I have read every post in this series. At the time of reading, I felt that I understood each post and found it interesting, but I never got the feeling that any of the information would change my emotional life. That was why I was looking forward to this post: this was the post that was going to put it all together for me and spark change, or so I thought. Come to find out the life-changing information was in the previous posts in the series and somehow I missed it. Does this mean I'm intelligence-challenged, demented or perhaps just lazy? I might go back and see if I can recover the gems I've somehow forgotten or skipped over. That would probably be a good idea. But in the meantime I'm voting with Josh.
You're getting at something I've been puzzling over for a while: how to put evolutionary insights into clinical practice. Or just everyday life. Hopefully, I can write a bit more in the future about why and how this is difficult -- and think of some workarounds -- but this post was my first crack at explaining why these insights can be so unsatisfactory (at least to me, and also to you).
In short, you're not intelligence-challenged, demented, or lazy :) It's just that, in my opinion, we need a better way of implementing this information. It's not enough to just state it. But I do think having this perspective at the very least allows us to dismiss much of what pop or clinical psychology would recommend.
I think ultimately Rob is more correct: just knowing won't help much but practice informed by this knowing will, and learning to asses emotions as conditionally-useful information through the prism of the first stage of the decision tree is definitely useful.
That said, an awful lot of suffering seems to be caused not so much by consequences of "acting on" emotions but simply by the intense unpleasantness of their feeling: the step I have the biggest problem with is the "discharge" one. I'm not exactly choosing to have the lingering feelings of terror about historical atrocities for example even though the cognitive process around that is 100% "correct". That's why CBT does not work all that well: the idea that thoughts lead to emotions is preposterous, obviously emotions are first, the thought merely explains (some would say: rationalises) it.
Totally agree, emotions are first and the thought explains/rationalizes it. Glad to hear the first stage of the decision tree is useful, and let us know if you find ways to discharge emotions better.
Umm . . . I think Josh, despite his vast clinical experience, needs to acquire some perspective on his expertise.
No client has talked about road rage? What kind of clientele do you serve? Whether to stay with a spouse or job? That's counseling, not therapy, and calls for decision, not discovery-- hence not something one learns. Not the appropriate object of analysis for whether therapy teaches.
In my perhaps less substantial thirty-eight years of practice, and near-fifty as beneficiary of hundreds of hours as a patient, I have certainly found that people learn from therapy.
As an evolutionary psychologist--or counselor--one should certainly know that we would not have "system 2," or civilized life as we know it, were reasoning not extraordinarily effective. If Josh's practice doesn't actually teach . . . I'm not sure that's an epistemic ally sound basis for generalization.
Always happy to acquire some perspective on my expertise, and have never been very impressed with expertise in the first place, so I appreciate your comment. My response would be that while clients do obviously learn things in therapy as a result of System 2 thinking--logic, reason, reflection, insight--I find that this accounts for much less of the emotional change than people think. Instead, I think the bulk of the change comes from something else. I'm less certain what that "something else" is, though, so if you have any thoughts there, I'd be happy to hear them. It's basically an answer to the question "Why does therapy work?", and personally, I haven't come across a good answer yet.
I don't know why therapy works but I've a sneaking suspicion that it often works in spite of, rather than because of, a little thing known as "theoretical orientation."
Ha, completely agree. I think the research even shows this, doesn't it? The Dodo Bird Verdict and whatnot. Interesting to think through whether SOME orientation is necessary for the therapist and client to believe in the process, though. What would an atheoretical therapy look like? I sometimes think of the orientation as a sleight of hand: something to focus on while the "real" work is happening elsewhere. But what that real work is, I'm still unsure.
Can I say that I'm glad you don't know for sure? As a client, I don't want to go to a therapist who has all the answers, about therapy or anything else. There wouldn't be room for me in a relationship with an all-knowing therapist, there wouldn't be room for what we could discover together. One wants a bit of mystery. In my view, thoughtful uncertainty is one mark of a good therapist. If I want conviction, I can read the comments on any political substack for free.
The question is not "Why does therapy work," but whether learning how to understand one's emotions makes a positive difference in one's life. You cited your experience as a therapist as inclining you to think not. I find that odd, and think that your particular experience of your particular way of practicing therapy may not shed much light on the question at hand. Your experience certainly does not square with mine, as patient or therapist, and does not even make prima facie sense. Nothing that happens in life becomes ineffective just because it is done in therapy, and in life, learning about one's emotions is generally fairly helpful
Learning, in therapy or elsewhere, is not coterminus with Kahneman's system 2--nor is the system 1/2 distinction correlated with emotions versus reason. Indeed, most learning is not system 2, or conscious at all, in therapy or elsewhere. (Learning theory, after all, uses animal models extensively.)
Modulation and maturation of one's emotions, in therapy or elsewhere (e.g., religious or meditative disciplines) requires a complex network of cognitive, affective, behavioral, and appetitive information, which shape a complex web of habits of mind and action. Done properly, imparting information about how to regard and comport one's self toward, and in the throes of, one's emotions is an important part of building, maintaining, and refining that network, whether done by one's therapist or one's grandmother.
If one's therapy practice is failing to teach one's patients what they need to know to modulate and mature their emotional lives, one's practice may need some critical examination. Perhaps one has been too much influenced by either psychoanalytic or Rogerian or similar traditions, hence fails to teach inn the name of some ideological notion of letting the patient make their own discoveries. Whatever. Understanding ones emotions is one important part of gaining emotional maturity.
I agree with you that understanding emotions is helpful. I'm just claiming that it's not THAT helpful. Anyway, maybe I'll let Rob chime in here since he knows a lot more about learning and animals than I do. But I appreciate your comment and will reflect on what I think and how I practice based on what you said.
I think people learn from experience and that, perhaps, therapy is one way to guide the experiences a patient may need in order to learn. In that sense, it's more than just talk. On the other hand, it's just talk if therapy achieves nothing more than more therapy sessions.
I'm not a therapist, nor am I formally trained in the ways of psychology or psychiatry. But I am curious about such things and, having several STEM degrees, am adept at reading research texts and papers. Even so, most of what I've learned related to what has been presented in the first four parts of this series was achieved through the study of Stoic and Buddhist philosophy, solidified by 40+ years of Zen meditation experience.
Early on, the information was important and helpful. But as they say, the map is not the territory and the real lessons happen we we walk the actual trail. How else can we connect the emotional systems with the reasoning systems of our brain such that they function better together? The 21st century is challenging us to develop this cooperation.
It's too bad I can't download your adeptness at reading research papers, as it would save me a lot of time and make me much smarter :)
Anyway, I like the idea of guiding, or even making sense of, a client's experience as one of the value-adds of therapy. And I think your idea of the map not being the territory is actually a great way to reconcile Rob and my intuitions. If these insights are a starting point, a trailhead, then they are both helpful and unsatisfying. Helpful because they point us in the right direction, but unsatisfying because we still have to walk the trail.
I have read every post in this series. At the time of reading, I felt that I understood each post and found it interesting, but I never got the feeling that any of the information would change my emotional life. That was why I was looking forward to this post: this was the post that was going to put it all together for me and spark change, or so I thought. Come to find out the life-changing information was in the previous posts in the series and somehow I missed it. Does this mean I'm intelligence-challenged, demented or perhaps just lazy? I might go back and see if I can recover the gems I've somehow forgotten or skipped over. That would probably be a good idea. But in the meantime I'm voting with Josh.
You're getting at something I've been puzzling over for a while: how to put evolutionary insights into clinical practice. Or just everyday life. Hopefully, I can write a bit more in the future about why and how this is difficult -- and think of some workarounds -- but this post was my first crack at explaining why these insights can be so unsatisfactory (at least to me, and also to you).
In short, you're not intelligence-challenged, demented, or lazy :) It's just that, in my opinion, we need a better way of implementing this information. It's not enough to just state it. But I do think having this perspective at the very least allows us to dismiss much of what pop or clinical psychology would recommend.
I think ultimately Rob is more correct: just knowing won't help much but practice informed by this knowing will, and learning to asses emotions as conditionally-useful information through the prism of the first stage of the decision tree is definitely useful.
That said, an awful lot of suffering seems to be caused not so much by consequences of "acting on" emotions but simply by the intense unpleasantness of their feeling: the step I have the biggest problem with is the "discharge" one. I'm not exactly choosing to have the lingering feelings of terror about historical atrocities for example even though the cognitive process around that is 100% "correct". That's why CBT does not work all that well: the idea that thoughts lead to emotions is preposterous, obviously emotions are first, the thought merely explains (some would say: rationalises) it.
Totally agree, emotions are first and the thought explains/rationalizes it. Glad to hear the first stage of the decision tree is useful, and let us know if you find ways to discharge emotions better.
Umm . . . I think Josh, despite his vast clinical experience, needs to acquire some perspective on his expertise.
No client has talked about road rage? What kind of clientele do you serve? Whether to stay with a spouse or job? That's counseling, not therapy, and calls for decision, not discovery-- hence not something one learns. Not the appropriate object of analysis for whether therapy teaches.
In my perhaps less substantial thirty-eight years of practice, and near-fifty as beneficiary of hundreds of hours as a patient, I have certainly found that people learn from therapy.
As an evolutionary psychologist--or counselor--one should certainly know that we would not have "system 2," or civilized life as we know it, were reasoning not extraordinarily effective. If Josh's practice doesn't actually teach . . . I'm not sure that's an epistemic ally sound basis for generalization.
Always happy to acquire some perspective on my expertise, and have never been very impressed with expertise in the first place, so I appreciate your comment. My response would be that while clients do obviously learn things in therapy as a result of System 2 thinking--logic, reason, reflection, insight--I find that this accounts for much less of the emotional change than people think. Instead, I think the bulk of the change comes from something else. I'm less certain what that "something else" is, though, so if you have any thoughts there, I'd be happy to hear them. It's basically an answer to the question "Why does therapy work?", and personally, I haven't come across a good answer yet.
I don't know why therapy works but I've a sneaking suspicion that it often works in spite of, rather than because of, a little thing known as "theoretical orientation."
Ha, completely agree. I think the research even shows this, doesn't it? The Dodo Bird Verdict and whatnot. Interesting to think through whether SOME orientation is necessary for the therapist and client to believe in the process, though. What would an atheoretical therapy look like? I sometimes think of the orientation as a sleight of hand: something to focus on while the "real" work is happening elsewhere. But what that real work is, I'm still unsure.
Can I say that I'm glad you don't know for sure? As a client, I don't want to go to a therapist who has all the answers, about therapy or anything else. There wouldn't be room for me in a relationship with an all-knowing therapist, there wouldn't be room for what we could discover together. One wants a bit of mystery. In my view, thoughtful uncertainty is one mark of a good therapist. If I want conviction, I can read the comments on any political substack for free.
Yes, you can say that, and well said :)
The question is not "Why does therapy work," but whether learning how to understand one's emotions makes a positive difference in one's life. You cited your experience as a therapist as inclining you to think not. I find that odd, and think that your particular experience of your particular way of practicing therapy may not shed much light on the question at hand. Your experience certainly does not square with mine, as patient or therapist, and does not even make prima facie sense. Nothing that happens in life becomes ineffective just because it is done in therapy, and in life, learning about one's emotions is generally fairly helpful
Learning, in therapy or elsewhere, is not coterminus with Kahneman's system 2--nor is the system 1/2 distinction correlated with emotions versus reason. Indeed, most learning is not system 2, or conscious at all, in therapy or elsewhere. (Learning theory, after all, uses animal models extensively.)
Modulation and maturation of one's emotions, in therapy or elsewhere (e.g., religious or meditative disciplines) requires a complex network of cognitive, affective, behavioral, and appetitive information, which shape a complex web of habits of mind and action. Done properly, imparting information about how to regard and comport one's self toward, and in the throes of, one's emotions is an important part of building, maintaining, and refining that network, whether done by one's therapist or one's grandmother.
If one's therapy practice is failing to teach one's patients what they need to know to modulate and mature their emotional lives, one's practice may need some critical examination. Perhaps one has been too much influenced by either psychoanalytic or Rogerian or similar traditions, hence fails to teach inn the name of some ideological notion of letting the patient make their own discoveries. Whatever. Understanding ones emotions is one important part of gaining emotional maturity.
I agree with you that understanding emotions is helpful. I'm just claiming that it's not THAT helpful. Anyway, maybe I'll let Rob chime in here since he knows a lot more about learning and animals than I do. But I appreciate your comment and will reflect on what I think and how I practice based on what you said.
I think people learn from experience and that, perhaps, therapy is one way to guide the experiences a patient may need in order to learn. In that sense, it's more than just talk. On the other hand, it's just talk if therapy achieves nothing more than more therapy sessions.
I'm not a therapist, nor am I formally trained in the ways of psychology or psychiatry. But I am curious about such things and, having several STEM degrees, am adept at reading research texts and papers. Even so, most of what I've learned related to what has been presented in the first four parts of this series was achieved through the study of Stoic and Buddhist philosophy, solidified by 40+ years of Zen meditation experience.
Early on, the information was important and helpful. But as they say, the map is not the territory and the real lessons happen we we walk the actual trail. How else can we connect the emotional systems with the reasoning systems of our brain such that they function better together? The 21st century is challenging us to develop this cooperation.
It's too bad I can't download your adeptness at reading research papers, as it would save me a lot of time and make me much smarter :)
Anyway, I like the idea of guiding, or even making sense of, a client's experience as one of the value-adds of therapy. And I think your idea of the map not being the territory is actually a great way to reconcile Rob and my intuitions. If these insights are a starting point, a trailhead, then they are both helpful and unsatisfying. Helpful because they point us in the right direction, but unsatisfying because we still have to walk the trail.