3 ms·

Yes, and generally we must give cover to the aggressors because we need them on our side. Cognitive behavioral therapy is about adjusting the individual to soc

Yes, and generally we must give cover to the aggressors because we need them on our side. Cognitive behavioral therapy is about adjusting the individual to society's demands. The individual must be made to tolerate indignity.

javajosh 5y ago
I have a great deal of sympathy for this argument, as one who sees speaking truth to power as one of the highest goods, and CBT (or the Buddhist concept of detachment) seems on its face a tool to pacify people - or better, to pacify themselves. But in truth the emotional reactivity is itself a source of great suffering, and disables the person from taking real action anyway. In extreme cases, the reaction eclipses the original injustice entirely. In the case of real indignity, what is better, to lose your shit and become angry, depressed, upset, for days or weeks, or to pause and recognize that its not about you, it's about them, and to consider what your options are for a response? Who is more powerful, the person who winces, and then stands up and speaks clearly and eloquently against the aggressor, or the person who crumbles? CBT protects you from manipulation. Consider someone who's in emotional turmoil from something they've heard. Maybe they heard CRT is in their schools, or MS13 is moving into the house next door. Rather than encourage them to examine their emotions, and pause to examine the motive of the speaker, the speaker instead encourages the emotion further and offers "solutions" to these problems. It is a manipulation on a grand scale, and yields power. Or perhaps they've heard that racism is everywhere, all white are racists, all black people are victims, all men are violent. In this case the emotion is righteous indignation, greed, envy and an appeal to power, and is no less emotionally manipulative.
- DarylZero 5y ago
  I'm going on your own example here of what kind of "cognition" we're dealing with: do you interpret a racially insensitive comment ("microaggression") as targeted and hostile ("personal"), or untargeted and oblivious ("impersonal")? If you choose the latter as a kind of cognitive "assume good faith policy," you may "suffer" less emotionally. But your cognitive strategy makes you vulnerable to abuse. People can take advantage of your charitable assumptions. You may end up experiencing even more emotional suffering after that happens (and you might not even understand what happened afterward). I'll also point out that the emotions go both ways here: if someone powerful offends you or someone else in this way, your reaction will be suppressed (however much) by fear at the thought of the retaliatory exercise of that power. This is by far the more powerful controlling emotion in the society at large. Not racial outrage or self-righteousness or anything like that. I think you won't see CBT employed to control that emotion though.
  - javajosh 5y ago
    > fear at the thought of the retaliatory exercise of that power. You're not wrong. I agree that this is a risk. And in fact, the key risk, of this approach. It is very easy to post hoc rationalize away an aggression simply because it would be inconvenient to not, and you've lost that round. As I write this I realize that my stance is fundamentally a pragmatic one, which does not deny the above error mode. Power is...powerful. It can really and materially hurt you. Therefore it makes sense to treat it with respect, even if not admiration. It is incredibly dangerous to tell people to to disrespect power, and show contempt for it. It is setting them up for a great deal of (unproductive) pain. Successfully challenging existing power is extremely difficult, and I would argue that emotional expression will, in general, not help you win. If you want to win, you must adopt an attitude of calm detachment, and pick a specific strategy, and execute. CBT is a tool that helps victims avoid the cul-de-sac of emotional turmoil caused by an irritant. As such, it is quite useful as an agent of real change. There is an unpleasant element of "blaming the victim" to it. It is easy to attack the emotionally reactive actor, whether or not they are right. It would be nice if society at large could distinguish between "valid" and "invalid" emotional reactivity. However, at least in this place and time, calm non-reactivity is given a great deal more weight than the opposite, so it makes sense to encourage victims to control their emotions.
    - DarylZero 5y ago
      Controlling "cognition" in a way that causes you to ignore reality is the wrong way to control emotions.

javajosh 5y ago

I have a great deal of sympathy for this argument, as one who sees speaking truth to power as one of the highest goods, and CBT (or the Buddhist concept of detachment) seems on its face a tool to pacify people - or better, to pacify themselves. But in truth the emotional reactivity is itself a source of great suffering, and disables the person from taking real action anyway. In extreme cases, the reaction eclipses the original injustice entirely. In the case of real indignity, what is better, to lose your shit and become angry, depressed, upset, for days or weeks, or to pause and recognize that its not about you, it's about them, and to consider what your options are for a response? Who is more powerful, the person who winces, and then stands up and speaks clearly and eloquently against the aggressor, or the person who crumbles? CBT protects you from manipulation. Consider someone who's in emotional turmoil from something they've heard. Maybe they heard CRT is in their schools, or MS13 is moving into the house next door. Rather than encourage them to examine their emotions, and pause to examine the motive of the speaker, the speaker instead encourages the emotion further and offers "solutions" to these problems. It is a manipulation on a grand scale, and yields power. Or perhaps they've heard that racism is everywhere, all white are racists, all black people are victims, all men are violent. In this case the emotion is righteous indignation, greed, envy and an appeal to power, and is no less emotionally manipulative.

DarylZero 5y ago
I'm going on your own example here of what kind of "cognition" we're dealing with: do you interpret a racially insensitive comment ("microaggression") as targeted and hostile ("personal"), or untargeted and oblivious ("impersonal")? If you choose the latter as a kind of cognitive "assume good faith policy," you may "suffer" less emotionally. But your cognitive strategy makes you vulnerable to abuse. People can take advantage of your charitable assumptions. You may end up experiencing even more emotional suffering after that happens (and you might not even understand what happened afterward). I'll also point out that the emotions go both ways here: if someone powerful offends you or someone else in this way, your reaction will be suppressed (however much) by fear at the thought of the retaliatory exercise of that power. This is by far the more powerful controlling emotion in the society at large. Not racial outrage or self-righteousness or anything like that. I think you won't see CBT employed to control that emotion though.
- javajosh 5y ago
  > fear at the thought of the retaliatory exercise of that power. You're not wrong. I agree that this is a risk. And in fact, the key risk, of this approach. It is very easy to post hoc rationalize away an aggression simply because it would be inconvenient to not, and you've lost that round. As I write this I realize that my stance is fundamentally a pragmatic one, which does not deny the above error mode. Power is...powerful. It can really and materially hurt you. Therefore it makes sense to treat it with respect, even if not admiration. It is incredibly dangerous to tell people to to disrespect power, and show contempt for it. It is setting them up for a great deal of (unproductive) pain. Successfully challenging existing power is extremely difficult, and I would argue that emotional expression will, in general, not help you win. If you want to win, you must adopt an attitude of calm detachment, and pick a specific strategy, and execute. CBT is a tool that helps victims avoid the cul-de-sac of emotional turmoil caused by an irritant. As such, it is quite useful as an agent of real change. There is an unpleasant element of "blaming the victim" to it. It is easy to attack the emotionally reactive actor, whether or not they are right. It would be nice if society at large could distinguish between "valid" and "invalid" emotional reactivity. However, at least in this place and time, calm non-reactivity is given a great deal more weight than the opposite, so it makes sense to encourage victims to control their emotions.
  - DarylZero 5y ago
    Controlling "cognition" in a way that causes you to ignore reality is the wrong way to control emotions.