Post-Cognitive Psychotherapy

People who follow Mental Help Net's progress, will have noticed our new Podcast titled Wise Counsel, and hosted by Dr. David Van Nuys. The idea behind Wise Counsel is to interview people whose work influences - or whose lives have been touched by - mental health and wellness issues. We've got four shows up now, with new shows being published approximately every two weeks.

came out in 1991 (!). Doesn't that title sound like something that Dr. Young might have written last year? Back in those dark days when I was still wet behind the ears in graduate school and Schema Therapy was but a gleam in Dr. Young's eye, Dr. Horowitz was already busy building a bridge spanning object relations and cognitive psychology. I'm going to invite Dr. Horowitz to do an interview with us for Wise Counsel soon. If we're lucky and he'll do it, I think that'd be an interesting show.

  • cbtish

    A very interesting point of view — almost accurate, but not quite. The most revealing sentence is this one:

    [I]f someone has a social phobia and cannot cope with public speaking tasks, they can examine their thoughts and beliefs concerning the dangers they think are to be found when public speaking.

    Only a half-trained CBT therapist would do that. A properly trained CBT therapist would examine the underlying thoughts and beliefs (the schemas), not just the presenting problem. (No pun intended!) Beck described this as a "problem reduction" technique (one of several). He also, by the way, used the term "schema", which dates from much earlier.

    The ideas that you call post-cognitive are not competing theories about psychotherapy. Rather, they place a different emphasis on the practical techniques of therapy within the same theoretical framework. And the different emphasis is not a new emphasis. Rather, it is a rediscovery of certain elements of therapy that have been lost in the rush to train CBT therapists quickly and cheaply.

    Calling each different emphasis a "new therapy" has advantages when marketing these ideas, but it has the disadvantage that it fragments their shared theorectical framework, making it difficult to refine and grow our overall understanding of the recovery process.

    While you make useful comparisons between these thechniques and the current fashion for somewhat superficial, dumbed-down CBT, you miss the point that the fragmentation we are seeing in therapy is symptomatic of a deeper problem. In fact, it's as if you yourself are treating all these "new therapies" as deparate symptoms, instead of using problem reduction to understand the schema.

    Editor's Note: I'm thankful for your useful comment but also curious why you choose to leave it in such an unnecessarily hostile format? It is really necessary to suggest that I am "half trained" in order to make your point?