Tom Kindlon
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,734
(just an observation)
I’m reading an introductory psychology book to try to fill gaps in my knowledge.
I came across the following:
--------------
.
I think this is one of the reasons why the models underlying CBT and GET are annoying: they assume we have caused the problems we have. Similarly, we can overcome the impairments and symptoms if we just try hard enough. In such a situation, “the norm of social responsibility” applies and we aren’t considered worthy of help and support.
As I’ve mentioned before, the model of the illness that Peter White and the Barts service seems to have e.g. based on their submission on the draft NICE guidelines (some extracts here: http://bit.ly/11KW7zm i.e.
https://listserv.nodak.edu/cgi-bin/...P=R2063&I=-3&d=No+Match;Match;Matches seemed very similar to me to the model some people might have for people who are very obese i.e. that they caused the condition themselves and that they shouldn’t receive too many supports and aids – they can conquer it with enough will-power and that giving supports like parking badges may get in the way of them pushing themselves enough.
It annoys me when people say that the reason one doesn’t like the CBT and GET models for ME/CFS is because one is prejudiced against mental illnesses. It is a lot more complicated.
I’m reading an introductory psychology book to try to fill gaps in my knowledge.
I came across the following:
--------------
.
-----------------How often do you help those who stand on the side of the street holding the "will work for food" signs? Do you feel a responsibility to help them? They are hoping you do. Another norm (see "playing your part" section at the start of the at the beginning of big chapter), the norm of social responsibility holds that people should help others who need it. Weinar in 1980 however, found that we typically apply this norm only in situations in which we perceive the person needing help as not having caused the situation due to their own neglect negligence or fault. If we think that the person only need help because she "did it herself," we're not likely to use the norm of social responsibility. Do you think that the guy standing with the sign on the side of the street and made some bad choices or somehow screwed up? Ask him; you never know until you ask. You may be skewing your social responsibility.
I think this is one of the reasons why the models underlying CBT and GET are annoying: they assume we have caused the problems we have. Similarly, we can overcome the impairments and symptoms if we just try hard enough. In such a situation, “the norm of social responsibility” applies and we aren’t considered worthy of help and support.
As I’ve mentioned before, the model of the illness that Peter White and the Barts service seems to have e.g. based on their submission on the draft NICE guidelines (some extracts here: http://bit.ly/11KW7zm i.e.
https://listserv.nodak.edu/cgi-bin/...P=R2063&I=-3&d=No+Match;Match;Matches seemed very similar to me to the model some people might have for people who are very obese i.e. that they caused the condition themselves and that they shouldn’t receive too many supports and aids – they can conquer it with enough will-power and that giving supports like parking badges may get in the way of them pushing themselves enough.
It annoys me when people say that the reason one doesn’t like the CBT and GET models for ME/CFS is because one is prejudiced against mental illnesses. It is a lot more complicated.