There are many items in the news these days, encouraging "free-range parenting" instead of "helicopter parenting."
A "helicopter parent" is one who is overprotective, excessively anxious, perhaps enmeshed, and who does not allow children to cultivate appropriate independence or autonomy.
A "free-range parent," by contrast, is okay with children going off to play by themselves, with the understanding that enjoyment and learning in childhood requires free time, some risk-taking, and figuring out solutions to problems without parental intervention.
But as with so many issues of this type, we have unnecessary polarization. These parenting styles exist on a spectrum. And individual children may differ in how much they might appreciate or need one or the other style. These needs may also change for these individual children over time.
Some children may greatly appreciate a more involved parent, at least at certain points during their lifetime. Other children may greatly appreciate more autonomy and distance from parents. Let's not impose a generalized parenting philosophy while forgetting to take the individual situation of the child into account.
Another angle on this has to do with the enjoyment of parenting. It is one of the great joys of life to play with one's child. And I think it is a great memory for a child to see their parent enjoying time with them. I have seen so many examples of unhappy children playing alone in the park, while their detached, seemingly uninterested parents are sitting on a bench looking at their phones, or are not present at all. Sometimes, to me, it appears like neglect, rather than being wholesome "free-range."
There are surely many examples of excessive "helicopter" parenting. But there are also many examples of parents who are detached, uninvolved, and missing out on enjoying their children's daily lives. Let's aim for a moderate and flexible approach, somewhere between these two extremes, with a willingness to adjust the style according to the individual child's personality and development.
Friday, September 21, 2018
Tuesday, May 22, 2018
Book Recommendation: "Behave" by Robert Sapolsky
Behave is over 700 pages long. Its size may lead to some potential readers being intimidated, but I found it an engaging, often entertaining review of neuroscience, from the lens of someone who has good experience and understanding not just of brain chemistry, but of social, historical, and psychological influences upon behaviour.
One of Sapolsky's big messages, in a nutshell, is that very few single factors (such as hormone or neurotransmitter effects, genes, or environmental incidents) have a simple, obvious, consistent impact. These factors have different effects depending on the circumstances. For example, androgens may only exacerbate aggressive behaviour in someone who is already having difficulties containing aggression in the first place. This immediately makes me question the generic finding (recently published) that violent video games have no negative impact...perhaps there is a negative impact, but only in those who have violent behavioural tendencies in the first place.
On the one hand, this is a refreshing antidote to the simplistic reductionism that is often presented in discussions of neuroscience or psychiatry. On the other hand, it does not negate the importance of studying these factors with good scientific depth, so as to work with them therapeutically, on a neurobiologic or societal level.
A criticism I do have about the book is his references to areas of the psychological literature (such as about priming, for example) which are now being questioned: a lot of findings about priming seem to have failed replication tests, and so I'm not sure what to think about this whole area anymore. I suspect influences such as priming do exist, but may be more transient or erratic than what the original literature suggested.
I appreciate his balanced analysis of the work of other thinkers, such as Steven Pinker, and other historical figures in psychology such as Zimbardo.
I most appreciate his message of hope, about the things we can all work on to live more peacefully, in light of the influences (positive and negative) upon our behaviour that we are born into, through our genes, family, and culture.
This is another type of book that I wish students could be exposed to as part of their university education about psychology, medicine, or other areas of the humanities.
One of Sapolsky's big messages, in a nutshell, is that very few single factors (such as hormone or neurotransmitter effects, genes, or environmental incidents) have a simple, obvious, consistent impact. These factors have different effects depending on the circumstances. For example, androgens may only exacerbate aggressive behaviour in someone who is already having difficulties containing aggression in the first place. This immediately makes me question the generic finding (recently published) that violent video games have no negative impact...perhaps there is a negative impact, but only in those who have violent behavioural tendencies in the first place.
On the one hand, this is a refreshing antidote to the simplistic reductionism that is often presented in discussions of neuroscience or psychiatry. On the other hand, it does not negate the importance of studying these factors with good scientific depth, so as to work with them therapeutically, on a neurobiologic or societal level.
A criticism I do have about the book is his references to areas of the psychological literature (such as about priming, for example) which are now being questioned: a lot of findings about priming seem to have failed replication tests, and so I'm not sure what to think about this whole area anymore. I suspect influences such as priming do exist, but may be more transient or erratic than what the original literature suggested.
I appreciate his balanced analysis of the work of other thinkers, such as Steven Pinker, and other historical figures in psychology such as Zimbardo.
I most appreciate his message of hope, about the things we can all work on to live more peacefully, in light of the influences (positive and negative) upon our behaviour that we are born into, through our genes, family, and culture.
This is another type of book that I wish students could be exposed to as part of their university education about psychology, medicine, or other areas of the humanities.
Monday, April 9, 2018
Steven Pinker's optimistic new book
I'm a Steven Pinker fan...I really appreciate his optimism about the state of the world, and the future of the world, an optimism which he supports with a lot of engaging evidence.
So I encourage having a look at his book, Enlightenment Now. It is a sequel to another of his books (Better Angels of our Nature) which I have reviewed earlier on this blog.
I don't agree with everything he says, but I do also embrace a spirit of optimism about things, and an attitude that the many problems we have in our lives, or in the world, can be solved or at least improved with continued care and effort.
This type of book is a good accompaniment to a study of behavioural economics and social psychology (such as the works of Daniel Kahneman), as well as optimistic data analysts such as the late Hans Rosling.
The strongest section of his book is the middle part, in which the reader is barraged with many graphs showing positive changes in the world over time. I found the other sections, with a lot of philosophizing about the enlightenment, etc. less important and engaging.
As to this book's relevance to mental health? I hope we might all embrace a spirit of optimism about the pathways of our lives. Past adversity in life does not necessarily predict a guaranteed future life of suffering. There is work to be done, to build a better, happier life, regardless of the hardships of our origins.
In the cognitive theory of depression or anxiety, we understand that thoughts may specifically focus on pessimistic or even catastrophic interpretations of observations; much information in our modern world is distilled to emphasize catastrophe or adversity (non-catastrophes are less likely to become headlines), so this information is natural fuel to a depressive or anxious state. An optimistic but highly rational book such as Pinker's could be understood as a type of cognitive therapy for a modern consumer of news.
Progress in the world may also translate overall to improved mental health...but I suspect we would see the most robust improvements in those areas which have the least current services.
A peril of such a strongly optimistic text can be that it fails to empathize sufficiently with those who continue to suffer...or that it can seem insensitive when there continues to be horrible tragedy in the world. But I think that we are best able to help and heal from tragedy if we are not depleted, pessimistic, or even hopeless about the ongoing problems in our lives or in the world. So this book is a much-needed infusion of optimism into public debate.
So I encourage having a look at his book, Enlightenment Now. It is a sequel to another of his books (Better Angels of our Nature) which I have reviewed earlier on this blog.
I don't agree with everything he says, but I do also embrace a spirit of optimism about things, and an attitude that the many problems we have in our lives, or in the world, can be solved or at least improved with continued care and effort.
This type of book is a good accompaniment to a study of behavioural economics and social psychology (such as the works of Daniel Kahneman), as well as optimistic data analysts such as the late Hans Rosling.
The strongest section of his book is the middle part, in which the reader is barraged with many graphs showing positive changes in the world over time. I found the other sections, with a lot of philosophizing about the enlightenment, etc. less important and engaging.
As to this book's relevance to mental health? I hope we might all embrace a spirit of optimism about the pathways of our lives. Past adversity in life does not necessarily predict a guaranteed future life of suffering. There is work to be done, to build a better, happier life, regardless of the hardships of our origins.
In the cognitive theory of depression or anxiety, we understand that thoughts may specifically focus on pessimistic or even catastrophic interpretations of observations; much information in our modern world is distilled to emphasize catastrophe or adversity (non-catastrophes are less likely to become headlines), so this information is natural fuel to a depressive or anxious state. An optimistic but highly rational book such as Pinker's could be understood as a type of cognitive therapy for a modern consumer of news.
Progress in the world may also translate overall to improved mental health...but I suspect we would see the most robust improvements in those areas which have the least current services.
A peril of such a strongly optimistic text can be that it fails to empathize sufficiently with those who continue to suffer...or that it can seem insensitive when there continues to be horrible tragedy in the world. But I think that we are best able to help and heal from tragedy if we are not depleted, pessimistic, or even hopeless about the ongoing problems in our lives or in the world. So this book is a much-needed infusion of optimism into public debate.
Tuesday, March 6, 2018
Depression Treatment Guidelines
I encourage having a look at the September 2016 issue of The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, which summarizes treatment recommendations for major depressive disorder, based on a thoughtful review of the evidence available at the time. The authors spent many hours of careful work preparing this authoritative set of articles, and I think they did a good job.
Here is a brief summary:
1) Various antidepressants are beneficial for treating depression. They may help with an acute episode, and may help prevent relapses if continued. Some may work better than others, but the differences are small, and there are likely to be individual cases in which a so-called "second-line agent" works better than the first-line choices. Some things are classified as "second-line" not because they are necessarily inferior, but because they have not been researched as much as the "first line" things.
2) Various types of psychotherapy are beneficial for treating depression. These, too, can be helpful for acute episodes, as well as for preventing relapses, even after discontinuation. CBT has particularly strong evidence for being effective.
3) As to specifics, such as "which medication is best under which circumstances?" or "which type of psychotherapy is best under which circumstances?", the evidence often does not guide us clearly, aside from CBT in general being favoured.
4) Various other types of treatment, including ECT, TMS, exercise, and light therapy, have evidence supporting their use.
I am concerned that there was not a lot of critical debate about these claims. Many authors of review articles are proponents of a particular type of therapy (e.g. light therapy, CBT, etc.), and the content therefore may be biased, or at least lacking input or commentary from different points of view. It could be argued that "the data speaks for itself," but often the verbal conclusions resulting from the data can be coloured significantly by the author's opinion.
There are some useful specific pointers: for example, there is a lack of evidence that combining two different antidepressants is consistently helpful. But "augmenting" strategies, such as adding an atypical antipsychotic medication to an antidepressant, are better supported by evidence.
In general, for me, these guidelines are most useful as a very general introduction, to get an overview of common treatments, and of up-to-date research evidence.
Here are some ideas of my own to add about "treatment guidelines":
A very thorough understanding of a person's history is most important for care. In many cases what appears to be "major depressive disorder" ends up being a more complicated story, upon spending time learning the history. Many treatments such as antidepressants can be dangerous if given without thorough understanding of the history (for example, if there is a history of bipolar symptoms). Obtaining a good history is not necessarily possible with a single visit, with a standardized interview, etc. It takes time and a good therapeutic relationship to know a person's story.
There is some question about the validity of "major depressive disorder" as a construct. Eiko Fried has a good summary of this issue on Twitter: https://twitter.com/EikoFried/status/935098850439847937
As I have written before, a great many patients do not have only one diagnosis (assuming we are focusing on a DSM-style diagnostic scheme). It is therefore limited to focus only on the treatment of depression alone. I realize that it is a convenience in research to define syndromes in this way, which can then help us to measure the effectiveness of treatments systematically. But for a given individual, it is often necessary to step away from diagnostic constructs, and help the person in the specific ways they desire or need.
There are many pathways towards nurturing mental health. Finally it is reasonable for most people with depression to try various treatments, including medications, provided there is a good understanding of risks and potential benefits. Psychotherapeutic ideas (such as CBT, but also other styles) are beneficial for most anyone, even those who do not have formally diagnosed mental illness. Lifestyle and psychosocial factors are very important: exercise, healthy nutrition, healthy social, family, and community development, physical safety, career, education, stable finances, and the pursuit of meaning, should be an invited focus for everyone. There is relatively little attention given to these issues in most published treatment guidelines (sometimes I get the feeling that some authors in the field are embarrassed to even approach them) yet for many people these issues are the most important of all.
In the 102 pages of this journal, which are devoted to approaching and treating depression--a disease of emotional and often existential suffering, loneliness, joylessness, and a crisis of meaning--here is a tally of individual words used in these pages:
1) love: 0 times. The search engine found a reference to the author J. Glover as the only occurrence of "love"
2) compassion: 1 time
3) nutrition: 1 time
4) cooperation: 0 times, except as part of 7 references to an agency (the "Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation") which gave money to one of the authors
5) healing: 1 time
6) friendship: 0 times
7) encouragement: 1 time
8) pets: 0 times
9) nature: 1 time (referring to "nature of risk")
10) joy: 0 times
11) humour, laugh, laughter, smile, happy, happiness: 0 times for all
12) art, hobby, hobbies: 0 times
13) patience: 0 times
14) drug: 86 times
15) intervention: 91 times
While I love science (my alternative career would have been a mathematician or a statistician!) it is necessary in mental health care to also discuss issues or words that do not fit neatly into a science or data-based analysis. These issues include compassion, meaning, love, and patience. Another issue is finding ways to cope with, live with, or accept unremitting chronic illness or pain, while continuing an evidence-based, but uncertain and frustrating, search for relief or cure. Algorithms and guidelines tend not to help very much with this existential struggle. Educationally, I think it is more valuable to present case studies, with group engagement, perhaps with references made to treatment protocols, rather than to make the protocols themselves the subject of the lesson.
I prescribe a lot of medication. In some cases the medication appears to be incredibly helpful. In many other cases, there is a small but significant benefit. And in others still, there is not much benefit at all despite many, many trials of different medication. And in a few cases, the medications are harmful. Many of my patients benefit most from medications that are considered "second line." I can't think of any examples in my practice where guidelines of this type have been useful in determining the most helpful course, aside from being a very general roadmap to remind us of available options or the occasional new finding in the research. But this roadmap would already be very familiar to most mental health professionals, part of an academic focus over years of training. Specific treatment issues (such as choosing the best medication or psychotherapy combo etc.) are part of professional development: this requires ongoing familiarity with the broad research literature, and with experience in clinical practice, rather than reliance upon review articles. Review articles of this type are authored by research experts, whose work deserves respect; however, the authors represent a limited subset of expertise within the population of mental health workers.
My therapeutic style has included more and more ideas based on CBT, over the past 15 years. Many of my patients work on structured CBT elsewhere as well. As with medication, this is incredibly helpful for some, slightly helpful for many, and has little or no effect for a few others. Arguably, some CBT groups could even be harmful for a few, if there is a large mismatch between what the person desires and needs and what is actually offered. In many cases, people are familiar with these therapy styles, but have not yet really done the work necessary to derive benefit from them. This lack of work is usually due to the depression or the psychosocial situation itself, but also can be due to a lack of continuity of care. It can be a little bit like trying to learn a foreign language, and dabbling in it for a few months, learning a bit of grammar and vocabulary, but never really gaining fluency due to a lack of immersive focus, and a lack of someone to speak the language with on a regular, long-term basis.
Many people, I think, simply benefit from knowing that they are being cared for, by a person or system which has time and attention for them as they need and desire, sometimes on a long-term, open-ended basis. It is helpful for mental health care providers to be well-versed in a wide variety of therapeutic techniques, and to be able to adjust or tune the care to what each individual patient or client wants or needs. Within a system, it is good to value the unique styles and abilities of different individuals within the group, rather than compelling everyone to follow an identical protocol. Some caregivers are better-suited to using a CBT style, while others are naturally suited to IPT, meditation, or psychodynamic styles. Some psychiatrists have a particular expertise and interest in medication management. Most research protocols do not look at this issue in groups or systems. These individual variations should be respected, but I do think it is also good for everyone to come together to learn from each other. For example, psychodynamic therapists can adopt interesting, useful ideas from CBT therapists, and vice-versa.
Most of my patients would say that it was not some medication combo or therapeutic style or adherence to guidelines that ended up helping them, but was a combination of many factors, in conjunction with a system of care (such as a therapist, psychiatrist, or other support network) which was stable, consistent, compassionate, and long-term.
Here is a brief summary:
1) Various antidepressants are beneficial for treating depression. They may help with an acute episode, and may help prevent relapses if continued. Some may work better than others, but the differences are small, and there are likely to be individual cases in which a so-called "second-line agent" works better than the first-line choices. Some things are classified as "second-line" not because they are necessarily inferior, but because they have not been researched as much as the "first line" things.
2) Various types of psychotherapy are beneficial for treating depression. These, too, can be helpful for acute episodes, as well as for preventing relapses, even after discontinuation. CBT has particularly strong evidence for being effective.
3) As to specifics, such as "which medication is best under which circumstances?" or "which type of psychotherapy is best under which circumstances?", the evidence often does not guide us clearly, aside from CBT in general being favoured.
4) Various other types of treatment, including ECT, TMS, exercise, and light therapy, have evidence supporting their use.
I am concerned that there was not a lot of critical debate about these claims. Many authors of review articles are proponents of a particular type of therapy (e.g. light therapy, CBT, etc.), and the content therefore may be biased, or at least lacking input or commentary from different points of view. It could be argued that "the data speaks for itself," but often the verbal conclusions resulting from the data can be coloured significantly by the author's opinion.
There are some useful specific pointers: for example, there is a lack of evidence that combining two different antidepressants is consistently helpful. But "augmenting" strategies, such as adding an atypical antipsychotic medication to an antidepressant, are better supported by evidence.
In general, for me, these guidelines are most useful as a very general introduction, to get an overview of common treatments, and of up-to-date research evidence.
Here are some ideas of my own to add about "treatment guidelines":
A very thorough understanding of a person's history is most important for care. In many cases what appears to be "major depressive disorder" ends up being a more complicated story, upon spending time learning the history. Many treatments such as antidepressants can be dangerous if given without thorough understanding of the history (for example, if there is a history of bipolar symptoms). Obtaining a good history is not necessarily possible with a single visit, with a standardized interview, etc. It takes time and a good therapeutic relationship to know a person's story.
There is some question about the validity of "major depressive disorder" as a construct. Eiko Fried has a good summary of this issue on Twitter: https://twitter.com/EikoFried/status/935098850439847937
As I have written before, a great many patients do not have only one diagnosis (assuming we are focusing on a DSM-style diagnostic scheme). It is therefore limited to focus only on the treatment of depression alone. I realize that it is a convenience in research to define syndromes in this way, which can then help us to measure the effectiveness of treatments systematically. But for a given individual, it is often necessary to step away from diagnostic constructs, and help the person in the specific ways they desire or need.
There are many pathways towards nurturing mental health. Finally it is reasonable for most people with depression to try various treatments, including medications, provided there is a good understanding of risks and potential benefits. Psychotherapeutic ideas (such as CBT, but also other styles) are beneficial for most anyone, even those who do not have formally diagnosed mental illness. Lifestyle and psychosocial factors are very important: exercise, healthy nutrition, healthy social, family, and community development, physical safety, career, education, stable finances, and the pursuit of meaning, should be an invited focus for everyone. There is relatively little attention given to these issues in most published treatment guidelines (sometimes I get the feeling that some authors in the field are embarrassed to even approach them) yet for many people these issues are the most important of all.
In the 102 pages of this journal, which are devoted to approaching and treating depression--a disease of emotional and often existential suffering, loneliness, joylessness, and a crisis of meaning--here is a tally of individual words used in these pages:
1) love: 0 times. The search engine found a reference to the author J. Glover as the only occurrence of "love"
2) compassion: 1 time
3) nutrition: 1 time
4) cooperation: 0 times, except as part of 7 references to an agency (the "Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation") which gave money to one of the authors
5) healing: 1 time
6) friendship: 0 times
7) encouragement: 1 time
8) pets: 0 times
9) nature: 1 time (referring to "nature of risk")
10) joy: 0 times
11) humour, laugh, laughter, smile, happy, happiness: 0 times for all
12) art, hobby, hobbies: 0 times
13) patience: 0 times
14) drug: 86 times
15) intervention: 91 times
While I love science (my alternative career would have been a mathematician or a statistician!) it is necessary in mental health care to also discuss issues or words that do not fit neatly into a science or data-based analysis. These issues include compassion, meaning, love, and patience. Another issue is finding ways to cope with, live with, or accept unremitting chronic illness or pain, while continuing an evidence-based, but uncertain and frustrating, search for relief or cure. Algorithms and guidelines tend not to help very much with this existential struggle. Educationally, I think it is more valuable to present case studies, with group engagement, perhaps with references made to treatment protocols, rather than to make the protocols themselves the subject of the lesson.
I prescribe a lot of medication. In some cases the medication appears to be incredibly helpful. In many other cases, there is a small but significant benefit. And in others still, there is not much benefit at all despite many, many trials of different medication. And in a few cases, the medications are harmful. Many of my patients benefit most from medications that are considered "second line." I can't think of any examples in my practice where guidelines of this type have been useful in determining the most helpful course, aside from being a very general roadmap to remind us of available options or the occasional new finding in the research. But this roadmap would already be very familiar to most mental health professionals, part of an academic focus over years of training. Specific treatment issues (such as choosing the best medication or psychotherapy combo etc.) are part of professional development: this requires ongoing familiarity with the broad research literature, and with experience in clinical practice, rather than reliance upon review articles. Review articles of this type are authored by research experts, whose work deserves respect; however, the authors represent a limited subset of expertise within the population of mental health workers.
My therapeutic style has included more and more ideas based on CBT, over the past 15 years. Many of my patients work on structured CBT elsewhere as well. As with medication, this is incredibly helpful for some, slightly helpful for many, and has little or no effect for a few others. Arguably, some CBT groups could even be harmful for a few, if there is a large mismatch between what the person desires and needs and what is actually offered. In many cases, people are familiar with these therapy styles, but have not yet really done the work necessary to derive benefit from them. This lack of work is usually due to the depression or the psychosocial situation itself, but also can be due to a lack of continuity of care. It can be a little bit like trying to learn a foreign language, and dabbling in it for a few months, learning a bit of grammar and vocabulary, but never really gaining fluency due to a lack of immersive focus, and a lack of someone to speak the language with on a regular, long-term basis.
Many people, I think, simply benefit from knowing that they are being cared for, by a person or system which has time and attention for them as they need and desire, sometimes on a long-term, open-ended basis. It is helpful for mental health care providers to be well-versed in a wide variety of therapeutic techniques, and to be able to adjust or tune the care to what each individual patient or client wants or needs. Within a system, it is good to value the unique styles and abilities of different individuals within the group, rather than compelling everyone to follow an identical protocol. Some caregivers are better-suited to using a CBT style, while others are naturally suited to IPT, meditation, or psychodynamic styles. Some psychiatrists have a particular expertise and interest in medication management. Most research protocols do not look at this issue in groups or systems. These individual variations should be respected, but I do think it is also good for everyone to come together to learn from each other. For example, psychodynamic therapists can adopt interesting, useful ideas from CBT therapists, and vice-versa.
Most of my patients would say that it was not some medication combo or therapeutic style or adherence to guidelines that ended up helping them, but was a combination of many factors, in conjunction with a system of care (such as a therapist, psychiatrist, or other support network) which was stable, consistent, compassionate, and long-term.
Wednesday, October 11, 2017
Mindfulness: is the evidence exaggerated?
Mindfulness-based techniques are now mainstream in psychotherapy.
A recent review and look at the evidence, published by Nicholas Van Dam et al. (Perspectives on Psychological Science, October 10, 2017, doi 10.1177/1745691617709589) is worth reading. This article is discussed by Bret Stetka in Scientific American Mental Health today.
I believe there are very important points to consider:
1) Mindfulness itself could mean different things to different people.
2) People are earning a lot of money from mindfulness education, groups, books, etc.
We come to a theme that I have often found, in so many other areas of life, and specifically in psychiatry: "dogma."
In a therapeutic encounter, or in a long-term course of therapy, the patient or client may feel better. In the process of this therapy, the client or patient may adopt new ideas, habits, or beliefs, based on the subject matter of therapy. We see this in CBT, in psychodynamic therapy, and in meditation-based therapies. In other areas of life, such as in religion, in exercise training, in education, and in nutritional change, we also see people adopt new ideas, habits, or beliefs. The benefits of these experiences are often attributed to the specific changes in ideas, habits, or beliefs.
But I believe that in many cases, the specific ideas, habits, or beliefs are less important (sometimes totally unimportant, or at worst even harmful) than the process.
In meditation, people adopt a quiet behavioural habit, which is then practiced diligently. Time and effort is committed to learning the skill, perhaps paying money take lessons, and to meet others who share the same practice.
The process here is of diligent commitment, daily behavioural practice which differs from the status quo, and often different social affiliation.
The actual theory or literal practice of the meditation might sometimes not be important at all. These details are part of the dogma of the practice, and may not be required for the practice to be helpful. Yet, we humans can become more committed to a practice if we believe there is some strong theoretical foundation behind it.
I see this phenomenon in other therapeutic styles. CBT has a strong theoretical foundation, yet I have to wonder if much of the benefits from CBT occur irrespective of the theory, but rather simply because of the diligent practice of exercises. Psychodynamic theory features many dogmatic beliefs (such as about the impact of certain childhood events), but yet the process of the therapy (of warmth, communicative freedom, invitation to reflect) is probably the key factor in its benefits, irrespective of the theoretical dogma.
In this post, I am not meaning at all to be critical of meditation-based techniques. I actually think that meditation could be quite a wonderful and transformative practice. But I do encourage people to question the theoretical dogma. Your own personal version of meditation may be equally effective or better than some other formally prescribed method, provided you are engaging with it in a way which feels comfortable, meaningful, useful, and enjoyable.
Another implication is that positive disciplined activity can be very therapeutic, but perhaps we can be free to choose the specifics according to our interests and proclivities. So it may be that a Tango class or art lessons or nature photography or horseback riding could be more therapeutically "meditative" than an actual mindfulness or yoga class. But others might prefer the mindfulness class. I encourage us to be open-minded. I also encourage us to have a little bit of healthy skepticism about therapeutic trends, especially when there is a lot of money and salesmanship involved.
A recent review and look at the evidence, published by Nicholas Van Dam et al. (Perspectives on Psychological Science, October 10, 2017, doi 10.1177/1745691617709589) is worth reading. This article is discussed by Bret Stetka in Scientific American Mental Health today.
I believe there are very important points to consider:
1) Mindfulness itself could mean different things to different people.
2) People are earning a lot of money from mindfulness education, groups, books, etc.
We come to a theme that I have often found, in so many other areas of life, and specifically in psychiatry: "dogma."
In a therapeutic encounter, or in a long-term course of therapy, the patient or client may feel better. In the process of this therapy, the client or patient may adopt new ideas, habits, or beliefs, based on the subject matter of therapy. We see this in CBT, in psychodynamic therapy, and in meditation-based therapies. In other areas of life, such as in religion, in exercise training, in education, and in nutritional change, we also see people adopt new ideas, habits, or beliefs. The benefits of these experiences are often attributed to the specific changes in ideas, habits, or beliefs.
But I believe that in many cases, the specific ideas, habits, or beliefs are less important (sometimes totally unimportant, or at worst even harmful) than the process.
In meditation, people adopt a quiet behavioural habit, which is then practiced diligently. Time and effort is committed to learning the skill, perhaps paying money take lessons, and to meet others who share the same practice.
The process here is of diligent commitment, daily behavioural practice which differs from the status quo, and often different social affiliation.
The actual theory or literal practice of the meditation might sometimes not be important at all. These details are part of the dogma of the practice, and may not be required for the practice to be helpful. Yet, we humans can become more committed to a practice if we believe there is some strong theoretical foundation behind it.
I see this phenomenon in other therapeutic styles. CBT has a strong theoretical foundation, yet I have to wonder if much of the benefits from CBT occur irrespective of the theory, but rather simply because of the diligent practice of exercises. Psychodynamic theory features many dogmatic beliefs (such as about the impact of certain childhood events), but yet the process of the therapy (of warmth, communicative freedom, invitation to reflect) is probably the key factor in its benefits, irrespective of the theoretical dogma.
In this post, I am not meaning at all to be critical of meditation-based techniques. I actually think that meditation could be quite a wonderful and transformative practice. But I do encourage people to question the theoretical dogma. Your own personal version of meditation may be equally effective or better than some other formally prescribed method, provided you are engaging with it in a way which feels comfortable, meaningful, useful, and enjoyable.
Another implication is that positive disciplined activity can be very therapeutic, but perhaps we can be free to choose the specifics according to our interests and proclivities. So it may be that a Tango class or art lessons or nature photography or horseback riding could be more therapeutically "meditative" than an actual mindfulness or yoga class. But others might prefer the mindfulness class. I encourage us to be open-minded. I also encourage us to have a little bit of healthy skepticism about therapeutic trends, especially when there is a lot of money and salesmanship involved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)