As already stated in one of my posts, I do believe that God creates certain moments or situations where we are truly free to choose, but all I’m trying to say in having created this thread is that there are many other factors that diminish our free will. I would like the Church to be clear on the degree to which our free will can be diminished.Keep in mind that free will is not destroyed by the Fall, is a dogma of faith. The Church defined against Martin Luther.
Weakened and diminished by Adam’s fall, free will is yet not destroyed in the race (Council of Trent, Sess. VI, cap. i and v).
Can. I. If anyone shall say that man can be justified before God by his own works which are done either by his own natural powers, or through the teaching of the Law, and without divine grace through Christ Jesus: let him be anathema.
Can. 5. If anyone shall say that after the sin of Adam man’s free will was lost and destroyed, or that it is a thing in name only, indeed a title without a reality, a fiction, moreover, brought into the Church by Satan: let him be anathema.
Council of Carthage against Pelagius:
Can. 5. It has likewise been decided that whoever says that the grace of justification is given to us for this reason: that what we are ordered to do through free will, we may be able to accomplish more easily through grace, just as if, even if grace were not given, we could nevertheless fulfill the divine commands without it, though not indeed easily, let him he anathema. For concerning the fruits of His commands the Lord spoke not when He said: “Without me you can accomplish with greater difficulty,” but when He said: “Without me you can do nothing” [John 15:5].
That sounds about right!FWIW, when I was in graduate school (a long time ago), one of the clinical psychology professors said in class that one-third of people are helped, one-third stay the same, and one-third get worse in psychotherapy. Draw your own conclusions.
Perhaps not everyone will find a solution to their problems through prayer, but I believe it’s far more effective than psychotherapy.I can’t comment on what forms of therapy help and what forms do not. Nor could I say every individual will find a solution to their problems through prayer.
It does seem clear to me:As already stated in one of my posts, I do believe that God creates certain moments or situations where we are truly free to choose, but all I’m trying to say in having created this thread is that there are many other factors that diminish our free will. I would like the Church to be clear on the degree to which our free will can be diminished.
Thanks! It seems that the Church agrees with me! So often when I go to confession I begin by saying: Bless me Father for I may have sinned."It does seem clear to me:
Catchism
1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.
1734 Freedom makes man responsible for his acts to the extent that they are voluntary. Progress in virtue, knowledge of the good, and ascesis enhance the mastery of the will over its acts.
1735 Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors.
2352 … To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.
As such, we should always recognize the distinction between the “hard” sciences and social sciences like psychology and sociology. They’re generally in separate buildings on campus for pretty good reasons.I honestly do not have too many good things to say about the field of psychology–it seems seriously flawed in a number of ways.
The success rate of CBT (one of many types of psychotherapy) for various mental illnesses vary. The variance can be attributed to the quality/experience of the therapist, the compliance of the patient, and the many different ways that CBT is done. Hek, I don’t even think you need a PhD to be a practicing therapist doing CBT. Working at a hospital myself, I happen to know a few people who are NON-experts in CBT but still conduct CBT with patients at outpatient facilities after going through workshops and 2 or 3 weeks of training. Unfortunately, all of these factors effects the meta-analyses that are done to gauge the effectiveness of CBT. It’s obvious that when you’re measuring its effectiveness by including different qualities of CBT (dependent on the therapist), with different types of CBT (I know of more than 6 different types of CBT - mindfulness CBT, cognitive therapy, Dialectical Behavior Therapy, Exposure Response Prevention Therapy, etc), this will inevitably weigh down on the success rate. I assume you should already know all of this stuff since you are psychologist.That sounds about right!
Source: ocd.stanford.edu/treatment/psychotherapy.htmlAbout 50% of patients presenting for treatment can benefit from behavior therapy without medications. About 20% to 30% are resistant to therapy and 20% drop out of treatment before achieving much benefit. At follow-up six months to three or more years after treatment, 65-75% of patients are much improved or improved, but 25% show no lasting benefit.
Source: apa.org/about/policy/resolution-psychotherapy.aspxthe effects of psychotherapy are noted in the research as follows: The general or average effects of psychotherapy are widely accepted to be significant and large, (Chorpita et al., 2011; Smith, Glass, & Miller, 1980; Wampold, 2001). These large effects of psychotherapy are quite constant across most diagnostic conditions, with variations being more influenced by general severity than by particular diagnoses—That is, variations in outcome are more heavily influenced by patient characteristics e.g., chronicity, complexity, social support, and intensity—and by clinician and context factors than by particular diagnoses or specific treatment “brands” (Beutler, 2009; Beutler & Malik, 2002a, 2002b; Malik & Beutler, 2002; Wampold, 2001);
Excellent point, especially about CBT. Brings to mind some biblical passages…I agree we are products of our environment, genetic and spiritual makeup. It is for this reason our will is not free.
There are several schools of thought on human will that I know of. One is our will is not free unless we are in control of our will - self governing, autonomous, and a will that governed by passions is not free. The will of the alcoholic and the drug addict are governed not by free will but by addiction. This to me is the child you speak of.
The will of the child you speak of is governed in accordance with environmental conditioning - though genetic factors may also be engaged. In their formative years they have been conditioned in terms of promiscuity and risk taking among other things. Thus, their will is not free. It cannot be said they bear no responsibility for any of their actions, but what can be said is in their formative years they have been conditioned to make bad choices as an adult and subsequently will do so. This is addressed through re-conditioning - for example cognitive behavioural therapy. As a psychologist you will know much more about this than I.
In terms of our genetic make up we know there is an intrinsic link between upbringing and how the ‘warrior gene’ exhibits it’s effects. Those who are carry the warrior gene that are raised in a stable family go on to be heroes. Those raised in a dysfunctional family and significantly have a bad relationship with their father go on to be psychopaths. It cannot be said the psychopath is not responsible, that we should make excuses for them and consider them victims of their genetic make up and environment in which they were raised. It is not that they have no control at all, but their will cannot be said to be entirely free.
The distinction between the abused child and the psychopath is in adulthood the abused child hurts themselves. The psychopath hurts others. Society requires protection from the psychopath. The abused child in adulthood needs protection from themselves. Cognitive behavioural facilitates acquisition of an autonomous free will.
I wonder what the improvement rates are if a control group without intervention was included in the study? And, what produced these great rates? Could it be that those going through the treatment also sought psychiatric help through medication? Could the results have been due to the “experimenter” effect which is well known in research methodology where respondents simply wanted to “complement” their therapist? Again, without a control group, with random assignment, I would strongly exercise caution in accepting the conclusion.The success rate of CBT (one of many types of psychotherapy) for various mental illnesses vary. The variance can be attributed to the quality/experience of the therapist, the compliance of the patient, and the many different ways that CBT is done. Hek, I don’t even think you need a PhD to be a practicing therapist doing CBT. Working at a hospital myself, I happen to know a few people who are NON-experts in CBT but still conduct CBT with patients at outpatient facilities after going through workshops and 2 or 3 weeks of training. Unfortunately, all of these factors effects the meta-analyses that are done to gauge the effectiveness of CBT. It’s obvious that when you’re measuring its effectiveness by including different qualities of CBT (dependent on the therapist), with different types of CBT (I know of more than 6 different types of CBT - mindfulness CBT, cognitive therapy, Dialectical Behavior Therapy, Exposure Response Prevention Therapy, etc), this will inevitably weigh down on the success rate. I assume you should already know all of this stuff since you are psychologist.
To separate good quality from bad quality, of course, it would be best to survey one type of CBT with a set protocol, and then we can begin to single out the best type of CBT, and really get a fair and accurate picture. You accepted your college professor’s word from the 1970s, but recent studies have shown the effectiveness of CBT being around 50% or more. Here’s one source that you can use to update yourself at least when it comes to OCD:
Source: ocd.stanford.edu/treatment/psychotherapy.html
Here’s from the American Psychological Association:
Source: apa.org/about/policy/resolution-psychotherapy.aspx
Fine then, lets get away from just CBT improving anxious feelings. How about CBT actually normalizing brain function by causing PHYSICAL changes (as in neuroplastic changes) in the brain?I wonder what the improvement rates are if a control group without intervention was included in the study? And, what produced these great rates? Could it be that those going through the treatment also sought psychiatric help through medication? Could the results have been due to the “experimenter” effect which is well known in research methodology where respondents simply wanted to “complement” their therapist? Again, without a control group, with random assignment, I would strongly exercise caution in accepting the conclusion.
Functional brain imaging studies of patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) have repeatedly found elevated cerebral glucose metabolism and blood flow in the orbitofrontal cortex (OFC), anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), basal ganglia and thalamus1
Source: Rapid effects of brief intensive cognitive-behavioral therapy on brain glucose metabolism in obsessive-compulsive disorderBrief intensive cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) using exposure and response prevention significantly improves obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) symptoms in as little as 4 weeks.
…
**Significant changes in normalized regional glucose metabolism were seen after brief intensive CBT (P = 0.04). Compared to controls, OCD patients showed significant bilateral decreases in normalized thalamic metabolism with intensive CBT but had a significant increase in right dorsal anterior cingulate cortex activity that correlated strongly with the degree of improvement in OCD symptoms **(P = 0.02).
Psychosis is often characterized by paranoia and poor social functioning. Neurally, there is evidence of functional dysconnectivity including abnormalities when processing facial affect. We sought to establish whether these abnormalities are resolved by cognitive behavioral therapy for psychosis (CBTp).
At baseline, psychosis patients showed amygdala hyperconnectivity with insula and visual occipital areas, compared with healthy participants. These findings are consistent with theoretical accounts of inappropriate activation of the salience network in psychosis, which may underlie hyper-vigilance to social threat and susceptibility to paranoia.17 The psychosis groups additionally showed reduced connectivity between amygdala and somatosensory areas
**Importantly, there was evidence that these baseline differences normalized following CBTp, whereas the group receiving SCO continued to show amygdala dysconnectivity with somatosensory areas, compared with the healthy group. This CBTp-specific normalization tallies with reports that social skills training interventions result in increased somatosensory activation during facial affect recognition.46,47
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Normalizes Functional Connectivity for Social Threat in PsychosisIn addition to normalization, there was additionally a widespread proliferation in connectivity post CBTp, as evidenced by changes in the number and strength of connections from amygdala and DLPFC (from T1 to T2). This diverse proliferation of functional connections is evidence that CBTp promotes integration of multiple and distributed neural systems, which may be particularly relevant for psychosis as a dysconnectivity syndrome.**3
Welcome. I suppose that I think of sorrow as universal at confession, all sins of my life, because I was trained with the Baltimore Catechism:Thanks! It seems that the Church agrees with me! So often when I go to confession I begin by saying: Bless me Father for I may have sinned."
Why measure brain glucose metabolism? Perhaps OCD did get lowered in these patients, but why not get directly to the central question and ask if the quality of life increased significantly from the control group with patients with other mental health issues? The same goes for the study of psychosis. Did the psychotics find new meaning in life? Are they more content living in this lowly world? Are they happier? Did the psychotics experience more love?Fine then, lets get away from just CBT improving anxious feelings. How about CBT actually normalizing brain function by causing PHYSICAL changes (as in neuroplastic changes) in the brain?
Source: Rapid effects of brief intensive cognitive-behavioral therapy on brain glucose metabolism in obsessive-compulsive disorder
Here’s another study:
Abbreviations: CBTp = cognitive behavioral therapy for psychosis
SCO= standard care only
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Normalizes Functional Connectivity for Social Threat in Psychosis
Hope that’s enough for you, Doc.
too late.I have chosen not to read this thread.
Now you are touching on the disease-based model of psychotherapy vs. the growth-based model as formulated by Martin Seligman in his discussion of the application of positive psychology to clinical practice. The Seligman model is based on the understanding that the older disease-based model simply eliminates the negative effects of illness but does nothing to help the person develop their goals in life, their values, their being. In other words, it just gets the person back to square one before they suffered from the effects of their condition. It does not give the individual much to help them develop so that they do not relapse. The proponents of CBT have no doubt counter-argued that their brand of therapy is not the same as the Freudian variety since it goes beyond the medical model by enabling the individual to clear their conscious mind of logical inconsistencies and form new and improved cognitive processes and social skills that, in time, can result in more constructive behavioral patterns. Nonetheless, it is based largely on improving present behavior by changing cognitions than it is on setting goals for the future. So, in this sense, we are still back to square one.Why measure brain glucose metabolism? Perhaps OCD did get lowered in these patients, but why not get directly to the central question and ask if the quality of life increased significantly from the control group with patients with other mental health issues? The same goes for the study of psychosis. Did the psychotics find new meaning in life? Are they more content living in this lowly world? Are they happier? Did the psychotics experience more love?
But how well does CBT get a person, out of say, depression or anxiety? For example, Feeling and Thinking: Preferences Need No Inferences by Zajonc would claim that it’s not the thoughts that are affecting the negative emotions, but rather the activation of unconscious negative emotions that are affecting the thought process. I personally side with Zajonc and I would want to know how well CBT is actually curing the mental illnesses, especially that caused by emotional neglect, and not how well it’s restructuring the cognitive process which in and of itself may not be doing much.Now you are touching on the disease-based model of psychotherapy vs. the growth-based model as formulated by Martin Seligman in his discussion of the application of positive psychology to clinical practice. The Seligman model is based on the understanding that the older disease-based model simply eliminates the negative effects of illness but does nothing to help the person develop their goals in life, their values, their being. In other words, it just gets the person back to square one before they suffered from the effects of their condition. It does not give the individual much to help them develop so that they do not relapse. The proponents of CBT have no doubt counter-argued that their brand of therapy is not the same as the Freudian variety since it goes beyond the medical model by enabling the individual to clear their conscious mind of logical inconsistencies and form new and improved cognitive processes and social skills that, in time, can result in more constructive behavioral patterns. Nonetheless, it is based largely on improving present behavior by changing cognitions than it is on setting goals for the future. So, in this sense, we are still back to square one.
Zajonc’s theory of emotionality (that is, emotion precedes cognition, or is perhaps parallel to it) is an oldie but goodie. Even earlier is the notion by the Gestalt psychologist, Kurt Koffka, that all cognitions are affectively-tinged, that is, emotion is at the core of cognition. The idea of separating thoughts and emotions is what I call the Humpty-Dumpty syndrome, meaning that once psychologists decided to divide the cognitive, affective, and conative elements of human processes, it is virtually impossible for them to put these elements back together again, which they have been trying to do as of late.But how well does CBT get a person, out of say, depression or anxiety? For example, Feeling and Thinking: Preferences Need No Inferences by Zajonc would claim that it’s not the thoughts that are affecting the negative emotions, but rather the activation of unconscious negative emotions that are affecting the thought process. I personally side with Zajonc and I would want to know how well CBT is actually curing the mental illnesses, especially that caused by emotional neglect, and not how well it’s restructuring the cognitive process which in and of itself may not be doing much.
Getting back to the key issues I brought up at the beginning of this thread, does psychotherapy actually rectify the harm done by raising a child in an emotionally neglective manner? Maybe CBT does help treat OCD, and maybe it produces some change in the thinking style in psychotics, but that’s not what this thread is about.
It all comes down to living a meaningful and fruitful life and here I would be willing to bet that becoming spiritual and religious is far more effective than psychotherapy, whether or not the therapy is disease-based or growth-based.
I consider myself to have been neglected emotionally, and I believe it affects me to this day. I was an Atheist but some friends insisted that I join them for a Protestant service. From there, all it took was one truly spiritual experience and I became religious immediately. I then came home to the Catholic Church and I’m relatively calm and peaceful. I feel in communion with God, I like to pray, and God’s grace provides all the consolation I need.Zajonc’s theory of emotionality (that is, emotion precedes cognition, or is perhaps parallel to it) is an oldie but goodie. Even earlier is the notion by the Gestalt psychologist, Kurt Koffka, that all cognitions are affectively-tinged, that is, emotion is at the core of cognition. The idea of separating thoughts and emotions is what I call the Humpty-Dumpty syndrome, meaning that once psychologists decided to divide the cognitive, affective, and conative elements of human processes, it is virtually impossible for them to put these elements back together again, which they have been trying to do as of late.
What I am getting at is that there may be no need to work on emotions as distinct from cognitions since they are intertwined anyhow. Ellis’ REBT touches on this notion.
Your final point concerning recovery as a function of a spiritual and religious life brings us to the question of how does one “become” spiritual or religious? Does this not depend to some degree on thoughts and emotions, which, as you have stated, are not entirely based on free will due precisely to the influences, both positive and negative, of past experiences? Now we are back in Freud’s ballpark of determinism.
My previous post about cognitive behavioral therapy has a lot to do with this thread. A major tenet of neuroscience is determinism, more specifically, that our thoughts and behavior are controlled by our brain. This is one of the reasons why psychotherapy was thought to only be good for behaviors that are “learned” and not for those that are rooted in neurobiology (not learned)… that is, until the evidence that I presented started coming out. Interestingly, despite my presenting scientific peer-reviewed and replicated studies, you still seem unconvinced which I see from you saying “maybe” CBT works. Fine then, lets get away from CBT working to normalize brain functions for regular psychiatric disorders like psychosis and OCD and lets look CBT with neuromotor disorders, like Tourette’s syndrome and chronic tic disorder.Getting back to the key issues I brought up at the beginning of this thread, does psychotherapy actually rectify the harm done by raising a child in an emotionally neglective manner? Maybe CBT does help treat OCD, and maybe it produces some change in the thinking style in psychotics, **but that’s not what this thread is about. **
Gilles de la Tourette syndrome (TS) and chronic tic disorder (TD) are disabling neuropsychiatric conditions characterized by multiple motor and/or phonic tics (APA, 2000). Although severity of the disorder is assessed according to severity of tics, other comorbidities and behavioral problems may complicate the clinical management (Leckman et al., 1998). Aetiology is multi-faceted showing at the same time genetic, biological, and environmental influences.
Medication and CBT are frequently administered in conjunction but as of present, there is no literature examining any synergistic benefit of combining treatments. The present study evaluates whether CBT is equally effective when combined with existing medication or administered in the absence of medication.
The current CBT was individualized, manual-based (O’Connor, 2005b), and was carried out by therapists who were licensed psychologists with 10 years experience of CBT with tic disorder and OCD. The program was progressive and passed through seven major steps, lasting a total of four months: psychoeducation, awareness training, constructing a high/low risk situational/activity profile, relaxation and muscle discrimination exercises, modifying background style of planning action, development of alternative competing responses using cognitive and behavioral strategies, and preventing relapse.
Symptom severity and treatment outcome was also assessed using the** “Tourette Syndrome Global Scale**” (TSGS: Harcherik, Leckman, Detlor, & Cohen, 1984). The TSGS tic subscales rate the nature of the tic (i.e. motor or phonic), and the tic complexity.
Outcome…
TSGS total scores decreased significantly in both groups (medicated group: F[1,22 = 26.44; p < 0.05; effect size = 0.55; unmedicated group: F[1,52] = 49.95; p < 0.05; effect size = 0.49). The overall percentage improvement on total TSGS scores pre–post CBT was 49% for medicated and 54% for unmedicated groups.
The current study, to our knowledge, is the first to compare the effect of CBT with and without medication in a sample of TS and TD adults. The key finding was that principal outcome measures (TSGS subscales) for both TS and TD stabilized on medication at time of receiving CBT and those not taking medication at the time of receiving CBT, showed significant and equivalent improvement.
…
The implication is that CBT can be effectively administered whether or not the client is stabilized on medication, and whether or not the tics are severe, moderate or mild.
This to me shows that CBT should not just be looked at as simply repairing anxious thoughts/feelings but also even repairing brain function itself. We should theoretically be able to map which thoughts correspond with which brain area and use CBT to target and repair faulty brain areas. I’m sure there are limitations but then again we don’t know how much more thoughts and behavior can be used to control brain function.Our own results have showed that CBT significantly affects response processing, particularly fine motor dexterity revealing that CBT selectively improved motor performance compared to a waitlist control, and this improvement was correlated to clinical outcome measures (O’Connor et al., 2008). Other results revealed that frontal event-related brain activity, associated with automated motor responses, are improved after successful CBT in TS, revealing that CBT might have some impact on cerebral function that parallel symptom improvement (Lavoie et al., 2008).
Even if CBT was proven to be effective in treating every other mental illness, which as a psychologist I know is far, far from the truth, unless it is clearly shown to correct adult survivors of emotional abuse they suffered in childhood, which are deeply buried in the unconscious, it’s of no relevance to this thread. The bottom line, adult survivors of emotional abuse as children have a somewhat limited free will when it comes to sexual promiscuity and drug and alcohol abuse, and CBT will not correct this.My previous post about cognitive behavioral therapy has a lot to do with this thread. A major tenet of neuroscience is determinism, more specifically, that our thoughts and behavior are controlled by our brain. This is one of the reasons why psychotherapy was thought to only be good for behaviors that are “learned” and not for those that are rooted in neurobiology (not learned)… that is, until the evidence that I presented started coming out. Interestingly, despite my presenting scientific peer-reviewed and replicated studies, you still seem unconvinced which I see from you saying “maybe” CBT works. Fine then, lets get away from CBT working to normalize brain functions for regular psychiatric disorders like psychosis and OCD and lets look CBT with neuromotor disorders, like Tourette’s syndrome and chronic tic disorder.
Abbreviations- TSGS = Tourette Syndrome Global Scale (refer to green font)
Cognitive behavioral management of Tourette’s syndrome and chronic tic disorder in medicated and unmedicated samples
This to me shows that CBT should not just be looked at as simply repairing anxious thoughts/feelings but also even repairing brain function itself. We should theoretically be able to map which thoughts correspond with which brain area and use CBT to target and repair faulty brain areas. I’m sure there are limitations but then again we don’t know how much more thoughts and behavior can be used to control brain function.
Also, keep in mind I don’t claim that my view proves free-will but rather that it shows a problem with biological determinism - that behaviors are hardwired based on biology. My view also provides evidence for top-down causation in that CBT is MENTAL causation and it has been shown to normalize (i.e. control and/or direct) brain function!!!