Posted by alexandra_k2 on December 20, 2005, at 17:21:09
In reply to Re: emotional encapsulation » alexandra_k2, posted by Larry Hoover on December 20, 2005, at 12:47:30
> And, that experience need not be real. It can be cognitive, pure thought.
well...
picture of a snake - shock - fear
picture of a snake - shock - fear
repeat for a while...
picture of a snake - fearhmm.
the person says 'i know the picture of the snake can't hurt me'.
but they feel fear regardless.
ah...
they must 'unconsciously' endorse the belief
'the picture of the snake can hurt me'
but how can they believe both 'the picture of the snake can hurt me AND the picture of the snake can't hurt me' at the same time? Do they believe that pictures in general can hurt them?irrational.
so...
let them say one million times:
'that picture of the snake can't hurt me'
'it can't'
'nope it can't. pictures can't hurt me'will the fear response extinguish in virtue of that?
not in my lifetime
i would bet
note: yes I am making an empirical claim...
who would like to run the experiment?what you need... is alteration of the reinforcement contingencies... basically... you need to extinguish the fear response via flooding or exposure.
imagery...
imagery can help with exposure...but thats experience rather than self talk.
how much can we simply imagine an alteration in rft contingencies and thus benefit from the imaginary experiences??? i have no idea... that is an interesting thought...
poster:alexandra_k2
thread:590579
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20051216/msgs/590749.html