June 26,2010
April 9,2010
Differance about how cognitive therapy (CT) treat core beliefs
Core beliefs are originated from early childhood experience. They are about how one organized his experience, how one perceive others and the world, and, more importantly, made up of the concepts of self. But I thought that the concepts about self are more than the perceived static attributes which CT tries to hunt down. The self may include a part that is under transforming and becoming toward who wants to be unconsciously. Let’s temporarily call this part “desire.” The way that CT handled the core belief doesn’t process the desire part of human being. More specifically, like the sentence excerpted from the textbook about core beliefs of the demonstrated client “I’m inadequate and inferior”, did it represent the inner desire to be more superior to other people? Beck (the author) later mentioned that the client always try to compare herself with the top students. Her eyes are always on them. Moreover, from the second level analysis, intermediate beliefs, the attitude/rules are obviously showing the opposite side, which is “I should be great at everything I try,” and “I should always do my best,” of the core belief about the client’s self. For some reason, I more valued the part desire/becoming of self. If, according to CT protocol, we just then teach the client to evaluate the beliefs or validate the thoughts, the client who bought it might uncover the distort thought affected her feelings and her symptoms (negative thinking) of depression might get well. Things sounds like completed. But we may miss the part of what distorted the thought (I guess), and the dynamic trajectory of becoming self may be covered by more realistic static perceptions of self. But can we eliminate the organic force (in Rogers' term) of becoming when it is activated all the time?
April 23,2009
June 20,2007
June 17,2007
November 21,2006
學術微世界的問題解決
這應該是在社會人文科學的,或更特指社會心理學而言,只要符應於社會結構的描述性理論得以完備,一個學術意義上的問題就算解決了,不然剩下的便是理論的競爭間所摩擦出來的問題。與常民生活世界的問題何干呢?