Re: ACT vs other methods and a bit more on EMDR

[Guest guest]

The resistance to EMDR is three fold in the field: a) Francine's hyper-drive commercialization of it; the implausible theory behind it; c) the lack of evidence on putative processes of change.For the average person just wanting help, none of that matters that much, short term.

Maybe point " a " only because it can lead to excessive buy in by therapists(but other things can lead to that too ... in fact ACT has dangers there just because therapists can experience personal benefit and forget that what works for them

might not work for others). EMDR can be helpful - I think there is agreement there - the arguments are in the geek world of research and they are about issues of progressivity.There is frankly sometimes a bit of hypocrisy in the criticism in my view.

Why? Well most major empirically supported treatments immediatelystart certifying therapists, sometimes at considerable cost, and protecting namesand copyrights etc. That to me sounds a bit likepoint " a " -- even if it is a bit more dignified. Scientists learn how to hype with appearing to hype -- but

come on. Be real. Look to see if that emperor is really wearing clothes or not.Second, while most empirically supported treatments have plausibletheories behind them very often the theories themselves have not been carefully tested

and worse when they are they regularly fail ... and people still hang on to the theories. And failures like that do not take them off the empirically supportedtreatments list! (A " strange but true " uncomfortable fact in our field).

The ACT community has explicit values on these issues. You can read about them on thewebsite. Trainers agree to provide their protocols to other professionals at low cost or no cost; they promise not to certify therapists

or make proprietary claims; we deliberately avoided trademarking the name etc.All of that is to keep developers from becoming kings with their palms up.The result is that ACT can change and the focus can be kept on doing good for others

(don't worry -- none of major ACT folks out there are wanting for money ... we do fine ... but thefocus in on community building, learning, and contributing)Second, we have a large program focused on the processes underneath ACT and we've make a lot of

progress. We KNOW experiential avoidance and fusion can be toxic; we know these processes can be changed;we know when they are good things happen. The evidence for values is also good; for other ACT processes it is a little weaker

but all still very supportive in sense of self etcIs ACT better on that front than other psychotherapies?It's scary to say but in my opinion, the answer is yes. We've been at it longer and we just have a lot more data

-- and more consistently supportive data -- on processes of change. We still have a lot to do butwe've been more focused on it for longer than anyone else out there, in my no-so-humble opinion.But does that part matter to normal folks?

In terms of immediate outcome -- not sure it does. But it does mean this: good ACT therapists are focused onthings that, no fooling, are not just thought to be important but are known to be to most people's long term health.

That's kind of cool. It may not mean better outcomes (too early really to say). It does seem to mean broader outcomes,and more sticking power. That is too early to say too but the evidence is stronger there.

For exampleMichele Craske at UCLA -- an ACT critic -- just finished a trial of ACT versus traditional CBT for anxiety.Overall the outcomes were similar ... but if you also had depression, ACT did better.

I'm aware of about a dozen comparisons of ACT and traditional CBT. So far CBT did betteroverall in one or two (when? well, with lesser problems like being worried about a math test); about a 1/3 were ties; about half ACT did better.

My guessIn the end we will find that ACT does better when it moves certain processes and thus it depends on the person. For example if you are not experientially avoidant at all -- only the behavioral activaiton of values will be that relevant in ACT.

Maybe just do behavioral activation.The bottom line for normal people:Try things that are evidence based.Be aware that even evidence based treatments are not necessarily " right " in their views of your problems (that's the place normal folks see theory touching down)

Don't buy hype and don't allow yourself to be bullied by anyone -- trust your experienceGet a feel for the community that surrounds treatment methods -- if they feel too commercial, self-important, or hyped up, increase your caution and hold on to your wallet (or maybe better -- run the other way)

Peace, love, and life- S C. Foundation ProfessorDepartment of Psychology /298University of NevadaReno, NV 89557-0062 " Love isn't everything, it's the only thing "

hayes@... or stevenchayes@...Fax: Psych Department: Contextual Change (you can use this number for messages if need be):

Blogs: Psychology Today  http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/get-out-your-mindHuffington Post  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-c-hayes-phd

If you want my vita, publications, PowerPoint slides, try my training page or my blog at the ACBS site:  http://www.contextualpsychology.org/steven_hayes

http://www.contextualpsychology.org/blog/steven_hayes or you can try my website (not really quite functional yet) stevenchayes.com

If you have any questions about ACT or RFT (articles, AAQ information etc), please first check the vast resources at www.contextualpsychology.org. You have to register on the site to download things, but the cost starts at a dollar.

If you are a professional or student and want to be part of the world wide ACT discussion or RFT discussions go to http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy/join

orhttp://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/relationalframetheory/joinIf you are a member of the public reading ACT self-help books (e.g., " Get Out of Your Mind and Into Your Life " etc) and want to be part of the conversation go to: http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/ACT_for_the_Public/join

 

Here's another source:http://www.div12.org/PsychologicalTreatments/treatments/ptsd_emdr.htmlIt's provide you with its description, its controversy, and key references and reviews as directions for more info. As for the controversy it states:

" The efficacy of EMDR for PTSD is an extremely controversial subject among researchers, as the available evidence can be interpreted in several ways. On one hand, studies have shown that EMDR produces greater reduction in PTSD symptoms compared to control groups receiving no treatment. On the other hand, the existing methodologically sound research comparing EMDR to exposure therapy without eye movements has found no difference in outcomes. Thus, it appears that while EMDR is effective, the mechanism of change may be exposure - and the eye movements may be an unnecessary addition. If EMDR is indeed simply exposure therapy with a superfluous addition, it brings to question whether the dissemination of EMDR is beneficial for patients and the field. " C.

Subject: Re: ACT vs EMDRTo: ACT_for_the_Public

Date: Wednesday, 23 February, 2011, 7:34

 

I wonder how ACT compares with EMDR. Has anyone tried both?The basic premises, the way I understand it (and I probably don't) are different as follows.

ACT, and I will be corrected if I am wrong, teaches us that our mind is inherently inefficient as a self-regulating system, in terms of eating its own dog food.

EMDR says that minds are more like (my own metaphor) a food processor, that munches on all kinds of foods all right most of the time, but sometimes some bone or something gets stuck, the thing gets jammed. When it does, it desperately tries to unjam itself and reprocess what got stack, and sometimes it takes decades without any result. EMDR offers a specific techniques for reprocessing such " bones " and getting rid of them.

Are these two models mutually contradictory? They've been both empirically proven to work, right?  

[Guest guest]

I have a number of books on EFT and I also payed quite a lot of money out once

for 10 weeks of EFT treatment. The therapist was not a pyschologist but was

trained in NLP and also had some other wacky new age ideas as well. I felt

ripped off afterwards.

For one thing, the lady was so nice I was not brave enough to tell her that my

SUD had not gone down. Anyhow, after much tapping, my anxiety may have been a

bit less but only because of I had been temporarily distracted and also because

I realy wanted it to work. When I went home I knew nothing had changed.

EFT is based on meridian lines, like accupuncture, but accupuncture is now

proven to be a placebo. EFT books will state that if you can't help yourself

(and 20 % won't) you will need the help of a professional. Fishy hey! because

they won't do anything different - it the same tapping on the same spots. Also,

it wears off after a while so you will need more. Sounds just like placebo to

me.

What amazes me is that so many world famous scientists believe in it, including

Pert, a brilliant biologist and chemist who has many patents on the

drugs she has invented. Weird!

KV

> >

> >

> >

> > Subject: Re: ACT vs EMDR

> > To: ACT_for_the_Public

> > Date: Wednesday, 23 February, 2011, 7:34

> >

> >

> >

> > I wonder how ACT compares with EMDR. Has anyone tried both?

> >

> > The basic premises, the way I understand it (and I probably don't) are

> > different as follows.

> >

> > ACT, and I will be corrected if I am wrong, teaches us that our mind is

> > inherently inefficient as a self-regulating system, in terms of eating its

> > own dog food.

> >

> > EMDR says that minds are more like (my own metaphor) a food processor, that

> > munches on all kinds of foods all right most of the time, but sometimes some

> > bone or something gets stuck, the thing gets jammed. When it does, it

> > desperately tries to unjam itself and reprocess what got stack, and

> > sometimes it takes decades without any result. EMDR offers a specific

> > techniques for reprocessing such " bones " and getting rid of them.

> >

> > Are these two models mutually contradictory? They've been both empirically

> > proven to work, right?

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Hum, I have an issue with methods and therapies that can't wait to take from you hundreds of pounds in order to cure you forever and ever. I really gets me how people try to get rich from other people's suffering. So when says"Don't buy hype and don't allow yourself to be bullied by anyone -- trust your experienceGet a feel for the community that surrounds treatment methods -- if they feel too commercial, self-important, or hyped up, increase your caution and hold on to your wallet (or maybe better -- run the other way)"I totally agree. I would add my own observation: Beware of sites that scroll down for ages with loads of reviews in different size fonts and photos of happy-looking people. The same sites usually end up in pictures of the mayor credit cards you can pay with.As for EMDR, I have been tempted, but never actually did it. At the back of my mind I couldn't help thinking that all that real work I had to with myself wasn't going to be solved so quickly and easily. I for one had always been willing to pay cash to solve my problems.

I would probably have payed my life savings if I had a guarantee that the outcome would have been what I wanted. But that was yesterday. Now I am using this opportunity my anxiety has given me to grow as much as possible, and counting my blessings as I do so. Take care all XXX______________________Signature: Mrs Em Equanimity This is my personal blog where I record my experience applying Acceptance Commitment Therapy to my anxiety and agoraphobia in particular, and my life in general. Feel free to browse. http://eyeofthehurricane-act.blogspot.com/--- El mié, 23/2/11, escribió:De: Asunto: Re: ACT vs other methods and a bit more on EMDRPara: ACT_for_the_Public Fecha: miércoles, 23 de febrero, 2011 18:56

The resistance to EMDR is three fold in the field: a) Francine's hyper-drive commercialization of it; the implausible theory behind it; c) the lack of evidence on putative processes of change.For the average person just wanting help, none of that matters that much, short term.

Maybe point "a" only because it can lead to excessive buy in by therapists(but other things can lead to that too ... in fact ACT has dangers there just because therapists can experience personal benefit and forget that what works for them

might not work for others). EMDR can be helpful - I think there is agreement there - the arguments are in the geek world of research and they are about issues of progressivity.There is frankly sometimes a bit of hypocrisy in the criticism in my view.

Why? Well most major empirically supported treatments immediatelystart certifying therapists, sometimes at considerable cost, and protecting namesand copyrights etc. That to me sounds a bit likepoint "a" -- even if it is a bit more dignified. Scientists learn how to hype with appearing to hype -- but

come on. Be real. Look to see if that emperor is really wearing clothes or not.Second, while most empirically supported treatments have plausibletheories behind them very often the theories themselves have not been carefully tested

and worse when they are they regularly fail ... and people still hang on to the theories. And failures like that do not take them off the empirically supportedtreatments list! (A "strange but true" uncomfortable fact in our field).

The ACT community has explicit values on these issues. You can read about them on thewebsite. Trainers agree to provide their protocols to other professionals at low cost or no cost; they promise not to certify therapists

or make proprietary claims; we deliberately avoided trademarking the name etc.All of that is to keep developers from becoming kings with their palms up.The result is that ACT can change and the focus can be kept on doing good for others

(don't worry -- none of major ACT folks out there are wanting for money ... we do fine ... but thefocus in on community building, learning, and contributing)Second, we have a large program focused on the processes underneath ACT and we've make a lot of

progress. We KNOW experiential avoidance and fusion can be toxic; we know these processes can be changed;we know when they are good things happen. The evidence for values is also good; for other ACT processes it is a little weaker

but all still very supportive in sense of self etcIs ACT better on that front than other psychotherapies?It's scary to say but in my opinion, the answer is yes. We've been at it longer and we just have a lot more data

-- and more consistently supportive data -- on processes of change. We still have a lot to do butwe've been more focused on it for longer than anyone else out there, in my no-so-humble opinion.But does that part matter to normal folks?

In terms of immediate outcome -- not sure it does. But it does mean this: good ACT therapists are focused onthings that, no fooling, are not just thought to be important but are known to be to most people's long term health.

That's kind of cool. It may not mean better outcomes (too early really to say). It does seem to mean broader outcomes,and more sticking power. That is too early to say too but the evidence is stronger there.

For exampleMichele Craske at UCLA -- an ACT critic -- just finished a trial of ACT versus traditional CBT for anxiety.Overall the outcomes were similar ... but if you also had depression, ACT did better.

I'm aware of about a dozen comparisons of ACT and traditional CBT. So far CBT did betteroverall in one or two (when? well, with lesser problems like being worried about a math test); about a 1/3 were ties; about half ACT did better.

My guessIn the end we will find that ACT does better when it moves certain processes and thus it depends on the person. For example if you are not experientially avoidant at all -- only the behavioral activaiton of values will be that relevant in ACT.

Maybe just do behavioral activation.The bottom line for normal people:Try things that are evidence based.Be aware that even evidence based treatments are not necessarily "right" in their views of your problems (that's the place normal folks see theory touching down)

Don't buy hype and don't allow yourself to be bullied by anyone -- trust your experienceGet a feel for the community that surrounds treatment methods -- if they feel too commercial, self-important, or hyped up, increase your caution and hold on to your wallet (or maybe better -- run the other way)

Peace, love, and life- S C. Foundation ProfessorDepartment of Psychology /298University of NevadaReno, NV 89557-0062"Love isn't everything, it's the only thing"

hayes@... or stevenchayes@...Fax: Psych Department: Contextual Change (you can use this number for messages if need be):

Blogs: Psychology Today http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/get-out-your-mindHuffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-c-hayes-phd

If you want my vita, publications, PowerPoint slides, try my training page or my blog at the ACBS site: http://www.contextualpsychology.org/steven_hayes

http://www.contextualpsychology.org/blog/steven_hayes or you can try my website (not really quite functional yet) stevenchayes.com

If you have any questions about ACT or RFT (articles, AAQ information etc), please first check the vast resources at www.contextualpsychology.org. You have to register on the site to download things, but the cost starts at a dollar.

If you are a professional or student and want to be part of the world wide ACT discussion or RFT discussions go to http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy/join

orhttp://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/relationalframetheory/joinIf you are a member of the public reading ACT self-help books (e.g., "Get Out of Your Mind and Into Your Life" etc) and want to be part of the conversation go to: http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/ACT_for_the_Public/join

Here's another source:http://www.div12.org/PsychologicalTreatments/treatments/ptsd_emdr.htmlIt's provide you with its description, its controversy, and key references and reviews as directions for more info. As for the controversy it states:

"The efficacy of EMDR for PTSD is an extremely controversial subject among researchers, as the available evidence can be interpreted in several ways. On one hand, studies have shown that EMDR produces greater reduction in PTSD symptoms compared to control groups receiving no treatment. On the other hand, the existing methodologically sound research comparing EMDR to exposure therapy without eye movements has found no difference in outcomes. Thus, it appears that while EMDR is effective, the mechanism of change may be exposure - and the eye movements may be an unnecessary addition. If EMDR is indeed simply exposure therapy with a superfluous addition, it brings to question whether the dissemination of EMDR is beneficial for patients and the field." C.

Subject: Re: ACT vs EMDRTo: ACT_for_the_Public

Date: Wednesday, 23 February, 2011, 7:34

I wonder how ACT compares with EMDR. Has anyone tried both?The basic premises, the way I understand it (and I probably don't) are different as follows.

ACT, and I will be corrected if I am wrong, teaches us that our mind is inherently inefficient as a self-regulating system, in terms of eating its own dog food.

EMDR says that minds are more like (my own metaphor) a food processor, that munches on all kinds of foods all right most of the time, but sometimes some bone or something gets stuck, the thing gets jammed. When it does, it desperately tries to unjam itself and reprocess what got stack, and sometimes it takes decades without any result. EMDR offers a specific techniques for reprocessing such "bones" and getting rid of them.

Are these two models mutually contradictory? They've been both empirically proven to work, right?

[Guest guest]

For many if not most of the reasons outlined, I like Act. Also, part of me has always thought that mindfulness/meditation was important, even if I wasn't terribly good at it for much of the time -- I've been reading about Buddhism for decades, and, well, you know...This leads me to my only "criticism" of Act (and of Buddhism): I am expected to work at it! I mean, how outrageous! Where is the therapist's "magic healing wand"? What am I paying for?Really, though, I wouldn't have it any other way. I like Act's openness and transparency, and its willingness to be wrong. I think that's a very important point -- this from someone who's been through the sham that is "Primal Therapy." I'm especially glad to see that Act has no "Arthur Janov."Thanks, .Regards,Detlef> >> >> > > Subject: Re: ACT vs EMDR> > To: ACT_for_the_Public > > Date: Wednesday, 23 February, 2011, 7:34> >> >> >> > I wonder how ACT compares with EMDR. Has anyone tried both?> >> > The basic premises, the way I understand it (and I probably don't) are> > different as follows.> >> > ACT, and I will be corrected if I am wrong, teaches us that our mind is> > inherently inefficient as a self-regulating system, in terms of eating its> > own dog food.> >> > EMDR says that minds are more like (my own metaphor) a food processor, that> > munches on all kinds of foods all right most of the time, but sometimes some> > bone or something gets stuck, the thing gets jammed. When it does, it> > desperately tries to unjam itself and reprocess what got stack, and> > sometimes it takes decades without any result. EMDR offers a specific> > techniques for reprocessing such "bones" and getting rid of them.> >> > Are these two models mutually contradictory? They've been both empirically> > proven to work, right?> >> >> >> >> >> > > >>

[Guest guest]

I also tried EFT without any result.I'm trying acupuncture now. I guess I'll see what happens. It hasn't had any effect so far but I'll settle for any improvement, either in my mood or in my physical vitality.BruceI have a number of books on EFT and I also payed quite a lot of money out once for 10 weeks of EFT treatment. The therapist was not a pyschologist but was trained in NLP and also had some other wacky new age ideas as well. I felt ripped off afterwards. For one thing, the lady was so nice I was not brave enough to tell her that my SUD had not gone down. Anyhow, after much tapping, my anxiety may have been a bit less but only because of I had been temporarily distracted and also because I realy wanted it to work. When I went home I knew nothing had changed.EFT is based on meridian lines, like accupuncture, but accupuncture is now proven to be a placebo. EFT books will state that if you can't help yourself (and 20 % won't) you will need the help of a professional. Fishy hey! because they won't do anything different - it the same tapping on the same spots. Also, it wears off after a while so you will need more. Sounds just like placebo to me.What amazes me is that so many world famous scientists believe in it, including Pert, a brilliant biologist and chemist who has many patents on the drugs she has invented. Weird! KV> >> >> > > > Subject: Re: ACT vs EMDR> > To: ACT_for_the_Public > > Date: Wednesday, 23 February, 2011, 7:34> >> >> >> > I wonder how ACT compares with EMDR. Has anyone tried both?> >> > The basic premises, the way I understand it (and I probably don't) are> > different as follows.> >> > ACT, and I will be corrected if I am wrong, teaches us that our mind is> > inherently inefficient as a self-regulating system, in terms of eating its> > own dog food.> >> > EMDR says that minds are more like (my own metaphor) a food processor, that> > munches on all kinds of foods all right most of the time, but sometimes some> > bone or something gets stuck, the thing gets jammed. When it does, it> > desperately tries to unjam itself and reprocess what got stack, and> > sometimes it takes decades without any result. EMDR offers a specific> > techniques for reprocessing such "bones" and getting rid of them.> >> > Are these two models mutually contradictory? They've been both empirically> > proven to work, right?> >> >> >> >> >> > > >>

[Guest guest]

I know of no evidence in support of the tapping therapies.The theories are goofy and without data; plus the interventions are without data; plus these methods have all thewarning signs.A professional on the ACT site got high up in one of these

fringe tapping approaches that had a mechanical methodsof finding good tapping sites. Very expensive. Lots of woo haa.A charismatic leader. Claims of cures. You name it.Eventually this person was invited into the inner circle of

trainers ... if he/she signed a legal document the he/she would notreveal the company secrets. She did.The secret?It was that the mechanical method of finding good tapping sites was a fraud.I was almost traumatized by that story.

Money is a funny thing. It does things to people.A caring professional needs to make a living ... butsome of these methods go into another territory --the one where greed and outright fraud reside.

- S C. Foundation ProfessorDepartment of Psychology /298University of NevadaReno, NV 89557-0062 " Love isn't everything, it's the only thing " hayes@... or stevenchayes@...

Fax: Psych Department: Contextual Change (you can use this number for messages if need be): Blogs: Psychology Today  http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/get-out-your-mind

Huffington Post  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-c-hayes-phdIf you want my vita, publications, PowerPoint slides, try my training page or my blog at the ACBS site: 

http://www.contextualpsychology.org/steven_hayes http://www.contextualpsychology.org/blog/steven_hayes

or you can try my website (not really quite functional yet) stevenchayes.comIf you have any questions about ACT or RFT (articles, AAQ information etc), please first check the vast resources at www.contextualpsychology.org. You have to register on the site to download things, but the cost starts at a dollar.

If you are a professional or student and want to be part of the world wide ACT discussion or RFT discussions go to http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy/join

orhttp://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/relationalframetheory/joinIf you are a member of the public reading ACT self-help books (e.g., " Get Out of Your Mind and Into Your Life " etc) and want to be part of the conversation go to: http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/ACT_for_the_Public/join

 

I also tried EFT without any result.I'm trying acupuncture now. I guess I'll see what happens. It hasn't had any effect so far but I'll settle for any improvement, either in my mood or in my physical vitality.

Bruce

I have a number of books on EFT and I also payed quite a lot of money out once for 10 weeks of EFT treatment. The therapist was not a pyschologist but was trained in NLP and also had some other wacky new age ideas as well. I felt ripped off afterwards. 

For one thing, the lady was so nice I was not brave enough to tell her that my SUD had not gone down. Anyhow, after much tapping, my anxiety may have been a bit less but only because of I had been temporarily distracted and also because I realy wanted it to work. When I went home I knew nothing had changed.

EFT is based on meridian lines, like accupuncture, but accupuncture is now proven to be a placebo. EFT books will state that if you can't help yourself (and 20 % won't) you will need the help of a professional. Fishy hey! because they won't do anything different - it the same tapping on the same spots. Also, it wears off after a while so you will need more. Sounds just like placebo to me.

What amazes me is that so many world famous scientists believe in it, including Pert, a brilliant biologist and chemist who has many patents on the drugs she has invented. Weird! KV

> >> >> > > > Subject: Re: ACT vs EMDR> > To: ACT_for_the_Public

> > Date: Wednesday, 23 February, 2011, 7:34> >> >> >> > I wonder how ACT compares with EMDR. Has anyone tried both?> >> > The basic premises, the way I understand it (and I probably don't) are

> > different as follows.> >> > ACT, and I will be corrected if I am wrong, teaches us that our mind is> > inherently inefficient as a self-regulating system, in terms of eating its

> > own dog food.> >> > EMDR says that minds are more like (my own metaphor) a food processor, that> > munches on all kinds of foods all right most of the time, but sometimes some> > bone or something gets stuck, the thing gets jammed. When it does, it

> > desperately tries to unjam itself and reprocess what got stack, and> > sometimes it takes decades without any result. EMDR offers a specific> > techniques for reprocessing such " bones " and getting rid of them.

> >> > Are these two models mutually contradictory? They've been both empirically> > proven to work, right?> >> >> >> >> >> > 

> >>

[Guest guest]

When I was going through a bad patch some years back I looked aroud the net and

found a EFT sceptism site. The guy who ran it turned out to be an engineer who

had retrained in EFT and he said he could work remotely with me over the over

the phone. He too, he said, had once been very sceptical and so he understood my

concerns and offered the therapy to me at a cheaper rate.

I said that if this really works so instantly like they say then it should act

almost like a drug on me. To feel as I do now and then to be curerd in a moment

would mean happiness and peace would flood into my body and the world would look

instantly happy and lovely. Pain would flow out of my body and I would cry with

joy and then I would most likely fall into a deep sleep as I am so tired.

It dosen't work like that, he said.

There are now many derivitives of EFT including WHEE (EFT and EMDR, as we as

many others. It seems that everyone is trying to get their own frachise going to

get in on the action as there couldn't be an easier way to make money. I hate to

be so cynical but there seems to be a lot of crooks around, and yet these people

come across as very well meaning. It is hard for me to say you're lying. When

you have an honest and trusting nature yourself and someone seems very pleasant

and sincere it is difficult to believe that they are lying through thier teeth.

I guess this is how they get away with it, but maybe they are also kidding

themselves.

KV

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > From: Jane Cohen <asdfasdf87@>

> > > > Subject: Re: ACT vs EMDR

> > > > To: ACT_for_the_Public

> > > > Date: Wednesday, 23 February, 2011, 7:34

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > I wonder how ACT compares with EMDR. Has anyone tried both?

> > > >

> > > > The basic premises, the way I understand it (and I probably don't) are

> > > > different as follows.

> > > >

> > > > ACT, and I will be corrected if I am wrong, teaches us that our mind is

> > > > inherently inefficient as a self-regulating system, in terms of eating

> > its

> > > > own dog food.

> > > >

> > > > EMDR says that minds are more like (my own metaphor) a food processor,

> > that

> > > > munches on all kinds of foods all right most of the time, but sometimes

> > some

> > > > bone or something gets stuck, the thing gets jammed. When it does, it

> > > > desperately tries to unjam itself and reprocess what got stack, and

> > > > sometimes it takes decades without any result. EMDR offers a specific

> > > > techniques for reprocessing such " bones " and getting rid of them.

> > > >

> > > > Are these two models mutually contradictory? They've been both

> > empirically

> > > > proven to work, right?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Totally agree Detlef, ripped off! ;-)KateThis leads me to my only "criticism" of Act (and of Buddhism): I am expected to work at it! I mean, how outrageous! Where is the therapist's "magic healing wand"? What am I paying for?

[Guest guest]

This is NOT to defend TFT (especially when done with the mechanistic socalled diagnosis over the phone that has been rightly exposed for the fraud it is) or EFT nor its theories, nor the affirmations used, nor the wild claims and sometimes huge sums of money involved.I just want to pose a question: what if we *gently* touch tender points on our body while we consider difficult situations?And this not in order to get *rid of* pain and stress, but in the service of self-care and self-compassion and of helping ourselves to be mindful of our sensations, both the sensations related to the pain, *and* the more pleasurable sensations related to this way of touching ourselves?I have good experiences with that, and I know that there are other ACT therapists who introduce self-acupressure in this spirit.I think this deserves (and needs) more research, and... for now, I don't see how this form of self-touch conflicts with ACT...Or am I missing something?Best to all,Maarten > > > >> > > >> > > > From: Jane Cohen asdfasdf87@> > > > Subject: Re: ACT vs EMDR> > > > To: ACT_for_the_Public > > > > Date: Wednesday, 23 February, 2011, 7:34> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > I wonder how ACT compares with EMDR. Has anyone tried both?> > > >> > > > The basic premises, the way I understand it (and I probably don't) are> > > > different as follows.> > > >> > > > ACT, and I will be corrected if I am wrong, teaches us that our mind is> > > > inherently inefficient as a self-regulating system, in terms of eating> > its> > > > own dog food.> > > >> > > > EMDR says that minds are more like (my own metaphor) a food processor,> > that> > > > munches on all kinds of foods all right most of the time, but sometimes> > some> > > > bone or something gets stuck, the thing gets jammed. When it does, it> > > > desperately tries to unjam itself and reprocess what got stack, and> > > > sometimes it takes decades without any result. EMDR offers a specific> > > > techniques for reprocessing such "bones" and getting rid of them.> > > >> > > > Are these two models mutually contradictory? They've been both> > empirically> > > > proven to work, right?> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> >> >> > > >>

[Guest guest]

Hmm... For a moment (or two, or three) I thought I was reading the wrong forum, what with all this talk of self-touching...Regards,Detlef> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > From: Jane Cohen asdfasdf87@> > > > > Subject: Re: ACT vs EMDR> > > > > To: ACT_for_the_Public > > > > > Date: Wednesday, 23 February, 2011, 7:34> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > I wonder how ACT compares with EMDR. Has anyone tried both?> > > > >> > > > > The basic premises, the way I understand it (and I probably> don't) are> > > > > different as follows.> > > > >> > > > > ACT, and I will be corrected if I am wrong, teaches us that our> mind is> > > > > inherently inefficient as a self-regulating system, in terms of> eating> > > its> > > > > own dog food.> > > > >> > > > > EMDR says that minds are more like (my own metaphor) a food> processor,> > > that> > > > > munches on all kinds of foods all right most of the time, but> sometimes> > > some> > > > > bone or something gets stuck, the thing gets jammed. When it> does, it> > > > > desperately tries to unjam itself and reprocess what got stack,> and> > > > > sometimes it takes decades without any result. EMDR offers a> specific> > > > > techniques for reprocessing such "bones" and getting rid of> them.> > > > >> > > > > Are these two models mutually contradictory? They've been both> > > empirically> > > > > proven to work, right?> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >>

[Guest guest]

There Is Something Spooky About EMDR - Some Amazing Personal Experiences.

SUD (Subjective Unit of Distress) is a self measurement of a person's distress. I believe that that SUD is the most powerul part of getting a client to believe, or forcing them to believe, that their distress level has gone down. Why make a measurement at all, we all know if we are feeling better? It is easy to believe that our anxiety has come down two points when nothing has really changed, after that , a person might agree that it has come down a bit more with another of tapping, or EMDR.

Remembering My Past

So yes, I'm an arch skeptic and I don't believe in anything New Age or anything unscientific - so EFT is BS that's for sure. But now this is really weird: after reading about EMDR years ago I tried it on myself using a coathanger which I waved before my eyes. I had no idea what speed to use do I fanned it rather fast and then thought about my past. After about 10 minutes a memory popped into my head of the chair I used to sit on when I was about three. I remembered all the detail of it, its pattern, its colour, and also all the feelings I had at the time. I then carried on every night for about an hour for two weeks recovering loads of memories. I remembered the wallpaper around my Gran's house, the streets I used to play in, all my toys I had, the sweets I used to eat, the picture on the wall above my bed when I was five years old, etc. It was a very surreal, and almost psychedelic, experience as I was actually back there in time with all the feelings I had which were often happy ones. Remembering everything about the streets I used to play in when I was a little boy, including the pretty houses, the tress, etc, was so overwhelming because the detail was just incredible. And I'm not lying.

Alas, I never recovered any traumatic experiences, or tranformend my depressed state in anyway. In fact, going again over some of the old pain that came up made me feel much worse. Eventually I grew tired of EMDR and gave it up. It is possible that thinking about my past for an hour each night is what caused my recovery of lost the memories, and that the waving on the coathanger did nothing. Still, one day when I am good at meditation I intend to have another go because there was some real gems in those old memories. One wonderful one was being at the seaside with my mum and dad when I was probalby about four years old. And the train station I remembered a bit later was simply so magnificant and glorious.

KV

> > > >> > > >> > > > From: Jane Cohen asdfasdf87@> > > > Subject: Re: ACT vs EMDR> > > > To: ACT_for_the_Public > > > > Date: Wednesday, 23 February, 2011, 7:34> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > I wonder how ACT compares with EMDR. Has anyone tried both?> > > >> > > > The basic premises, the way I understand it (and I probably don't) are> > > > different as follows.> > > >> > > > ACT, and I will be corrected if I am wrong, teaches us that our mind is> > > > inherently inefficient as a self-regulating system, in terms of eating> > its> > > > own dog food.> > > >> > > > EMDR says that minds are more like (my own metaphor) a food processor,> > that> > > > munches on all kinds of foods all right most of the time, but sometimes> > some> > > > bone or something gets stuck, the thing gets jammed. When it does, it> > > > desperately tries to unjam itself and reprocess what got stack, and> > > > sometimes it takes decades without any result. EMDR offers a specific> > > > techniques for reprocessing such "bones" and getting rid of them.> > > >> > > > Are these two models mutually contradictory? They've been both> > empirically> > > > proven to work, right?> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> >> >> > > >>

[Guest guest]

Hi ,Thank you for your response, it's insightful as always.Question.. do you know the actual method and could you share it? Do THEY believe it's a fraud, or is it your (or your friend's) conclusion? One man's fraud can be another man's medicine.

BWT, why is everybody so eager to discount the placebo effect when (I will be corrected if I am wrong) it's the biggest health factor known to mankind? Call me crazy, but I totally don't mind being healed by a placebo effect.

 

I know of no evidence in support of the tapping therapies.The theories are goofy and without data; plus the interventions are without data; plus these methods have all thewarning signs.A professional on the ACT site got high up in one of these

fringe tapping approaches that had a mechanical methodsof finding good tapping sites. Very expensive. Lots of woo haa.A charismatic leader. Claims of cures. You name it.Eventually this person was invited into the inner circle of

trainers ... if he/she signed a legal document the he/she would notreveal the company secrets. She did.The secret?It was that the mechanical method of finding good tapping sites was a fraud.I was almost traumatized by that story.

Money is a funny thing. It does things to people.A caring professional needs to make a living ... butsome of these methods go into another territory --the one where greed and outright fraud reside.

- S C. Foundation ProfessorDepartment of Psychology /298University of NevadaReno, NV 89557-0062 " Love isn't everything, it's the only thing "

hayes@... or stevenchayes@...

Fax: Psych Department: Contextual Change (you can use this number for messages if need be): Blogs: Psychology Today  http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/get-out-your-mind

Huffington Post  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-c-hayes-phdIf you want my vita, publications, PowerPoint slides, try my training page or my blog at the ACBS site: 

http://www.contextualpsychology.org/steven_hayes http://www.contextualpsychology.org/blog/steven_hayes

or you can try my website (not really quite functional yet) stevenchayes.comIf you have any questions about ACT or RFT (articles, AAQ information etc), please first check the vast resources at www.contextualpsychology.org. You have to register on the site to download things, but the cost starts at a dollar.

If you are a professional or student and want to be part of the world wide ACT discussion or RFT discussions go to http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy/join

orhttp://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/relationalframetheory/joinIf you are a member of the public reading ACT self-help books (e.g., " Get Out of Your Mind and Into Your Life " etc) and want to be part of the conversation go to: http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/ACT_for_the_Public/join

 

I also tried EFT without any result.I'm trying acupuncture now. I guess I'll see what happens. It hasn't had any effect so far but I'll settle for any improvement, either in my mood or in my physical vitality.

Bruce

I have a number of books on EFT and I also payed quite a lot of money out once for 10 weeks of EFT treatment. The therapist was not a pyschologist but was trained in NLP and also had some other wacky new age ideas as well. I felt ripped off afterwards. 

For one thing, the lady was so nice I was not brave enough to tell her that my SUD had not gone down. Anyhow, after much tapping, my anxiety may have been a bit less but only because of I had been temporarily distracted and also because I realy wanted it to work. When I went home I knew nothing had changed.

EFT is based on meridian lines, like accupuncture, but accupuncture is now proven to be a placebo. EFT books will state that if you can't help yourself (and 20 % won't) you will need the help of a professional. Fishy hey! because they won't do anything different - it the same tapping on the same spots. Also, it wears off after a while so you will need more. Sounds just like placebo to me.

What amazes me is that so many world famous scientists believe in it, including Pert, a brilliant biologist and chemist who has many patents on the drugs she has invented. Weird! KV

> >> >> > > > Subject: Re: ACT vs EMDR> > To: ACT_for_the_Public

> > Date: Wednesday, 23 February, 2011, 7:34> >> >> >> > I wonder how ACT compares with EMDR. Has anyone tried both?> >> > The basic premises, the way I understand it (and I probably don't) are

> > different as follows.> >> > ACT, and I will be corrected if I am wrong, teaches us that our mind is> > inherently inefficient as a self-regulating system, in terms of eating its

> > own dog food.> >> > EMDR says that minds are more like (my own metaphor) a food processor, that> > munches on all kinds of foods all right most of the time, but sometimes some> > bone or something gets stuck, the thing gets jammed. When it does, it

> > desperately tries to unjam itself and reprocess what got stack, and> > sometimes it takes decades without any result. EMDR offers a specific> > techniques for reprocessing such " bones " and getting rid of them.

> >> > Are these two models mutually contradictory? They've been both empirically> > proven to work, right?> >> >> >> >> >> > 

> >>

[Guest guest]

BWT, why is everybody so eager to discount the placebo effect when (I will be corrected if I am wrong) it's the biggest health factor known to mankind? Call me crazy, but I totally don't mind being healed by a placebo effect.

No one discounts it, or is eager to, in my opinon. And I will not call you crazy.

Who told you that the placebo effect is the biggest health factor known to mankind? Antibiotics and sterile protocol have saved more lives in the last century than anything else I can think of.

Re: ACT vs EMDR> > To: ACT_for_the_Public > > Date: Wednesday, 23 February, 2011, 7:34> >> >> >> > I wonder how ACT compares with EMDR. Has anyone tried both?> >> > The basic premises, the way I understand it (and I probably don't) are> > different as follows.> >> > ACT, and I will be corrected if I am wrong, teaches us that our mind is> > inherently inefficient as a self-regulating system, in terms of eating its> > own dog food.> >> > EMDR says that minds are more like (my own metaphor) a food processor, that> > munches on all kinds of foods all right most of the time, but sometimes some> > bone or something gets stuck, the thing gets jammed. When it does, it> > desperately tries to unjam itself and reprocess what got stack, and> > sometimes it takes decades without any result. EMDR offers a specific> > techniques for reprocessing such "bones" and getting rid of them.> >> > Are these two models mutually contradictory? They've been both empirically> > proven to work, right?> >> >> >> >> >> > > >>

[Guest guest]

:-))Sorry to disappoint you, Detlev, but I was thinking more of gently touching the face, for instance near the trigeminal nerve.And image of it can be found for instance here (and can be shown to those under 12 years, too, without being drawn before court:-)) :http://twistedphysics.typepad.com/cocktail_party_physics/images/2008/08/01/trigeminal_side_small_3.jpgMaartenPS, to avoid new misunderstandings: I chose this link, not because I like the website, but because the trigeminal nerve is clearly shown, here)> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > From: Jane Cohen asdfasdf87@> > > > > > Subject: Re: ACT vs EMDR> > > > > > To: ACT_for_the_Public > > > > > > Date: Wednesday, 23 February, 2011, 7:34> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > I wonder how ACT compares with EMDR. Has anyone tried both?> > > > > >> > > > > > The basic premises, the way I understand it (and I probably> > don't) are> > > > > > different as follows.> > > > > >> > > > > > ACT, and I will be corrected if I am wrong, teaches us that> our> > mind is> > > > > > inherently inefficient as a self-regulating system, in terms> of> > eating> > > > its> > > > > > own dog food.> > > > > >> > > > > > EMDR says that minds are more like (my own metaphor) a food> > processor,> > > > that> > > > > > munches on all kinds of foods all right most of the time, but> > sometimes> > > > some> > > > > > bone or something gets stuck, the thing gets jammed. When it> > does, it> > > > > > desperately tries to unjam itself and reprocess what got> stack,> > and> > > > > > sometimes it takes decades without any result. EMDR offers a> > specific> > > > > > techniques for reprocessing such "bones" and getting rid of> > them.> > > > > >> > > > > > Are these two models mutually contradictory? They've been both> > > > empirically> > > > > > proven to work, right?> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> >>

[Guest guest]

Personally I don't discount the placebo effect. I believe it is a major part of medicine. I think the definition of placebo is problematic though as we probably aren't all describing the same thing when we use the term. If the doctor-patient relationship is part of the placebo then it is more than just an inert chemical.

There have been studies that show that placebos work even when the patient is told that the drug is an inert chemical and there have been studies showing the reverse effect that pain killers and tranquillisers don't work as well when administered without the patient knowing. Also that expensive forms of simple painkillers work better than cheap ones. Actually knowing that now makes me choose the very cheapest paracetamol and believe in it!

I doubt whether I would react favourably if told I was being prescribed a placebo but then as my main OCD concern has been around (dis)honesty I would react favourably to my doctor if he discussed a drug and whether there is real evidence it works or whether we could just try it and see, which he always seems to do - could of course be part of the con, of course.

Personally if placebo means I shall please I have to admit that one of my concerns when filling in measures throughout the therapy I have had is to please the therapist. I always think after all the work he has put it with me it would be horrid not to show some progress so that when he is put under pressure to show results ( very much the case I believe in the UK on the NHS where I have heard some people say that current politics is measuring more by output (how many people can you lop off the waiting list in the shortest period of time?) than outcomes. Of course, my (ex)therapist was well aware of my concern as my honesty meant I always confessed!

I think the key issue with placebos for me is whether they are used to deceive (make fortunes). As I am concerned with honesty I am quite happy for a therapist or doctor to offer me a treatment while admitting that some of the effect is not fully understood but I would be concerned if some quack was laughing behind my back all the way to the bank.

I think the most important thing for me (most therapeutic if not placebo effect) is the relationship with the doctor though of course I expect my doctors to be scientific and understand how any treatment works to the best of their ability. That relationship must be based on honesty in my opinion, and trust that they will do whatever is in my interest with my consent as far as that is possible to determine.

I think everyone's progress will depend on what they believe to be true in areas they believe to be important or in ACT terms their values. I for example will be affected very much by the honesty of communication between me and my doctors, including their admission of not being sure. Anyone trying to press a treatment on me without explaining it effectively or without appearing to want to explain its rationale is probably not going to get very far with me.

Oops, bit of an essay here!

Lots of interesting info on placebos of course on wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo

S.

I have a number of books on EFT and I also payed quite a lot of money out once for 10 weeks of EFT treatment. The therapist was not a pyschologist but was trained in NLP and also had some other wacky new age ideas as well. I felt ripped off afterwards. For one thing, the lady was so nice I was not brave enough to tell her that my SUD had not gone down. Anyhow, after much tapping, my anxiety may have been a bit less but only because of I had been temporarily distracted and also because I realy wanted it to work. When I went home I knew nothing had changed.EFT is based on meridian lines, like accupuncture, but accupuncture is now proven to be a placebo. EFT books will state that if you can't help yourself (and 20 % won't) you will need the help of a professional. Fishy hey! because they won't do anything different - it the same tapping on the same spots. Also, it wears off after a while so you will need more. Sounds

just like placebo to me.What amazes me is that so many world famous scientists believe in it, including Pert, a brilliant biologist and chemist who has many patents on the drugs she has invented. Weird! KV> >> >> > > > Subject: Re:

ACT vs EMDR> > To: ACT_for_the_Public > > Date: Wednesday, 23 February, 2011, 7:34> >> >> >> > I wonder how ACT compares with EMDR. Has anyone tried both?> >> > The basic premises, the way I understand it (and I probably don't) are> > different as follows.> >> > ACT, and I will be corrected if I am wrong, teaches us that our mind is> > inherently inefficient as a self-regulating system, in terms of eating its> > own dog food.> >> > EMDR says that minds are more like (my own metaphor) a food processor, that> > munches

on all kinds of foods all right most of the time, but sometimes some> > bone or something gets stuck, the thing gets jammed. When it does, it> > desperately tries to unjam itself and reprocess what got stack, and> > sometimes it takes decades without any result. EMDR offers a specific> > techniques for reprocessing such "bones" and getting rid of them.> >> > Are these two models mutually contradictory? They've been both empirically> > proven to work, right?> >> >> >> >> >> > > >>

[Guest guest]

I imagine that your suggested touching would be preferable to the night bruxism I deal with,

BW,

S.

Subject: Re: ACT vs other methods and a bit more on EMDRTo: ACT_for_the_Public Date: Saturday, 26 February, 2011, 6:34

:-))

Sorry to disappoint you, Detlev, but I was thinking more of gently touching the face, for instance near the trigeminal nerve.

And image of it can be found for instance here (and can be shown to those under 12 years, too, without being drawn before court:-)) :

http://twistedphysics.typepad.com/cocktail_party_physics/images/2008/08/01/trigeminal_side_small_3.jpg

Maarten

PS, to avoid new misunderstandings: I chose this link, not because I like the website, but because the trigeminal nerve is clearly shown, here)

> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > From: Jane Cohen asdfasdf87@> > > > > > Subject: Re: ACT vs EMDR> > > > > > To: ACT_for_the_Public > > > > > > Date: Wednesday, 23 February, 2011, 7:34> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > I wonder how ACT compares with EMDR. Has anyone tried both?> > > > > >> > > > > > The basic premises, the way I

understand it (and I probably> > don't) are> > > > > > different as follows.> > > > > >> > > > > > ACT, and I will be corrected if I am wrong, teaches us that> our> > mind is> > > > > > inherently inefficient as a self-regulating system, in terms> of> > eating> > > > its> > > > > > own dog food.> > > > > >> > > > > > EMDR says that minds are more like (my own metaphor) a food> > processor,> > > > that> > > > > > munches on all kinds of foods all right most of the time, but> > sometimes> > > > some> > > > > > bone or something gets stuck, the thing gets jammed. When it> > does, it> > > > > > desperately tries to unjam

itself and reprocess what got> stack,> > and> > > > > > sometimes it takes decades without any result. EMDR offers a> > specific> > > > > > techniques for reprocessing such "bones" and getting rid of> > them.> > > > > >> > > > > > Are these two models mutually contradictory? They've been both> > > > empirically> > > > > > proven to work, right?> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> >>

[Guest guest]

Hello Jane,I have not really gave it much thought before, but I would say that if I had a problem with a placebo, that problem would be defined by one word : "Dishonesty". There could be dishonesty in the nature of the person that sells or administrates the placebo (could be, possibly). There could be dishonesty in the person that lies to themselves into being cured, possibly repressing the pain and the message that is waiting to be learned with the pain (could be, possibly)Take care XXX______________________Signature: Mrs Em Equanimity This is my personal blog

where I record my experience applying Acceptance Commitment Therapy to my anxiety and agoraphobia in particular, and my life in general. Feel free to browse. http://eyeofthehurricane-act.blogspot.com/--- El sáb, 26/2/11, Jane Cohen escribió:De: Jane Cohen Asunto: Re: Re: ACT vs other methods and a bit more on EMDRPara: ACT_for_the_Public CC: " " Fecha: sábado, 26 de febrero, 2011 02:39

Hi ,Thank you for your response, it's insightful as always.Question.. do you know the actual method and could you share it? Do THEY believe it's a fraud, or is it your (or your friend's) conclusion? One man's fraud can be another man's medicine.

BWT, why is everybody so eager to discount the placebo effect when (I will be corrected if I am wrong) it's the biggest health factor known to mankind? Call me crazy, but I totally don't mind being healed by a placebo effect.

I know of no evidence in support of the tapping therapies.The theories are goofy and without data; plus the interventions are without data; plus these methods have all thewarning signs.A professional on the ACT site got high up in one of these

fringe tapping approaches that had a mechanical methodsof finding good tapping sites. Very expensive. Lots of woo haa.A charismatic leader. Claims of cures. You name it.Eventually this person was invited into the inner circle of

trainers ... if he/she signed a legal document the he/she would notreveal the company secrets. She did.The secret?It was that the mechanical method of finding good tapping sites was a fraud.I was almost traumatized by that story.

Money is a funny thing. It does things to people.A caring professional needs to make a living ... butsome of these methods go into another territory --the one where greed and outright fraud reside.

- S C. Foundation ProfessorDepartment of Psychology /298University of NevadaReno, NV 89557-0062"Love isn't everything, it's the only thing"

hayes@... or stevenchayes@...

Fax: Psych Department: Contextual Change (you can use this number for messages if need be): Blogs: Psychology Today http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/get-out-your-mind

Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-c-hayes-phdIf you want my vita, publications, PowerPoint slides, try my training page or my blog at the ACBS site:

http://www.contextualpsychology.org/steven_hayes http://www.contextualpsychology.org/blog/steven_hayes

or you can try my website (not really quite functional yet) stevenchayes.comIf you have any questions about ACT or RFT (articles, AAQ information etc), please first check the vast resources at www.contextualpsychology.org. You have to register on the site to download things, but the cost starts at a dollar.

If you are a professional or student and want to be part of the world wide ACT discussion or RFT discussions go to http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy/join

orhttp://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/relationalframetheory/joinIf you are a member of the public reading ACT self-help books (e.g., "Get Out of Your Mind and Into Your Life" etc) and want to be part of the conversation go to: http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/ACT_for_the_Public/join

I also tried EFT without any result.I'm trying acupuncture now. I guess I'll see what happens. It hasn't had any effect so far but I'll settle for any improvement, either in my mood or in my physical vitality.

Bruce

I have a number of books on EFT and I also payed quite a lot of money out once for 10 weeks of EFT treatment. The therapist was not a pyschologist but was trained in NLP and also had some other wacky new age ideas as well. I felt ripped off afterwards.

For one thing, the lady was so nice I was not brave enough to tell her that my SUD had not gone down. Anyhow, after much tapping, my anxiety may have been a bit less but only because of I had been temporarily distracted and also because I realy wanted it to work. When I went home I knew nothing had changed.

EFT is based on meridian lines, like accupuncture, but accupuncture is now proven to be a placebo. EFT books will state that if you can't help yourself (and 20 % won't) you will need the help of a professional. Fishy hey! because they won't do anything different - it the same tapping on the same spots. Also, it wears off after a while so you will need more. Sounds just like placebo to me.

What amazes me is that so many world famous scientists believe in it, including Pert, a brilliant biologist and chemist who has many patents on the drugs she has invented. Weird! KV

> >> >> > > > Subject: Re: ACT vs EMDR> > To: ACT_for_the_Public

> > Date: Wednesday, 23 February, 2011, 7:34> >> >> >> > I wonder how ACT compares with EMDR. Has anyone tried both?> >> > The basic premises, the way I understand it (and I probably don't) are

> > different as follows.> >> > ACT, and I will be corrected if I am wrong, teaches us that our mind is> > inherently inefficient as a self-regulating system, in terms of eating its

> > own dog food.> >> > EMDR says that minds are more like (my own metaphor) a food processor, that> > munches on all kinds of foods all right most of the time, but sometimes some> > bone or something gets stuck, the thing gets jammed. When it does, it

> > desperately tries to unjam itself and reprocess what got stack, and> > sometimes it takes decades without any result. EMDR offers a specific> > techniques for reprocessing such "bones" and getting rid of them.

> >> > Are these two models mutually contradictory? They've been both empirically> > proven to work, right?> >> >> >> >> >> >

> >>

[Guest guest]

Clearly honesty is one of my concerns too. I don't think i go along with the "repression" worry as I tend to think that if you feel better in the present then that is what matters. If on the other hand you are trying to avoid anxiety by seeking out quick fixes (possibly in the form of placebos, deceitful doctors or drugs that promise the world but are only interested in their own gains, then I agree that is unhelpful. I think I'd probably include people pushing a daft treatment in order to make themselves feel good/superior/self-important as deceitful as well.

But surely part of whether a treatment is worthwhile (even if it depends partly on placebo effect) is whether it helps you live the life you want in keeping with your values. If you look at what you are doing with your life on a day to day basis then maybe the notion of a "cure" doesn't come into it for who knows what tomorrow will bring. The important thing is living with yourself today to the best of your ability, isn't it?

S.

I have a number of books on EFT and I also payed quite a lot of money out once for 10 weeks of EFT treatment. The therapist was not a pyschologist but was trained in NLP and also had some other wacky new age ideas as well. I felt ripped off afterwards. For one thing, the lady was so nice I was not brave enough to tell her that my SUD had not gone down. Anyhow, after much tapping, my anxiety may have been a bit less but only because of I had been temporarily distracted and also because I realy wanted it to work. When I went home I knew nothing had changed.EFT is based on meridian lines, like accupuncture, but accupuncture is now proven to be a placebo. EFT books will state that if you can't help yourself (and 20 % won't) you will need the help of a professional. Fishy hey! because they won't do anything different - it the same tapping on the same spots. Also, it wears off after a while so you will need more. Sounds

just like placebo to me.What amazes me is that so many world famous scientists believe in it, including Pert, a brilliant biologist and chemist who has many patents on the drugs she has invented. Weird! KV> >> >> > > > Subject: Re: ACT vs EMDR> > To: ACT_for_the_Public > > Date: Wednesday, 23 February, 2011, 7:34> >> >> >> > I wonder how ACT compares with EMDR. Has

anyone tried both?> >> > The basic premises, the way I understand it (and I probably don't) are> > different as follows.> >> > ACT, and I will be corrected if I am wrong, teaches us that our mind is> > inherently inefficient as a self-regulating system, in terms of eating its> > own dog food.> >> > EMDR says that minds are more like (my own metaphor) a food processor, that> > munches on all kinds of foods all right most of the time, but sometimes some> > bone or something gets stuck, the thing gets jammed. When it does, it> > desperately tries to unjam itself and reprocess what got stack, and> > sometimes it takes decades without any result. EMDR offers a specific> > techniques for reprocessing such "bones" and getting rid of them.> >> > Are these two models mutually contradictory? They've been

both empirically> > proven to work, right?> >> >> >> >> >> > > >>

[Guest guest]

I don't agree with "feeling better in the present moment is what matters". I think that being in the present moment is very important, but not necessarily feeling better (or feeling any way). I think we have to learn what the present is trying to teach us, if not, it keeps coming back and back. Maybe I don't understand the post fully, sorry if that is the case XXX ______________________Signature: Mrs Em Equanimity This is my personal blog where I record my experience applying

Acceptance Commitment Therapy to my anxiety and agoraphobia in particular, and my life in general. Feel free to browse. http://eyeofthehurricane-act.blogspot.com/--- El sáb, 26/2/11, S Asunto: Re: Re: ACT vs other methods and a bit more on EMDRPara:

ACT_for_the_Public Fecha: sábado, 26 de febrero, 2011 09:20

Clearly honesty is one of my concerns too. I don't think i go along with the "repression" worry as I tend to think that if you feel better in the present then that is what matters. If on the other hand you are trying to avoid anxiety by seeking out quick fixes (possibly in the form of placebos, deceitful doctors or drugs that promise the world but are only interested in their own gains, then I agree that is unhelpful. I think I'd probably include people pushing a daft treatment in order to make themselves feel good/superior/self-important as deceitful as well.

But surely part of whether a treatment is worthwhile (even if it depends partly on placebo effect) is whether it helps you live the life you want in keeping with your values. If you look at what you are doing with your life on a day to day basis then maybe the notion of a "cure" doesn't come into it for who knows what tomorrow will bring. The important thing is living with yourself today to the best of your ability, isn't it?

S.

I have a number of books on EFT and I also payed quite a lot of money out once for 10 weeks of EFT treatment. The therapist was not a pyschologist but was trained in NLP and also had some other wacky new age ideas as well. I felt ripped off afterwards. For one thing, the lady was so nice I was not brave enough to tell her that my SUD had not gone down. Anyhow, after much tapping, my anxiety may have been a bit less but only because of I had been temporarily distracted and also because I realy wanted it to work. When I went home I knew nothing had changed.EFT is based on meridian lines, like accupuncture, but accupuncture is now proven to be a placebo. EFT books will state that if you can't help yourself (and 20 % won't) you will need the help of a professional. Fishy hey! because they won't do anything different - it the same tapping on the same spots. Also, it wears off after a while so you will need more. Sounds

just like placebo to me.What amazes me is that so many world famous scientists believe in it, including Pert, a brilliant biologist and chemist who has many patents on the drugs she has invented. Weird! KV> >> >> > > > Subject: Re: ACT vs EMDR> > To: ACT_for_the_Public > > Date: Wednesday, 23 February, 2011, 7:34> >> >> >> > I wonder how ACT compares with EMDR. Has

anyone tried both?> >> > The basic premises, the way I understand it (and I probably don't) are> > different as follows.> >> > ACT, and I will be corrected if I am wrong, teaches us that our mind is> > inherently inefficient as a self-regulating system, in terms of eating its> > own dog food.> >> > EMDR says that minds are more like (my own metaphor) a food processor, that> > munches on all kinds of foods all right most of the time, but sometimes some> > bone or something gets stuck, the thing gets jammed. When it does, it> > desperately tries to unjam itself and reprocess what got stack, and> > sometimes it takes decades without any result. EMDR offers a specific> > techniques for reprocessing such "bones" and getting rid of them.> >> > Are these two models mutually contradictory? They've been

both empirically> > proven to work, right?> >> >> >> >> >> > > >>

[Guest guest]

I don't think you did understand my sense completely but I doubt whether e-mail ever conveys meanings perfectly. When I say feeling better I was contrasting this with considering myself "cured". I think that if ACT is saying that "feeling better" is a bad thing then ACT is wrong. I don't think it does discount the value of "feeling better" though. No RCT for any health problem is likely to be able to exclude some sort of subjective evaluation of how one feels compared to how one used to feel and that is all I meant.

Of course, accepting rather than fighting negative emotions is part of "feeling better" for me now and in the future I hope..

Does that make my post a wee bit clearer?

S.

I have a number of books on EFT and I also payed quite a lot of money out once for 10 weeks of EFT treatment. The therapist was not a pyschologist but was trained in NLP and also had some other wacky new age ideas as well. I felt ripped off afterwards. For one thing, the lady was so nice I was not brave enough to tell her that my SUD had not gone down. Anyhow, after much tapping, my anxiety may have been a bit less but only because of I had been temporarily distracted and also because I realy wanted it to work. When I went home I knew nothing had changed.EFT is based on meridian lines, like accupuncture, but accupuncture is now proven to be a placebo. EFT books will state that if you can't help yourself (and 20 % won't) you will need the help of a professional. Fishy hey! because they won't do anything different - it the same tapping on the same spots. Also, it wears off after a while so you will need more. Sounds

just like placebo to me.What amazes me is that so many world famous scientists believe in it, including Pert, a brilliant biologist and chemist who has many patents on the drugs she has invented. Weird! KV> >> >> > > > Subject: Re: ACT vs EMDR> > To: ACT_for_the_Public > > Date: Wednesday, 23 February, 2011, 7:34> >> >> >> > I wonder how ACT compares with EMDR. Has

anyone tried both?> >> > The basic premises, the way I understand it (and I probably don't) are> > different as follows.> >> > ACT, and I will be corrected if I am wrong, teaches us that our mind is> > inherently inefficient as a self-regulating system, in terms of eating its> > own dog food.> >> > EMDR says that minds are more like (my own metaphor) a food processor, that> > munches on all kinds of foods all right most of the time, but sometimes some> > bone or something gets stuck, the thing gets jammed. When it does, it> > desperately tries to unjam itself and reprocess what got stack, and> > sometimes it takes decades without any result. EMDR offers a specific> > techniques for reprocessing such "bones" and getting rid of them.> >> > Are these two models mutually contradictory? They've been

both empirically> > proven to work, right?> >> >> >> >> >> > > >>

[Guest guest]

Yes, I think "feeling better" can mean so many things its a term intrinsically open to confusion. As long as its not hiding, repressing, refusing ect, that is, the opposite of an honest touch with oneself, I think feeling better much be just fine. As long as "feeling better" is not "making things seem right" so that we escape and run a bit more.For me "feeling better" is to be able to be with oneself, with honesty, with genuineness, with freshness, peace and joy. To be with the pain, to be with fear, with sadness. To be with love and life. That each present moment is one step, then another step, forward if possible. And probably the word that comes to mind now for me

is openness. Open to what there is and to oneself. I think that even if I have to cry at some pain I have buried, or shake with fear, I will be "feeling better" than before when I shut my eyes and mind and walked down a fear-based blinded path.Take care XXX______________________Signature: Mrs Em Equanimity This is my personal blog where I record my experience applying Acceptance Commitment Therapy to my anxiety and agoraphobia in particular, and my life in general. Feel free to

browse. http://eyeofthehurricane-act.blogspot.com/--- El sáb, 26/2/11, S Asunto: Re: Re: ACT vs other methods and a bit more on EMDRPara: ACT_for_the_Public Fecha: sábado, 26 de febrero, 2011 10:25

I don't think you did understand my sense completely but I doubt whether e-mail ever conveys meanings perfectly. When I say feeling better I was contrasting this with considering myself "cured". I think that if ACT is saying that "feeling better" is a bad thing then ACT is wrong. I don't think it does discount the value of "feeling better" though. No RCT for any health problem is likely to be able to exclude some sort of subjective evaluation of how one feels compared to how one used to feel and that is all I meant.

Of course, accepting rather than fighting negative emotions is part of "feeling better" for me now and in the future I hope..

Does that make my post a wee bit clearer?

S.

I have a number of books on EFT and I also payed quite a lot of money out once for 10 weeks of EFT treatment. The therapist was not a pyschologist but was trained in NLP and also had some other wacky new age ideas as well. I felt ripped off afterwards. For one thing, the lady was so nice I was not brave enough to tell her that my SUD had not gone down. Anyhow, after much tapping, my anxiety may have been a bit less but only because of I had been temporarily distracted and also because I realy wanted it to work. When I went home I knew nothing had changed.EFT is based on meridian lines, like accupuncture, but accupuncture is now proven to be a placebo. EFT books will state that if you can't help yourself (and 20 % won't) you will need the help of a professional. Fishy hey! because they won't do anything different - it the same tapping on the same spots. Also, it wears off after a while so you will need more. Sounds

just like placebo to me.What amazes me is that so many world famous scientists believe in it, including Pert, a brilliant biologist and chemist who has many patents on the drugs she has invented. Weird! KV> >> >> > > > Subject: Re: ACT vs EMDR> > To: ACT_for_the_Public > > Date: Wednesday, 23 February, 2011, 7:34> >> >> >> > I wonder how ACT compares with EMDR. Has

anyone tried both?> >> > The basic premises, the way I understand it (and I probably don't) are> > different as follows.> >> > ACT, and I will be corrected if I am wrong, teaches us that our mind is> > inherently inefficient as a self-regulating system, in terms of eating its> > own dog food.> >> > EMDR says that minds are more like (my own metaphor) a food processor, that> > munches on all kinds of foods all right most of the time, but sometimes some> > bone or something gets stuck, the thing gets jammed. When it does, it> > desperately tries to unjam itself and reprocess what got stack, and> > sometimes it takes decades without any result. EMDR offers a specific> > techniques for reprocessing such "bones" and getting rid of them.> >> > Are these two models mutually contradictory? They've been

both empirically> > proven to work, right?> >> >> >> >> >> > > >>

[Guest guest]

Personal anecdote: My ex was convinced that taking calcium was making him sleepy. Because he was a research scientist, I didn't think he would mind if I tried an experiment on him. I replaced his vitamin C tablets with calcium (in the C bottle), and when he didn't think he was taking calcium, he didn't get tired. When I told him what I had done a few days later, he was upset with me. I guess even research scientists don't like being fooled. I would have been pleased if the same had been done to me by a caring friend, but not by a doctor, which would be professional dishonesty.

Re: ACT vs EMDR> > To: ACT_for_the_Public > > Date: Wednesday, 23 February, 2011, 7:34> >> >> >> > I wonder how ACT compares with EMDR. Has anyone tried both?> >> > The basic premises, the way I understand it (and I probably don't) are> > different as follows.> >> > ACT, and I will be corrected if I am wrong, teaches us that our mind is> > inherently inefficient as a self-regulating system, in terms of eating its> > own dog food.> >> > EMDR says that minds are more like (my own metaphor) a food processor, that> > munches on all kinds of foods all right most of the time, but sometimes some> > bone or something gets stuck, the thing gets jammed. When it does, it> > desperately tries to unjam itself and reprocess what got stack, and> > sometimes it takes decades without any result. EMDR offers a specific> > techniques for reprocessing such "bones" and getting rid of them.> >> > Are these two models mutually contradictory? They've been both empirically> > proven to work, right?> >> >> >> >> >> > > >>

[Guest guest]

Absolutely and I measure the success of my therapy including personal " work " by

whether I am living the life I want a bit more every dayy. Funnily enough very

often progress is measured in termms more of how much you are doing " wrong "

rather than how much you are doing that's " better " .

Eg measures of OCD very often concentrate on how mud your compulsions and

obsessions are rather than asking you what you are doing instead in all the time

that is freed up/

While I'm still aware of many specific areas that activate my obsessions and

depression I'm also aware of being able to do more of what I want to do and more

often.

S.

> > >

> > >

> > > From: Jane Cohen <asdfasdf87@>

> > > Subject: Re: ACT vs EMDR

> > > To: ACT_for_the_Public

> > > Date: Wednesday, 23 February, 2011, 7:34

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > I wonder how ACT compares with EMDR. Has

> anyone tried both?

> > >

> > > The basic premises, the way I understand it (and I probably don't) are

> > > different as follows.

> > >

> > > ACT, and I will be corrected if I am wrong, teaches us that our mind is

> > > inherently inefficient as a self-regulating system, in terms of eating its

> > > own dog food.

> > >

> > > EMDR says that minds are more like (my own metaphor) a food processor,

that

> > > munches on all kinds of foods all right most of the time, but sometimes

some

> > > bone or something gets stuck, the thing gets jammed. When it does, it

> > > desperately tries to unjam itself and reprocess what got stack, and

> > > sometimes it takes decades without any result. EMDR offers a specific

> > > techniques for reprocessing such " bones " and getting rid of them.

> > >

> > > Are these two models mutually contradictory? They've been

> both empirically

> > > proven to work, right?

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > 

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

I have some great Power Balance bracelets at a discounted price, for anyone interested in real, rather than fake, placebo. Regards,Detlef> >> > >> >> > >> >> > > From: Jane Cohen asdfasdf87@> >> > > Subject: Re: ACT vs EMDR> >> > > To: ACT_for_the_Public > >> > > Date: Wednesday, 23 February, 2011, 7:34> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > > I wonder how ACT compares with EMDR. Has anyone tried both?> >> > >> >> > > The basic premises, the way I understand it (and I probably don't) are> >> > > different as follows.> >> > >> >> > > ACT, and I will be corrected if I am wrong, teaches us that our mind> >> is> >> > > inherently inefficient as a self-regulating system, in terms of eating> >> its> >> > > own dog food.> >> > >> >> > > EMDR says that minds are more like (my own metaphor) a food processor,> >> that> >> > > munches on all kinds of foods all right most of the time, but> >> sometimes some> >> > > bone or something gets stuck, the thing gets jammed. When it does, it> >> > > desperately tries to unjam itself and reprocess what got stack, and> >> > > sometimes it takes decades without any result. EMDR offers a specific> >> > > techniques for reprocessing such "bones" and getting rid of them.> >> > >> >> > > Are these two models mutually contradictory? They've been both> >> empirically> >> > > proven to work, right?> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> > > >>

[Guest guest]

Detlef,How do you define real & fake placebo?

 

I have some great Power Balance bracelets at a discounted price, for anyone interested in real, rather than fake, placebo. Regards,

Detlef> >> > >> >> > >> >> > > From: Jane Cohen asdfasdf87@> >> > > Subject: Re: ACT vs EMDR

> >> > > To: ACT_for_the_Public > >> > > Date: Wednesday, 23 February, 2011, 7:34> >> > >

> >> > >> >> > >> >> > > I wonder how ACT compares with EMDR. Has anyone tried both?> >> > >> >> > > The basic premises, the way I understand it (and I probably don't) are

> >> > > different as follows.> >> > >> >> > > ACT, and I will be corrected if I am wrong, teaches us that our mind> >> is> >> > > inherently inefficient as a self-regulating system, in terms of eating

> >> its> >> > > own dog food.> >> > >> >> > > EMDR says that minds are more like (my own metaphor) a food processor,> >> that> >> > > munches on all kinds of foods all right most of the time, but

> >> sometimes some> >> > > bone or something gets stuck, the thing gets jammed. When it does, it> >> > > desperately tries to unjam itself and reprocess what got stack, and

> >> > > sometimes it takes decades without any result. EMDR offers a specific> >> > > techniques for reprocessing such " bones " and getting rid of them.> >> > >

> >> > > Are these two models mutually contradictory? They've been both> >> empirically> >> > > proven to work, right?> >> > >> >> > >

> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >

> >>