[EDIT] in fact despite looking superficially like a fairly sober and complete post, I believe the parent might be a poster child for "shallow dismissal".
There is also a handy CBT app called Quirk that I'd also recommend checking out https://www.quirk.fyi/
>The good news is that anxiety, guilt, pessimism, procrastination, low self-esteem, and other "black holes" of depression can be cured without drugs. In Feeling Good, eminent psychiatrist, David D. Burns, M.D., outlines the remarkable, scientifically proven techniques that will immediately lift your spirits and help you develop a positive outlook on life.
Nicely spotted. This is certainly a good point to question.
The article reads to me as (intentionally) hyperbolic, in a dry humor kind of way. Perhaps the author is frustrated with the state of things. Anyway, I feel like "change everything" can be considered a stand in for "effect any change more than other therapeutic methodology."
With that reading, the main point that stands out to my eye is that CBT or any methodology is no more effective than the next. They are all the same basic process, just with different dressings.
As an extreme example, even far-field woo like Dianetics can boast the kind of therapeutic help you describe. This makes it seem like the particulars of CBT are mere detail and the thing that is working is mostly the patient's earnest work toward some form of "better."
You're describing Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, not CBT.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceptance_and_commitment_ther...
>psychologists use therapy, and the reduction/elimination of symptoms is not necessarily their primary measure of success
Aaron T. Beck invented both CBT and the most widely used instruments for measuring the severity of depression and anxiety symptoms (the Beck Depression and Anxiety Inventories). CBT was the first psychotherapy to a) explicitly make the reduction of symptoms the primary goal and b) measure the success of therapy using standardised questionnaires to quantify symptomatic reduction. Using a repeatable psychotherapeutic model to measurably reduce the symptoms of psychiatric illness is pretty much the raison d'etre of CBT. Beck's work is by no means immune from the "eureka" anecdote of a patient suddenly entering remission thanks to the acute insights of $theoreticalModel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_behavioral_therapy
>found that most results are things like "CBT for Dummies" and "Teach yourself CBT in 7 weeks". These are not books for doctors, but books for laymen that are merely self-help books with a veneer of science/therapy to help the book sell. Who knows what sort of crap is in these books.
Both CBT for Dummies and Cognitive Behavioural Therapy: Teach Yourself were written by qualified and accredited psychotherapists.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/07/16/cbt-in-the-water-suppl...
> CBT [...] help[s] you manage those symptoms and live a meaningful life despite those symptoms
So... it... does actually change things?
I'll be explicit rather than flippant: giving someone tools to manage symptoms and live a full life can be a huge change.
There's definitely a discussion about whether CBT should always be the therapy of choice. Personally, I think you need to be at the right spot for CBT to be effective. For me, I was a functional person who could somewhat identify what I didn't like about my mental state and was very open to trying to improve. I'm guessing CBT is probably not as effective if you're experiencing severe mental health problems or breaks in reality, or if you have milder symptoms but don't want help/change. Sometimes when I'm really down, CBT essentially feels like "you're sad because you're too stupid to be happy!" At the same time, I imagine every therapy works better if a person is at an okay spot and open to change. And CBT can probably help people all over the spectrum to various degrees.
If you're experiencing mental health problems, give The Feeling Good Handbook a try! It's a large workbook where you read and work through written exercises. Very helpful to me so I try to evangelize it when I can (and give out copies to people I know who struggle). I never tried in person therapy but that'd also be immensely helpful too. The great thing about CBT is how simple it is though, so reading a book (aka bibliotherapy) for a self-motivated patient can do the trick. Indeed, he spends the first chapter reviewing studies that claim bibliotherapy is just as successful as in person therapy. (Not sure what I think of that... I imagine book readers are more self-motivated than the average in-person patient but they were experimental studies so I'm sure that's already controlled for... nevertheless, bibliotherapy was good for me.
About me: I lost my dad in high school, my mom in college, and my sister to suicide after graduating. Pair that with an interesting childhood (alcoholic mom, bipolar sister) albeit a financially comfortable childhood. It was (and still can be) an incredibly hard stretch of time. At the same time, I was exceptionally gifted at school and really looked up to my teachers so I was and am very lucky and traditionally successful. If you're struggling, get help! Take responsibility! Your mind CAN change in small but subtle ways in how you frame your life and the daily happenings of it.
I'm bipolar. CBT is ineffective for problems that aren't resulting from bad thoughts. But it just as important as medication for my treatment plan.
CBT is absolutely critical to maintaining stability when I am rational. Stopping bad thoughts before they get time to spiral out of control significantly reduces the severity of my symptoms.
While CBT can't fight irrational thoughts resulting from my mood swings, it's taught me what I can and can't change. As a result, I know when to switch to a different coping skill to get through a bad day.
As far as in-person therapy goes, a therapist is a guide. They can point you in the right direction and provide a different perspective.
The evidence for CBT for things like psychosis is mixed. The English NICE say that CBT should be offered to everyone who has psychosis, and to most people at risk of developing psychosis. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg178/chapter/1-Recommendat...
Other people think the NICE committee is biased (and I think they're probably right) https://twitter.com/Keith_Laws/status/1205833799826890752?s=...
Sometimes people point to the English IAPT scheme (which offers mainly CBT) as evidence of lack of effectiveness of CBT for depression. They say that it only works for about 60% of the people who try it.
I think this is a misunderstanding of the data, which can be found here: https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/sta...
IAPT has 4 tiers. The higher tiers are delivered face to face, one to one, with an experienced therapist, and you get up to 16 weeks of therapy. The lower tiers might be group work, or telephone based, or maybe even delivered over computer. If you have a therapist they may be less experienced. And you get 5 weeks of therapy. But the results of all these tiers are mashed together.
how can a human being not have these. Even my cat has these from time to time.
My wife practices Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), and the foundation of her approach and all CBT books on her bookshelf is that CBT in fact doesn't change anything at all. You will still have symptoms (depression, anxiety, etc.) after CBT, but the goal of CBT is to help you manage those symptoms and live a meaningful life despite those symptoms. It's reasonable to doubt that such an approach can work, but Scott's article entirely misses that this approach can even exist. I suspect that this is a latent bias due to his psychiatrist training. (Psychiatrists are trained to use medicine to reduce/eliminate symptoms, and that is their primary measure of success; psychologists use therapy, and the reduction/elimination of symptoms is not necessarily their primary measure of success.)
I just did a quick search on amazon for CBT books, however, and found that most results are things like "CBT for Dummies" and "Teach yourself CBT in 7 weeks". These are not books for doctors, but books for laymen that are merely self-help books with a veneer of science/therapy to help the book sell. Who knows what sort of crap is in these books.