Psychology High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cognitive therapy is broken down into many branches. Of two of those, Beck and Ellis, Ellis has his Rational Emotive Therapy and Beck has his Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy is redirected here, but this page doesn't give much information about it.

I think some of these need to be separated out, because I can't find information on Beck's therapy in itself.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.252.241.33 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 7 March 2004

68.54.45.35 made some bad edits. Does any know how to revert them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.232.74.85 (talk • contribs) 05:09, 14 October 2004

I tried CBT. I didn't get on with it. I'm now with a therapist who is largely humanist in approach. Much better. I looked at some of the links from this page - they read like advertising copy for CBT. The first problem with CBT is that it starts off by telling the client that s/he is having 'irrational thoughts'. (Contrast Laing's thesis that however bizarre the patient's beliefs and behaviour seem, everything is perfectly rational from the perspective of the patient.) Sensitive clients are liable to be just a little bit insulted by being told they have irrational thoughts before the analysis has even begun, and so the relationship with the therapist starts in a bad way. Secondly, cognitivism and behaviourism don't really fit together that easily, since the first asserts the existence and accessibility of thoughts and feelings in the subject - something which the latter denies. The approach is therefore eclectic to the point of inconsistency - perhaps then it is the therapist who is not quite rational? Third, the cognitive part of CBT asserts that feelings follow thoughts, and thoughts are propositional attitudes which conform to Brentano's thesis: i.e. thoughts are essentially about things. Actually, I think the disposition to anxiety often comes first, and the thoughts and the 'aboutness' is more-or-less an epiphenomenon. Once I realised this, I have found it slightly easier to manage my anxiety. (Brentano's thesis is also part of the existentialist-humanist tradition - I think Sartre mentions it in Sketch for a Theory of the Emotions, but it turns out that the thing that thoughts and feelings are about can be 'everything in general and nothing in particular', which is as good as saying that the thoughts and feelings don't really have any content at all. I guess I must read Sketch in its entirety - it is not a long book - that is if I can keep myself calm enough for long enough to do so.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.56.114.4 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 9 December 2004

These are rather simplistic comments on the 'family' of therapies loosely called CBT. Beckian forms of CBT tend to be 'rationalist', in that they do indeed assert that there are rational thoughts and dysfunctional ones. However a number of developments are far more 'constructivist' in that they assume that there are very good reasons why people think the way that they do in terms of previous experience. The terms 'cognitive' and 'behavioural' are more useful to consider as related more to practice rather then theoretical principles. CBT involves accessing beliefs about self, world and others, formulating how these relate to behaviours and emotions, and practicing new ways of behaving that may seek to disconfirm those beliefs (put very simply). CBT formulation techniques are also best considered as frameworks used to simplify the complexity of human experience. They do not seek to describe any kind of 'truth' about an individual. Hence the point about anxiety occurring before cognitions is - theoretically - correct, but most people who gain from CBT find the relationship described by the ABC framework helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickmaguire (talk • contribs) 23:13, 23 August 2006

The antidepressant chosen for the study has been withdrawn from the market.

How much of cognitive therapy has been investigated with PET scans?

How much of an influence have recent findings in evolutionary psychology had on cognitive therapy? See: Mean Markets and Lizard Brains: How to Profit from the New Science of Irrationality by Terry Burnham — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.80.7 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 5 August 2005

I have added a wiki-link to Cognitive Analytic Therapy. There is empirical evidence in favour of this, which stands in marked contrast to Rational Emotive Behavioural Counselling (there may be a journal devoted to Rational Emotive Therapy, but as Yankura and Dryden point out in their book on Albert Ellis (published by Sage), few papers in this journal are actually reports of empirical research projects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A. Carl (talk • contribs) 19:49, 25 January 2006

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.80.7 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 5 August 2005

Most of the therapists of the first two thirds of the twentieth century were of the psychodynamic persuasion. Almost all early psychotherapists were trained as Freudians and later split off. Behavioral therapists were some of the strongest detractors of Freud and split with him fairly early (i.e. the 1920s). Beck, the developer of CT said at the 108th American Psychological Association (2000) that he, like many of his generation, spent years as a psychoanalyst before developing cognitive therapy. As the name implies, cognitive-behavioral therapy uses techniques from both modalities. As a result of the blending, the majority of Freud's influence has been lost.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.11.187 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 24 April 2006

And rightly so. Analytic theory has a great strength in that it made useful observations of human interactions and processes (e.g. transference, splitting). However from a scientific perspective, Freud's underpinning theories centred around psychosexual stages have absolutely no empirical value whatsoever, either prospective or retrospective. It was developed using a limited number of case studies, and does not stand up to replication. Despite nearly 100 years of practice, the efficacy literature is limited, and any benefit experienced may be explained by hermeneutics (a criticism made of all forms of psychotherapy), i.e. the client interprets the therapist's confidence as evidence that they should, and therefore will recover; the therapist interprets the client's recovery as an indication that the therapy is indeed effective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickmaguire (talk • contribs) 23:45, 23 August 2006

I've made some small changes to the second section, as it was extremely confusing, and did not flow well. It should improve readability.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.136.120 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 2 December 2005

As a social work student, I must agree that the article is confusing both in the way it is written and in what is included. The suggestion of three articles would be, in my opinion, the most viable solution to the ambiguity. In searching "behavioral therapy," I was taken directly to the cognitive page which is potentially very misleading.

amgrimm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.203.42.93 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 9 May 2006

Google 'manualized' to see pages discussing this word.

fjgseyferth 83.117.110.100 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I was just about to make a post here about the confusing nature of the "manualized" term, but saw one was already made. Twipley (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, agree with this. The term threw me and I thought it meant "converted to a process of manual labour". Never heard the word manualized before. What alternatives? Systematized? "Using a manual" is fine I guess —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.6.107 (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to keep the definition clinical and not inject your personal feelings into the definition of the item itself. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.67.20.109 (talk) 23:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We should add a section on CFS to the article. --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

what is CFS ? Earlypsychosis (talk) 07:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]