Take a photo of a barcode or cover
morgan_blackledge 's review for:
Guilty (but delicious) pleasure. I have to admit I loved it. I'm a huge Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) fan. And much of the ideas in the book were very inline with the ACT model. But (importantly) delivered in a much more user friendly (quasi new age) package. I'm a stalwart atheist/materialist. Not because I am certain about such things (how can anyone be certain about such things). But because it's the world view that seems to be the least far-fetched and most effective for me.
That being said, I understand that the majority of people in the world have a very different point of view. As a therapist I'm willing to meet anybody where they are at. If sprinkling in a little new age sparkle helps the medicine go down, and helps the client find empowerment and make healthy life changes, then by all means, let's bust out the healing flavor crystals.
I have been using (modified versions of) the tools from the book in my therapy practice and in my personal life. I think they're wonderful and I plan on continuing to use and practice these neat little life hacks. I love shit that works and I'd rather be effective than "right". If I have to swallow a little sugar to get the dope, than OK.
All that aside, I cannot bring myself to strongly endorse a book that is as philosophically and methodologically problematic as this one. First and foremost, the authors establish the legitimacy of their method by stating that they have tried The Tools in their practice and it works. This is a huge red flag for anyone trained in the social sciences. This particular problem (relying on the clinicians judgment to gauge the effectiveness of the treatment) plagued psychotherapy for its first century.
In the days of Freudian analysis, psychoanalysts did surveys of the effectiveness of psychoanalysis. The measure of whether or not the patient got better was whether or not the psychoanalyst said the patient was better, even if the psychoanalysts opinion strongly conflicted with that of the patient. The obvious problem is that if you rely on the clinician's judgment, the clinician may be strongly motivated to report positive results (for reason$ that $hould be obviou$).
Not to be a total bummer, but the scientific method is pretty much the only way to get the truth of whether or not an intervention works or doesn't. Without randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials, it's really hard to know whether or not an intervention is effective, or exactly why it is or isn't effective.
So I'm feeling a lot of cognitive dissonance about my favorable review of this wonderful and problematic and wonderful book. But the good news is, there's even a tool for dealing with cognitive dissonance. BRING ON THE PAIN! (You'll have to read the book to know what that means).
.
That being said, I understand that the majority of people in the world have a very different point of view. As a therapist I'm willing to meet anybody where they are at. If sprinkling in a little new age sparkle helps the medicine go down, and helps the client find empowerment and make healthy life changes, then by all means, let's bust out the healing flavor crystals.
I have been using (modified versions of) the tools from the book in my therapy practice and in my personal life. I think they're wonderful and I plan on continuing to use and practice these neat little life hacks. I love shit that works and I'd rather be effective than "right". If I have to swallow a little sugar to get the dope, than OK.
All that aside, I cannot bring myself to strongly endorse a book that is as philosophically and methodologically problematic as this one. First and foremost, the authors establish the legitimacy of their method by stating that they have tried The Tools in their practice and it works. This is a huge red flag for anyone trained in the social sciences. This particular problem (relying on the clinicians judgment to gauge the effectiveness of the treatment) plagued psychotherapy for its first century.
In the days of Freudian analysis, psychoanalysts did surveys of the effectiveness of psychoanalysis. The measure of whether or not the patient got better was whether or not the psychoanalyst said the patient was better, even if the psychoanalysts opinion strongly conflicted with that of the patient. The obvious problem is that if you rely on the clinician's judgment, the clinician may be strongly motivated to report positive results (for reason$ that $hould be obviou$).
Not to be a total bummer, but the scientific method is pretty much the only way to get the truth of whether or not an intervention works or doesn't. Without randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials, it's really hard to know whether or not an intervention is effective, or exactly why it is or isn't effective.
So I'm feeling a lot of cognitive dissonance about my favorable review of this wonderful and problematic and wonderful book. But the good news is, there's even a tool for dealing with cognitive dissonance. BRING ON THE PAIN! (You'll have to read the book to know what that means).
.