# CBT vs NLP ?



## jaspion

the best selling books on SA - and at the same time the ones recommended by the phsychologists - relate to CBT.
I myself however found out that some NLP techniques help me.
I am wondering whether CBT contradicts NLP?
In my opinion - it does.
For example many authors who recommend CBT emphasize the need of consistent practice. They claim the therapy is effectife but it requires time and persistence in most cases.
While NLP says change may happen fast. Take for example one of the best known NLP books: "NLP. The new technology of achievement". In chapter eight "eliminating your fears and phobias", there are some techniques described that can be used effectively against any phobia. Like "The fast phobia technique", after which there is this a part called "the need for rapid change", where the author states:
"People often ask"How often do I need to practice this process to make it work?" Once you've done this process thoroughly, you should never need to do it again. The change is permanent. You learned to have this unpleasent memory or phobia very quickly, and you can learn to change it just as quickly."

So who is right? the CBT authors who say we have learned SA through years so now it must take time to learn our brains to think differently or the NLP authors who say the way our brains are constructed allow us to change rapidly and cure phobias?

I am affraid that what NLP authors say is too beautifull to be true....
What you guys think?


----------



## CAD

I'd be wary of anything which claims to eliminate long-term phobias or problems quickly. But then I also think post-Freudian psychologies like structural/transactional analysis or CBT are over-simplistic and over-optimistic in their attempt to be phenomenological rather than conceptual.

Exercise your own judgement.


----------



## mountain5

I'm not comfortable with NLP and I don't think a lot of its teachings are grounded in reality. I'm interested in EMDR but it doesn't seem to be widely practiced or accepted, and it's not something you can work on via self-help books.

Acceptance and Commitment Therapy authors say that CBT is overly simplistic and prone to relapse. I've yet to give ACT an honest try, though.


----------



## Sunshine009

NLP is a good adjunct to CBT


----------



## inmate

What are some good books or Cds I can look at?


----------



## yakubu

jaspion said:


> the best selling books on SA - and at the same time the ones recommended by the phsychologists - relate to CBT.
> I myself however found out that some NLP techniques help me.
> I am wondering whether CBT contradicts NLP?
> In my opinion - it does.
> For example many authors who recommend CBT emphasize the need of consistent practice. They claim the therapy is effectife but it requires time and persistence in most cases.
> While NLP says change may happen fast. Take for example one of the best known NLP books: "NLP. The new technology of achievement". In chapter eight "eliminating your fears and phobias", there are some techniques described that can be used effectively against any phobia. Like "The fast phobia technique", after which there is this a part called "the need for rapid change", where the author states:
> "People often ask"How often do I need to practice this process to make it work?" Once you've done this process thoroughly, you should never need to do it again. The change is permanent. You learned to have this unpleasent memory or phobia very quickly, and you can learn to change it just as quickly."
> 
> So who is right? the CBT authors who say we have learned SA through years so now it must take time to learn our brains to think differently or the NLP authors who say the way our brains are constructed allow us to change rapidly and cure phobias?
> 
> I am affraid that what NLP authors say is too beautifull to be true....
> What you guys think?


nlp is cbt basically. its the same thing but just a different and faster way of applying it.
the basic principles and goals of both cbt and nlp are exactly the same. they go something like this:

*10 people could experience the exact same event but all have a completely different response to it e.g a social event can cause panic in a social phobia were as it can be the most pleasurable experience for another person 
*the reason people have different responses to the exact same events is cos people give different meanings to reality than each other
*the reason people give diferent meanings to reality than each other is cos people have different beleifs
*the reason people have different beleifs is cos they have different memories and past experiences 
*when an event occurs in life it triggers a persons beliefs which leaves the meaning of that event in their concious mind (the meaning consists of thoughts and images)
*the meanings (thoughts and images etc....) create feelings e.g a social phobic will feel anxious were as a non social phobic will feel confy 
*feelings create actions e.g if someone is feeling anxious then they will avoid or escape the situation or stay quiet etc.... . if someone is feeling confy int hat situation they will act differebtly to someone who is anxious
*actions become habits
*habits become who you are

cbt and nlp have the same veiw on this and they have the same goal - change unconcious beleifs in order to create new meanings int he conious mind which will then create new feelings and actions which will become habits /
they both have the same veiw and the same goal but they applly themselves in a different way.

cbt works conciously were as nlp works unconciously.

cbt works by trying to change your thoughts conciously whilst you are in a difficult situation e.g if you are at a party and your mind is full of thoughts like ''i dont belong here '' then the cbt appraoch is to change your thoughts there and then and say something differently to yourself. cbt also uses worksheets etc... to gather evidence to supoort new beleifs etc...

nlp works by going directly to the unconcious mind and producing the chnage right there.

the root cause of SA is unconcious beleifs. if you beleive '' if i try to get close to people then they will reject me'' then when you are in an intimate situation that beleif will be activated in your mind. the result of this will be your head filled with thoughts like ''i'll have to put my guard up etc....'' . because of these thoughts you'll fell anxious and you will act in ways such as maybe rejecting that person before they get the chance to reject you.

the cbt approach to this situation is to change you thoughts in the moment e.g you'd say ''how do i know if theyd reject me ?''. this will make you feel a bit better and then you will be required to change your behaviour by dropping your guard instead of rejecting them. once the situation is over you gather evidence from it such as ''i let my guard down and i didnt get rejected. that one experience will chip away at you origional beleif ''if i try and get close to people they will reject me'' and you wont beleive it as much as you did before the event. before the evnt you might have thought it was 100% true but now that youve let your gurd down and didnt get rejected it might make you think its only about 60% true now.
with cbt you have to keep trying new behavuiours and thoughts and chipping away until eventually you dont beleive the old beleif anymore - it takes a lot of time to do this and sometime you can go backwards instead of forwards.

with nlp you change the origionaly beleif in an instance. that beleif is held in you unconious mind so the best place to make the change is at an unconious level. with nlp you go directly to the unconcious mind and remove the old beleif. after that when you enter an event that beleif simply does not get activated anymore cos its simply not there any more. therefore your head is no longer full of bad thoughts and you dont feel anxious anymore.

you created that beleif in an instance sometime in your past so why not remove it in an instance right now int he present. that beleif isnt even true either cos reality is what you make it. if that beleif was actually true then everybody would beelieve it but the fact that not everyone is anxious about trejection meen sthat not everybody beleifs it.

when i was a kid i had a bad experience were i was left out of a group. right there and then in an instance i decided that i was a loner. every since that beleif has ruined my life. i invented that beleif in an instance so why not remove it in an instance with nlp ? after all that beleif is not even true (its just something i made up one day and beleived it ever since) and it serves me no purpose so why not remove it in an instance instead of spending so much time trying to gradually remove it with cbt ?

here is the thing though - just becasue nlp works so quickly does not make it a quick fix, cure all blah blah. i'll give you an example :

if ive beleived for years and years that im a loner and ive been behaving a certain way becasue of this beleif then just because i remove that beleif with nlp doesnt mean that im changed for good.
if ive been avoiding group situations for years then im now gonna have to take big risks and step out of my confort zone by gradually chnaging my behaviour. its still gonna be uncomfortable to change and its still gonnna take time and hard work but its so much easier when that origional beleifs is not there.
if i remove the belfi wioth nlp then when im in a group situation ill no longer feel anxious. now ive still got to try new behaviour and do new things like get involved witht he group etc.... and its still gonna be hard and be a risk but its so much easier to take these risks and change my behviour when i dont feel anxious.

if i use cbt then ill feel anxious when im in the situaion and ill have to try and make myself feel better right there and then by using cbt thought techniques. once i only beleive the origional beleif about 80% instead of 100% then ill feel a bit less anxios when i enter the ituation next time but never the less its a lot harder to change my behaviour when im feeling 100% or 80% anxious instead of not feeling anxious at all.

personally i use both nlp and cbt. i use cbt cos i like to look after my thought when im in situations and i use nlp cos it gets right to the root of the problem.

cbt works but it can be tedious and hard work. nlp is fantastic cos its quick and a lot more powerful.

a combination of the both of them is perfect in my opinion 
nlp is lots of different therapys tohether


----------



## yakubu

yakubu said:


> nlp is cbt basically. its the same thing but just a different and faster way of applying it.
> the basic principles and goals of both cbt and nlp are exactly the same. they go something like this:
> 
> *10 people could experience the exact same event but all have a completely different response to it e.g a social event can cause panic in a social phobia were as it can be the most pleasurable experience for another person
> *the reason people have different responses to the exact same events is cos people give different meanings to reality than each other
> *the reason people give diferent meanings to reality than each other is cos people have different beleifs
> *the reason people have different beleifs is cos they have different memories and past experiences
> *when an event occurs in life it triggers a persons beliefs which leaves the meaning of that event in their concious mind (the meaning consists of thoughts and images)
> *the meanings (thoughts and images etc....) create feelings e.g a social phobic will feel anxious were as a non social phobic will feel confy
> *feelings create actions e.g if someone is feeling anxious then they will avoid or escape the situation or stay quiet etc.... . if someone is feeling confy int hat situation they will act differebtly to someone who is anxious
> *actions become habits
> *habits become who you are
> 
> cbt and nlp have the same veiw on this and they have the same goal - change unconcious beleifs in order to create new meanings int he conious mind which will then create new feelings and actions which will become habits /
> they both have the same veiw and the same goal but they applly themselves in a different way.
> 
> cbt works conciously were as nlp works unconciously.
> 
> cbt works by trying to change your thoughts conciously whilst you are in a difficult situation e.g if you are at a party and your mind is full of thoughts like ''i dont belong here '' then the cbt appraoch is to change your thoughts there and then and say something differently to yourself. cbt also uses worksheets etc... to gather evidence to supoort new beleifs etc...
> 
> nlp works by going directly to the unconcious mind and producing the chnage right there.
> 
> the root cause of SA is unconcious beleifs. if you beleive '' if i try to get close to people then they will reject me'' then when you are in an intimate situation that beleif will be activated in your mind. the result of this will be your head filled with thoughts like ''i'll have to put my guard up etc....'' . because of these thoughts you'll fell anxious and you will act in ways such as maybe rejecting that person before they get the chance to reject you.
> 
> the cbt approach to this situation is to change you thoughts in the moment e.g you'd say ''how do i know if theyd reject me ?''. this will make you feel a bit better and then you will be required to change your behaviour by dropping your guard instead of rejecting them. once the situation is over you gather evidence from it such as ''i let my guard down and i didnt get rejected. that one experience will chip away at you origional beleif ''if i try and get close to people they will reject me'' and you wont beleive it as much as you did before the event. before the evnt you might have thought it was 100% true but now that youve let your gurd down and didnt get rejected it might make you think its only about 60% true now.
> with cbt you have to keep trying new behavuiours and thoughts and chipping away until eventually you dont beleive the old beleif anymore - it takes a lot of time to do this and sometime you can go backwards instead of forwards.
> 
> with nlp you change the origionaly beleif in an instance. that beleif is held in you unconious mind so the best place to make the change is at an unconious level. with nlp you go directly to the unconcious mind and remove the old beleif. after that when you enter an event that beleif simply does not get activated anymore cos its simply not there any more. therefore your head is no longer full of bad thoughts and you dont feel anxious anymore.
> 
> you created that beleif in an instance sometime in your past so why not remove it in an instance right now int he present. that beleif isnt even true either cos reality is what you make it. if that beleif was actually true then everybody would beelieve it but the fact that not everyone is anxious about trejection meen sthat not everybody beleifs it.
> 
> when i was a kid i had a bad experience were i was left out of a group. right there and then in an instance i decided that i was a loner. every since that beleif has ruined my life. i invented that beleif in an instance so why not remove it in an instance with nlp ? after all that beleif is not even true (its just something i made up one day and beleived it ever since) and it serves me no purpose so why not remove it in an instance instead of spending so much time trying to gradually remove it with cbt ?
> 
> here is the thing though - just becasue nlp works so quickly does not make it a quick fix, cure all blah blah. i'll give you an example :
> 
> if ive beleived for years and years that im a loner and ive been behaving a certain way becasue of this beleif then just because i remove that beleif with nlp doesnt mean that im changed for good.
> if ive been avoiding group situations for years then im now gonna have to take big risks and step out of my confort zone by gradually chnaging my behaviour. its still gonna be uncomfortable to change and its still gonnna take time and hard work but its so much easier when that origional beleifs is not there.
> if i remove the belfi wioth nlp then when im in a group situation ill no longer feel anxious. now ive still got to try new behaviour and do new things like get involved witht he group etc.... and its still gonna be hard and be a risk but its so much easier to take these risks and change my behviour when i dont feel anxious.
> 
> if i use cbt then ill feel anxious when im in the situaion and ill have to try and make myself feel better right there and then by using cbt thought techniques. once i only beleive the origional beleif about 80% instead of 100% then ill feel a bit less anxios when i enter the ituation next time but never the less its a lot harder to change my behaviour when im feeling 100% or 80% anxious instead of not feeling anxious at all.
> 
> personally i use both nlp and cbt. i use cbt cos i like to look after my thought when im in situations and i use nlp cos it gets right to the root of the problem.
> 
> cbt works but it can be tedious and hard work. nlp is fantastic cos its quick and a lot more powerful.
> 
> a combination of the both of them is perfect in my opinion
> nlp is lots of different therapys tohether


nlp is lots of different therapies, including cbt, combined together and utilizised in a specific way (uncocniously ) in order to produce more rapid changes than normal therapies can produce

the creators of nlp - richard bandler and john grinder, always wondered why some therapists got great results whilst other got no results. they studied lots of different therapies and therapist and eventually created a model were rapid change could be achieved.

for instance they combined tad jame's timeline therapy, milton erickson's hypnosis and and aron t beck's cbt all togehtehr , along with some other stuff, in order to create nlp


----------



## Jah Prophet

The delineation that you make by saying that NLP promotes 'fast change' and CBT gradual is not cut and dry. CBT's exposure therapy without any form of mental rehearsal of the desired behavior pattern might take some time on top of it being "painful" by having to push through the bad feelings, but I'm not sure if most CB therapists do exposure therapy like this. 

Most of my experience is in NLP. There's a bunch of misunderstanding with this "fast change" thing and I had to learn from experience which lead me to see what bandler was saying about this. Tony Robbins metaphor about the 'tuning of his piano strings' is the best way to explain this in that, if you do an NLP pattern successfully and get change, for example, if you do the Fast Phobia Pattern and are able to get the anxious feelings from an anxiety producing memory to subside, it'll work instantly, BUT sometimes, later on, it might come back. This is why Bandler says that you might then want to take the few minutes to do the 'Fast Phobia Pattern' again. So, it's like when a piano tuner comes to your house to tune the strings initially, it'll stay tuned for a while but he has to come back in to retune it. Eventually, it'll stay tuned permanently after a number of retuning or conditionings. 

So what he means by the fast change could be explained by the "Having a good night" phenomena. Since this is a social anxiety forum (which I pulled up randomly while looking for "NLP vs cognitive therapy" on google) I'll use that example. Sometimes, if a social phobic is out, they might end up using a different part of the brain/mental strategy, and have a good night and be socially at ease. What they then need to do is to practice getting good at doing that more consistently instead of the old social anxiety cognitive behavioral patterns. It's not like they had to gradually take all of these years to get away from the old pattern to have that one good night. It happened automatically without years of trying to get a glimpse of being socially at ease. This is how the NLP patterns work is that they lead you to focus on the desired state (instead of worrying about the undesired, anxious state) and you kind of just...'step into it' and experience it, independently of the old state. Then, it's about making that more consistent. 

I'm not saying that this is true for every situation, but I'll agree with Bandler by saying that at least, in certain cases, in certain situations, when looked at a certain way, change can happen fast, and then you just have to practice making it more consistent.


----------



## bent

I have known a couple of people who were into NLP and they were absolutely not helped by it. Who knows, maybe they were exceptions. It seems like an interesting set of ideas.

In any event, if it is going to work for someone I will bet it will work better without the paid intrusion, masquerading as needed assistance, of a therapist who will do more harm than good almost every time. The beauty of that relationship is that as the client/patient stays broken or even gets worse, the idiot getting paid keeps booking more appointments for them.


----------



## jonny neurotic

CBT is actually based on empirical data. You decide which appeals to you more...


----------



## bent

True enough. It is worth noting however that the methodology employed to gather the empirical data, let alone the conclusions made from it, are contentious. Moreover, even the claims of success are remarkably low. And all that is assuming you are willing to be abused by a therapist and that the abuse won't itself then contribute to more problems.


----------



## jonny neurotic

willowdan said:


> I use NLP with EFT, EFT being my main practice. NLP enhances and quickens my therapy sessions with clients by about 50%, causing to get results within 90 minutes or less, dealing one past experience or memory at a time.
> 
> Cheers!


Describe a case study in which "results" are attained within 90 minutes. Make sure you outline precisely the problems faced by the client and whether the "treatment" was followed up at a later date to screen for relapses...

Edit: lol. I just looked up EFT on wiki and it is even more preposterous than NLP.


> During a typical EFT session, the person will focus on a specific issue while tapping on "end points of the body's energy meridians".


 Need I say, "Pfft!"?


----------



## jonny neurotic

bent said:


> True enough. It is worth noting however that the methodology employed to gather the empirical data, let alone the conclusions made from it, are contentious. Moreover, even the claims of success are remarkably low. And all that is assuming you are willing to be abused by a therapist and that the abuse won't itself then contribute to more problems.


Contentious? Any particular areas of contention spring to mind or are you just throwing words around?

What is it about the therapeutic process that you regard as abuse? Also, could you define "abuse" as used in this context?


----------



## bent

Have you seen any of the other posts I've made about therapy? I went into quite a bit of detail about what I mean by abuse. In my opinion it has to do with the therapist's inability to truly want someone to succeed if that detracts from their own selfish goals of feeling superior. Based on other posts and what I've heard from other's I have known in therapy my experiences were not unique.

Since mental illness is not caused by an organism we can look at under a microscope it requires much more work to fill in the gaps in order to know what causes symptoms, how to classify them, how to get rid of them, and what the final tally of health actually is. Most studies track people based on their self-reported symptoms using verbal leads and then proceed to statistically measure levels of apparent health and improvement starting and ending at chosen points. What's success? If you think that is a precise means of measuring it then you should feel confident about making real improvements pretty soon through cbt and continuing the get real benefits for years to come if that is what your extreme situation requires. 

Some years ago a study was done that demonstrated that the rate of improvement for people in therapy was no better than for those who reported the same problems but had a friend to talk to once in a while. That rate of improvement was considered very low. Cbt ostensibly became important because it raised the success rate but that raise was still a low success rate. Now some studies claim to have a higher success rate in certain situations but the means of arriving at those conclusions are necessarily imprecise due to the nature of what is being studied.


----------



## jonny neurotic

bent said:


> Some years ago a study was done that demonstrated that the rate of improvement for people in therapy was no better than for those who reported the same problems but had a friend to talk to once in a while. That rate of improvement was considered very low. Cbt ostensibly became important because it raised the success rate but that raise was still a low success rate. Now some studies claim to have a higher success rate in certain situations but the means of arriving at those conclusions are necessarily imprecise due to the nature of what is being studied.


If you are going to mentio studies you are going to have to give details. Who conducted this study and when. That way I can look it up and we can debate the methodology, etc.

I can't possibly comment on anyones personal experience of therapy but what I am aware of is some peoples resistance to changing their attitude and beliefs. I am also painfully aware of how some people can misconstrue nutral interactions as having been wrought with antagonism. If you feel that every therapist you have encountered wanted to "1 up" you and make you feel inferior then either you have had bad luck in that department of you are paranoid. I couldn't possibly determine which but I do know how paranoia works and I do know how defesive some people get when you imply that perhaps it is they who need to change rather than the world around them...


----------



## jonny neurotic

bent said:


> Have you seen any of the other posts I've made about therapy? I went into quite a bit of detail about what I mean by abuse. In my opinion it has to do with the therapist's inability to truly want someone to succeed if that detracts from their own selfish goals of feeling superior. Based on other posts and what I've heard from other's I have known in therapy my experiences were not unique.


There are a lot of people posting a lot of things on this forum. Don't expect me to have any more knowledge of your previous contributions than you have of mine. If you wish to refer me to any particular thread you could link to it. That would make life a lot easier thne we can have a decent debate without me having to trawl through your previous posts.


----------



## catcharay

Any quick fix seems like a dream and you had better take it with a grain of salt. NLP is always good to gain knowledge about how the brain works. CBT has shown me some improvement but my avoidance issues has put me in a stalemate. It's hard to constantly practice new behaviours and thinking especially more if you experience deep mood and depression


----------



## bent

jonny neurotic said:


> There are a lot of people posting a lot of things on this forum. Don't expect me to have any more knowledge of your previous contributions than you have of mine. If you wish to refer me to any particular thread you could like to it. That would make life a lot easier thne we can have a decent debate without me having to trawl through your previous posts.


You wanted to debate it not me. If you're so sure I'm wrong and paranoid then no doubt we'll all be seeing solid improvement from cbt. Nope, still hasn't happened.


----------



## jonny neurotic

bent said:


> You wanted to debate it not me. If you're so sure I'm wrong and paranoid then no doubt we'll all be seeing solid improvement from cbt. Nope, still hasn't happened.


You don't want to debate and yet you respond to my posts. I can see why you wouldn't respond well to therapy of any persuasion; your defense mechanisms are too strong.

BTW, when I mentioned paranoia it was in reference to your assertion that most therapists are abusive. You are confusing that conversation with the one about CBT stats/efficacy...


----------



## bent

Yeah, you asked me personally a question so I responded. And I'm not confused about our 'conversations'. 

I won't be marshalling evidence for you in order to convince you, on your terms, at your insistence. Believe whatever you want. Contrary to what you wrote, I am not 'going to have to' do anything for you. If you don't find what I wrote in the middle paragraph convincing and are certain that the nature of what is being studied allows for precision that you find reliable, that doesn't bother me. 

What does bother me though is that you feel the need to impute things about me such as 'defense mechanisms' being too strong and supposedly not being able to keep track of two quotes (that any 4 yr old could keep track of) as though that somehow discredits me.


----------



## jonny neurotic

bent said:


> Yeah, you asked me personally a question so I responded.


I asked you to qualify your assertions and you tell me that you already have done so previously in other posts on this site yet you cannot link to them and you mention a "study" without providing any information regarding the who and the when. You claim that therapy is a form of abuse and you talk vaguely about the methodology used in the testing of CBT being "contentious" but do not explain why.

My theory; you have been to therapy and have not liked what you have been told because no therapist is going to tell you that your problems are everyone elses fault. Your response to this is to decide that all forms of therapy are in some way flawed and that the therapists who tried to get you to question your core beliefs were in fact abusing you. You make strong assertion but when asked to back them up you say you already have done elsewhere, as tho that means you wont ever have to again, then you fall back on, "I don't want to debate," the ultimate get out clause.

Of course you have no obligation to me to provide a cohesive argument but if you are going to make the type of claims you have made in this thread then people will question you. I can tell that you don't like to be questioned. Your response to this is to make me out to be unreasonable for daring to ask you to back up the claims that you have made. Yes, very strong defense mechanisms...


----------



## bent

No, I just don't like to be 'questioned' by people who do it obnoxiously like you and whose motivation appears to be much more about telling others why they're wrong than collective learning or support which is what this site is primarily designed for. As I already said, it's not the fact that you don't agree with me that bothers me.

You sound pretty sure that you know better than others and you sound pretty confident about your theory about me for someone who's never met me. It also further reveals what really drives you in these 'conversations'. That's your business as is your habit of adding three dots after certain sentences as though that makes you come off as less aggressive while in fact posturing as knowing better.

I did provide you with a cohesive argument, I just didn't go and get the evidence you asked for or provide you with a link to my other posts and I don't plan on doing so for you. If I do in the future it will be for the benefit of this thread and other readers.


----------



## jonny neurotic

bent said:


> No, I just don't like to be 'questioned' by people who do it obnoxiously like you and whose motivation appears to be much more about telling others why they're wrong than collective learning or support which is what this site is primarily designed for. As I already said, it's not the fact that you don't agree with me that bothers me.


I was asking you to back up the claims that you have made. Is that obnoxious? I don't know whether I agree with you or not because I don't know on what you are basing your opinion that the efficacy of CBT is contentious on the grounds of questionable methodology.



> You sound pretty sure that you know better than others and you sound pretty confident about your theory about me for someone who's never met me. It also further reveals what really drives you in these 'conversations'. That's your business as is your habit of adding three dots after certain sentences as though that makes you come off as less aggressive while in fact posturing as knowing better.


I only place three "dots" at the end of my posts as a way of finishing them. I know that this is improper use of this punctuation but that's what I like to do to finish a post. Why do you think I use it to make myself appear less aggressive?



> I did provide you with a cohesive argument, I just didn't go and get the evidence you asked for or provide you with a link to my other posts and I don't plan on doing so for you. If I do in the future it will be for the benefit of this thread and other readers.


We obviously are using different definitions of the word "cohesive". All you have done is make some assertions without qualification. You claim to have already posted about what you regard as abuse at the hands of the therapists you have encountered but refuse to link to said post. You mention, off the cuff, a "study" regarding CBT but do not say which study(conducted when and by whom). I do not see what is so obnoxious about asking for a few details.

You made the assertions. If you don't want to back them up that is fine but clearly it is not because you have anything better to do with your time because you continue to respond to me...


----------



## bent

The fact that I take a few minutes to post on a thread gives you no real information about how much time I have nor does it allow you to infer anything about the details of the claims I made. But I think I have an idea of why you needed to posture as though it does. Also, you’re right, we are using different versions of the term ‘cohesive argument’. That term does not necessarily mean I have to include evidence. An argument can exist and be cohesive without supporting evidence, its just less convincing. That is especially true when the line between argument and evidence is itself blurred. Are you getting excited? Even this much is indulging you. You better get busy with a refutation.

You’ve already demonstrated how obnoxious you are in your previous posts but are apparently disinterested in examining yourself objectively. What was obnoxious (in addition to your response to another poster) and unreasonable was not that you asked for details but that you did so with the presumption that I have an obligation to go and provide you with what you asked for in order to debate you, to satisfy your needs, and that if I don’t you get to impute unflattering things about me. This all conforms with your optimists interpretation of therapy which preserves psychotherapy’s value in the face of ambiguity, or even failure, by imposing a circular burden of responsibility on those who admit it hasn’t helped them. Perhaps you were having a bad day, I don’t know. But I hope you don’t behave that way all the time.

Nevertheless, since you took it upon yourself to provide us all with a theory about me I will share an equally presumptuous speculation about you. You’ve spent a lot of energy finding ways to throw out mildly arrogant insults while pushing eagerly for debate about cbt’s empirical studies, as though their credibility alone, rather than a need to prove yourself, is what drives you in this thread. My guess is that you come here looking for a way to validate yourself because you are, despite acting confident in certain select situations, somehow insecure. You may be using your belief that you have something to be proud of in your intellect, and correspondingly in your adherence to ‘empiricism’, to compensate for some sort of deep-seated shame or inadequacy. You try to compensate for it by feeling proud about having some knowledge of the ‘empirical studies’ that back up cbt. You are correspondingly invested in not only advocating for it but engaging in lengthy debates with anyone available so that you, in your mind, can have a much needed sense of validation by having the last word, which you expect to have because you are so proud of your understanding of empirical studies. Since your problems have not resulted in alienation or distrust of the status quo and you are correspondingly among those who champion being ‘optimists’, you think cbt has been helpful for you. Additionally, since the culture of ‘optimism’ is the one you identify with, you want to undermine the criticisms of therapy that would more easily conform to so-called ‘negative’ people. 

But contrary to what you wrote earlier, I haven’t used an ‘ultimate get out clause’ because I was never ‘in’ anything except in your mind. Just because I posted my opinions, including a response about empirical studies and the disputed consensus about cbt, doesn’t mean I was inviting anyone with a desire to engage in debate supporting ‘empircal studies’ as a credit to cbt to do so, such that I am then obligated to follow up with resources and links. That is all the more so when that person is primarily motivated by disrespectful goals. You said that you don’t want to trawl through my posts (although I notice that you have taken the trouble to visit my page), so don’t. But while you’re not trawling my posts and while you’re in disagreement with my ‘unqualified assertions’ (or while you as you say, ‘don’t know if you disagree’ because you won’t trawl my posts or look at easily available critiques of cbt on the net despite being strangely motivated to get to the bottom of it with me) I suggest that you not act like you’ve figured me out as another ‘negative’ person who ‘blames everyone but himself’ while also acting as though I can’t keep up with your superskills of separating two parts of a quote. As a ‘friendly optimist’, you may want to revise your need to act like those who have better things to do than indulge you have given you grounds for ambiguous insults, presumably justified as supposed evidence that they are wrong about cbt, so that you feel like you have the last word. 

I am definitely not interested in having any conversations with you including any that you have already unilaterally defined as ‘debates’. However, you did motivate me to respond for the benefit of this thread and other members. I am also going to post some links that some people may find interesting. They can add to the body of knowledge some may wish to refer to when formulating their own opinions about psychotherapy and cbt as well as my statement that even the empirical studies about cbt are contentious.


----------



## bent

Here are some links for people who are curious about my posts, and likely more so after the 'conversations' of late.

These two make reference to the claim that therapy is no better than talking to a friend. This was a featured discussion on television several years ago. I can't find a link to those shows but I doubt I'm the only one who remembers it.

https://self-rewiring.org/instructions/appendix/failure_of_psychotherapy

http://www.antipsychiatry.org/psychoth.htm

Here's an article that takes issue with the push for cbt and its stated successes:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/sep/09/psychology.humanbehaviour

The following demonstrate that empirical studies and the claims derived from them about cbt are contentious. If you read through them you will find that there are doctors and psychologists who consider the empirical studies to have been manipulated to inflate its apparent effectiveness.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027273581300007X

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/in-practice/200807/debunking-cbt

http://www.brown.uk.com/depression/parker.pdf

http://www.law-essays-uk.com/resour...y/rehabilitation-in-the-hm-prison-service.php

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090625074512.htm

http://neurocritic.blogspot.ca/2009/07/is-cbt-worthless.html

http://davidmallenmd.blogspot.ca/2011/12/cognitive-behavioral-mafia.html

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/538090


----------



## Lish3rs

I don't have a whole lot of knowledge on NLP, but with CBT you do have to practice. You have to retrain your brain so that it gets used to positive thoughts and such.


----------



## jonny neurotic

bent said:


> we are using different versions of the term 'cohesive argument'. That term does not necessarily mean I have to include evidence. An argument can exist and be cohesive without supporting evidence


True, but you failed to explain what you meant by "abuse" or why you thought the methodology used in testing CBT was "contentious". You did mention a "study" which was alluding to empirical data of some sort but without providing sufficient information for anyone to be able to source out this data.



> Are you getting excited?


Indeed.



> You've already demonstrated how obnoxious you are in your previous posts but are apparently disinterested in examining yourself objectively.


Examining myself objectively? You mean the kind of objective self-examination that one would expect to do as part of CBT?



> What was obnoxious (in addition to your response to another poster) and unreasonable was not that you asked for details but that you did so with the presumption that I have an obligation to go and provide you with what you asked for in order to debate you, to satisfy your needs, and that if I don't you get to impute unflattering things about me.


Why do you think I pressumed ANYTHING? All I asked was what you meant by abuse and could you please tell me what study you were referring to. You have been extremely evasive. You want to voice your opinion the by all means but don't call anyone obnoxious for questioning you.



> This all conforms with your optimists interpretation of therapy


So you regard skeptical enquiry as optimism? What did I say that implies I have an "optimistic interpretation" of therapy?



> Nevertheless, since you took it upon yourself to provide us all with a theory about me I will share an equally presumptuous speculation about you. You've spent a lot of energy finding ways to throw out mildly arrogant insults while pushing eagerly for debate about cbt's empirical studies, as though their credibility alone, rather than a need to prove yourself, is what drives you in this thread.


You really don't like to be questioned, do you? All I asked was, what study?



> My guess is that you come here looking for a way to validate yourself because you are, despite acting confident in certain select situations, somehow insecure.


Do you regard debating in on an internet forum as "acting confident"? Also, why do you think it is a great revelation to suggest that someone you have met on a social anxiety forum may have insecurities?



> You may be using your belief that you have something to be proud of in your intellect, and correspondingly in your adherence to 'empiricism', to compensate for some sort of deep-seated shame or inadequacy. You try to compensate for it by feeling proud about having some knowledge of the 'empirical studies' that back up cbt. You are correspondingly invested in not only advocating for it but engaging in lengthy debates with anyone available so that you, in your mind, can have a much needed sense of validation by having the last word, which you expect to have because you are so proud of your understanding of empirical studies.


Wow. So giving a damn about facts is actually a sign that I am deeply insecure? Looks like I have a lot of soul searching to do...



> Since your problems have not resulted in alienation or distrust of the status quo


Now you're just making random stabs in the dark. Also your choice grammar reads like one of those crummy online personality tests.



> you want to undermine the criticisms of therapy that would more easily conform to so-called 'negative' people.


You think that I think that therapy is awesome and that I hate it when people say otherwise: you are wrong. I just like to question people when they make assertions. When people question me I have the common decency to back up my assertions either with a reasoned argument or with empirical data.



> But contrary to what you wrote earlier, I haven't used an 'ultimate get out clause' because I was never 'in' anything except in your mind. Just because I posted my opinions, including a response about empirical studies and the disputed consensus about cbt, doesn't mean I was inviting anyone with a desire to engage in debate supporting 'empircal studies' as a credit to cbt to do so, such that I am then obligated to follow up with resources and links.


You don't mind giving your opinion but get shirty when anyone askes you how you arrived at that opinion. You want for other people to just accept what you say without question and when someone does question you you regard that as obnoxious. I should amend my previous "theory" by adding narcissism to your personality profile.



> That is all the more so when that person is primarily motivated by disrespectful goals. You said that you don't want to trawl through my posts (although I notice that you have taken the trouble to visit my page), so don't.


I didn't say that I didn't want to trawl through your previous posts I just said that if you linked to the one you mentioned it would make life a lot easier. I always link to other posts/threads if I mention them. As it happens I found the thread in question and you did not explain in that post what you meant by abuse either.



> As a 'friendly optimist', you may want to revise your need to act like those who have better things to do than indulge you have given you grounds for ambiguous insults, presumably justified as supposed evidence that they are wrong about cbt, so that you feel like you have the last word.


This sentence(which makes use of that personality test grammar) made absolutely no sense. I think you have mashed to seperate ideas together in your haste.



> I am definitely not interested in having any conversations with you including any that you have already unilaterally defined as 'debates'. However, you did motivate me to respond for the benefit of this thread and other members. I am also going to post some links that some people may find interesting.


 On your own terms, of course...


----------



## jonny neurotic

bent said:


> Here are some links for people who are curious about my posts, and likely more so after the 'conversations' of late.
> 
> These two make reference to the claim that therapy is no better than talking to a friend. This was a featured discussion on television several years ago. I can't find a link to those shows but I doubt I'm the only one who remembers it.
> 
> https://self-rewiring.org/instructions/appendix/failure_of_psychotherapy


This is an ezine article and not a peer reviewed paper. It alludes to a 1979 study but does not give sufficient details for anyone to actually source out the corresponding paper. Also the article discusses psychotherapy and not CBT specifically, as does the following one which again is an ezine article.



> http://www.antipsychiatry.org/psychoth.htm
> 
> Here's an article that takes issue with the push for cbt and its stated successes:
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/sep/09/psychology.humanbehaviour


Takes issue with, yes. Provides evidence against, no.



> The following demonstrate that empirical studies and the claims derived from them about cbt are contentious. If you read through them you will find that there are doctors and psychologists who consider the empirical studies to have been manipulated to inflate its apparent effectiveness.
> 
> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027273581300007X


 "These analyses, in combination with previous meta-analytic findings, fail to provide corroborative evidence fortheconjecturethatCBT issuperiorto bonafidenon-CBT treatments."

This article is comparing CBT to other "bona fide" treatments and states that it is not superior to them. This does not imply that CBT itself is ineffective.



> http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/in-practice/200807/debunking-cbt


A blog with no citations. Great source.



> http://www.brown.uk.com/depression/parker.pdf


This article discusses whether CBT is superior to other therapies in the treatment of depression not whether it is effective at all.



> http://www.law-essays-uk.com/resour...y/rehabilitation-in-the-hm-prison-service.php


This pertains to the rehabilitation of criminals not the treatment of menta illness.



> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090625074512.htm


Another ezine article which in any case discusses the effectiveness of CBT in schizophrenia. Schizophrenia is not a mood disorder like depression and anxiety.

I have stuff I need to do so I will read the other articles latet...


----------



## bent

chiron said:


> bent, this isn't an academic setting. We, the various members of this forum, do suffer from a legitimate mental illness such as social anxiety disorder. I can tell you feel strongly about the issue. However, this is not the appropriate platform for dragging your own personal issues with therapy through the mud. Do not deter others from enlisting the aid of licensed professional. The input from a therapist can be a vital lifeline for those in need. You have the decision to either be constructive or non-constructive for the others members here. If you truly wish to be constructive then offer articles detailing different forms of therapy to choose from, what to expect out of therapy, and how to recognize whether or not therapy is unhelpful; so that others can make decisions for themselves. Making board claims that therapy is tantamount to abuse does not help anyone. Although your experiences saddens me greatly, the constrictive input that I've described above would not only help yourself, but also help anyone else considering professional aid. There's already a large number of people who do not seek treatment and maintain the same difficulties associated with social anxiety for years. The messages I've seen here impact a very large but silent portion of this community, and not in a positive way.
> 
> Thank you for your understanding.
> I appreciate your concern and insight.


I believe you are sincerely trying to be helpful and I appreciate it.

However you are presuming that most people on this forum are better off being in therapy. I am not sure that's true. I definitely do not believe that people are better off seeing doctors or psychologists since those positions offer greater opportunity for abuse. As for cbt I have no problem deterring people from it and I gave an explanation of why. There are other people on this forum who have agreed with me in previous posts about these various issues and have even thanked me for my input. In any case, I don't think including another perspective is at odds with being 'constructive' so I'm afraid I don't agree with you on that.

You're right, this isn't an academic setting. I would have left it up to others to look things up for themselves if they were interested but another poster wanted to discredit me and further, tried to do so in a disrespectful manner. I didn't want other members to get the impression that there was nothing to look up so I provided some academic articles that call the effectiveness of cbt into question.

So yes, now we have several academic articles that call the real life effectiveness of cbt into question as well as providing support to the charges made by some that methodologies are selectively employed to inflate its perceived value. The other poster wanted very much to feel validated at my expense by pushing his pro-cbt zeal and has now proven my speculative analysis of him correct, including more embarrassingly juvenile insults.

Now the articles are more easily available to other members. If that deters anyone from therapy it's only because they got another side of a true story.

So with respect to the large but silent portion of the community, I rather think I have provided much needed assistance. It may well save a lot of people from wasted time and money, not to mention subtle abuses that are given a free pass because most people are conditioned to view therapists as presumptively right about everything and any criticisms are construed as a further need for their expert assistance, thus making the presumption immune to rebuttal. No, I think I've been quite constructive. If you want to post articles about different forms of therapy go for it.

Thank you for your understanding.


----------



## Ramondo

jonny neurotic said:


> This is an ezine article and not a peer reviewed paper. It alludes to a 1979 study but does not give sufficient details for anyone to actually source out the corresponding paper. Also the article discusses psychotherapy and not CBT specifically, as does the following one which again is an ezine article.


Not only that, but it's an article on a site which is selling their "effective and unique" Self-Rewiring Therapy.
And they have testimonials, and make the same claims that they've criticised psychologists and charlatans for. Apparently they don't get the irony.
Ah, yes, but this is different ... !

"Self-Rewiring is not a "talk therapy". It's goal is not to 'bring out' your emotions, nor to explain them. It uses simple techniques to change how you feel and think."
https://self-rewiring.org/

The simple principles are the same as for any quack treatment: You pay a therapist some money, and they wave their metaphorical wands over you.


----------



## Jones

*Thread lock warning*

Please make discussion points without including insults

"*Conflicts*
If you have any issue or problem with material posted in this forum, or with the behavior of another community member, please email or PM the moderators or the administrator for a confidential discussion of the issue. Please try to settle it ﬁrst without involving the staff."


----------



## jonny neurotic

bent said:


> I would have left it up to others to look things up for themselves if they were interested but another poster wanted to discredit me and further, tried to do so in a disrespectful manner.


I questioned you. You discredited yourself...



> I didn't want other members to get the impression that there was nothing to look up so I provided some academic articles that call the effectiveness of cbt into question.


You mainly cited blogs and ezines. The only thing of any consequence happens to be a paper cited in one of the blogs you linked to...


----------



## jonny neurotic

bent said:


> http://neurocritic.blogspot.ca/2009/07/is-cbt-worthless.html


Yet another blog but at least it cites a paper and links to it. It concludes that CBT is effective in major depression but that the effect size is small, whatever that means. Here is a meta analysis from last year which states, "The strongest support exists for CBT of anxiety disorders, somatoform disorders, bulimia, anger control problems, and general stress."

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10608-012-9476-1

Given the nature of this forum, it being a social anxiety support forum and not a schizophrenia support forum, CBT remains potentially effective as part of an overall strategy in cobating this condition. I think that medication can be helpful in some cases and that diet and exercise also play an important role in general wellbeing and psychological stability. I do not think, have never thought, and at no time have alluded to the idea that, CBT is a panacea. I do however feel that it has a lot to offer the individual whether they are suffering from bouts of mild depression, suffer from anger management issues or social anxiety. The reason I feel this way is because of my personal experience. Hardly empirical but I taught myself these principles and have enjoyed the positive feedback from loved ones when they saw the fruits of that particular labour.



> http://davidmallenmd.blogspot.ca/2011/12/cognitive-behavioral-mafia.html


Another blog, no citations, god this is getting tedious.



> http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/538090


This pertains to the treatment of chronic fatigue syndrome. Need I bother to point out why this isn't relevant.

Now, back to the discussion at hand; you mentioned a "study" that showed that CBT was no better than simply having a friend to talk to. THAT WAS THE STUDY I ASKED YOU TO AT THE VERY LEAST PROVIDE DETAILS OF IF NOT ACTUALLY LINK TO. We have wandered all around the garden and finally up the garden path but the door is locked and the house remains in darkness...


----------



## samuraimunki

jaspion said:


> the best selling books on SA - and at the same time the ones recommended by the phsychologists - relate to CBT.
> I myself however found out that some NLP techniques help me.
> I am wondering whether CBT contradicts NLP?
> In my opinion - it does.
> For example many authors who recommend CBT emphasize the need of consistent practice. They claim the therapy is effectife but it requires time and persistence in most cases.
> While NLP says change may happen fast. Take for example one of the best known NLP books: "NLP. The new technology of achievement". In chapter eight "eliminating your fears and phobias", there are some techniques described that can be used effectively against any phobia. Like "The fast phobia technique", after which there is this a part called "the need for rapid change", where the author states:
> "People often ask"How often do I need to practice this process to make it work?" Once you've done this process thoroughly, you should never need to do it again. The change is permanent. You learned to have this unpleasent memory or phobia very quickly, and you can learn to change it just as quickly."
> 
> So who is right? the CBT authors who say we have learned SA through years so now it must take time to learn our brains to think differently or the NLP authors who say the way our brains are constructed allow us to change rapidly and cure phobias?
> 
> I am affraid that what NLP authors say is too beautifull to be true....
> What you guys think?


Hey,

definitely NLP is tremendously effective, it really helped me a lot!

I personally think that CBT just makes things worse generally as it causes you to focus and dwell on the problem, which causes you to review it over and over again in your mind and thus is training your brain to rehurse the bad behaviors and then you get the bad behaviors!

People who suffer from anxiety and phobias are often very bright peopel with fast minds that learn very quickly. A phobia and an anxiety is learned very quickly as the brain reacts instantly to the external stimulai, the brain shows huge terifying images in the mind and the body experiences strong body sensations of fear and panic etc. All this happens very fast and becomes entangled. This all happens in the subconscious mind (or rather, it is transmitted/perceived through the conscious mind and embedded into the subconscious mind, but whatever). The subconscious mind works primarily on and is impressed my symbols, shapes, images and when you combine it with your breathing and moving your physiology as nlp techniques teach us, it helps to change the behavior on the sub conscious level. Now as these fear responses are learned very quickly they can only be altered or changed the same way, buy using a very quick method. I also used the fast phobia cure and it was incredibly powerful. With nlp though you need to make sure you are either seeing someone who really knows and understands how to use nlp on a deep level (look up Tony Robins www.tonyrobbins.com & Richard Bandler www.richardbandler.com) or you can do these techniques yourself from self help audios and you can make huge progress this way but as you are not an expert on nlp you will need to 9for the most part) practice these techniques several times to make sure that you are really doing them properly. After you have done it, if you don't feel different in some way, no matter how small or large then you haven't done it right. Do it again until you do feel different, practice, it is well worth the effort!

Also, the Linden method works in a similar way and can have a very powerful effect in a short space of time. Check this out for more info www.helpwithanxiety.net


----------



## jonny neurotic

samuraimunki said:


> Hey,
> 
> definitely NLP is tremendously effective, it really helped me a lot!
> 
> I personally think that CBT just makes things worse generally as it causes you to focus and dwell on the problem, which causes you to review it over and over again in your mind and thus is training your brain to rehurse the bad behaviors and then you get the bad behaviors!


As opposed to ignoring them? How do propose a person is to deal with their problems if they are not fully aware of them. I think a more appropriate verb would have been "analyse" not "dwell".



> Also, the Linden method works in a similar way and can have a very powerful effect in a short space of time. Check this out for more info www.helpwithanxiety.net


I am not entirely sure that this isn't spam...


----------

