

Sooner or later, the hype might just wear off. Clients are smart, and will eventually vote with their feet.

Be This The Verse? ... Parents, Parenting, Families

Recently, for personal reasons, I've been revisiting the wonderful poem by Philip Larkin, "This Be The Verse". It's one that most psychotherapists are familiar with; we appreciate its truth and its irony.

It also makes me think about being a parent. I'm a little uncomfortable with Larkin's final rejoinder "And don't have any kids yourself", which to me speaks of Larkin's well-known glumness, his tendency towards polarized views, and a kind of lack of hope for humankind. He seems to suggest that the handing on of misery cannot be avoided.

This might be true in some ways; no parents are perfect, after all. But I wonder if it's also true that some of the misery can be turned into something else, or even quarantined, so that Larkin's dark outcome can be (at least partially) averted.

People can change. They can decide to do things differently, if they want to and realize they have the opportunity to do so. Otherwise, they may be able to achieve some of this in therapy.

I guess what I'm saying is, Mr Larkin made an astute observation, but I have more hope - for me as a parent, anyway, and for people who work on therapeutic change in themselves and others.

.

Pastor Terry Jones - unbelievable

It's not my intention to get into religious matters on my blog. I'm certainly no expert.

However, I do know that the pastor in the US who is proposing to burn the Koran is offering a very weird form of Christianity.
As far as I recall, Christ preached acceptance, compassion, and forgiveness.

Hard-line Christians seem to forget that Jesus's commandment - "Love One Another" is poorly served by bigotry of any kind, be it anti-Islamic, homophobic, racist, whatever.

"Look......" (that's an order!)

Listening to an interview recently on Radio 4, I noticed how frequently some of our politicians begin a reply with - "Look,..." and it made me angry.

Thinking back, I remember Gordon Brown using this intro, as did his predecessor Tony Blair.

Transactionally, it's interesting to note the two different levels of communication at play here. On the social level, "Look,..." is an invitation, and a plea for a kind of matey informality. 'Come on, I'll level with you....'
On the psychological level, though, there is a different message being delivered. A couple of possible interpretations -

"Look, (you clearly don't get it, so I'll have to explain it again)..."
"Look, (I have explained this before, so this is the last answer I will give to this question - don't ask it again thank you)..."

As Eric Berne suggested, the psychological-level communication determines the outcome of the transaction. So in their matey, friendly, I'm-just-like-you approach, these politicians are betraying a secret -
they really "look" down on other people.