What are the same and differences in the face-to-face technology and exposure therapy and system desensitization of image dialogue? Why is technology effective?
- This is a big problem involving two different orientations of therapy, as well as specific techniques. I tried to talk in the vernacular.
First of all, there are two kinds of definitions about the concept of “exposure therapy”: one is that “exposure therapy” is another term for “filling therapy”; the other is that “exposure therapy” is a Visitors directly contact the escaping scene to produce a generic term for "antibody" treatments, including systemic desensitization and full-filling therapy. But no matter which statement is more authoritative, we can confirm that: First, exposure therapy and systemic desensitization are behaviorist-oriented therapies. Second, behavioral psychotherapy has two opposite "exposure" techniques, one is gradually exposed gradually to the "wound situation", and finally the psychological adaptation to "psychological allergens", called "system desensitization"; another It is a direct "lower drug", which suddenly makes the visitor naked and nowhere to be exposed to his most feared situation. In the end, he will find that nothing terrible happened, thus achieving "no longer afraid of this kind of thing." The therapeutic effect of the situation.
The “face-to-face” technique of image dialogue is an “observation” based on “autonomous awareness”, focusing not on “situational content” but on maintaining “perceived” state—for example, system desensitization or Filling therapy requires visitors to remain in a situational situation. If the visitor closes his eyes and does not see or even escape, the technology fails. The face of image dialogue is not the same. Although we try to encourage direct confrontation in imagery, if we close our eyes and do not even sneak in the image, we continue to watch this "don't look, avoid, run away." "A true state - this is still "face" - not to say that only facing "face" is the face, and facing "not facing" is not facing. Any technique of imagery dialogue, the goal is to be realistic and not to be rejected. Because of this, the “face” of image dialogue is not just a “face”.
"In fact, we believe that if a person is in fear and forces himself to make a "face to face", then although the fear of this scene is "disappeared", the fear energy will not It really disappears, but it will be transferred to another situation to express it. This is why in the clinical case of systemic desensitization and full irrigation therapy, often the original symptoms are really treated, but another New horror symptoms will emerge again. Therefore, contemporary behavioral therapy has been combined with righteous thoughts to compensate for the lack of traditional behavioral therapy. Because “mindfulness” emphasizes “awareness.” Therefore, contemporary and mindfulness combine behavioral therapy has more similarities with the “face” of the image dialogue. But the two are still essentially different. The image dialogue is to work on the “heart”, and the behaviorism is Acting on the job. If we have a deeper grasp of imagery and behaviorist-oriented therapies, we will more clearly feel the difference in the "root", which From the appearance point of view, contemporary behavioral therapy has become more and more "determined." But this is not an empty white teeth can understand something, we want to truly experience can truly understand.
"There is a sense of confrontation", and "must have to face a behavior" is different. When we are in a state of awareness, we are fearful anyway, we are all “perceivers”—whether they are aware of the “fear” of the perceiver or the “face” awareness. Therefore, we will be independent of fear and become the audience of this horror movie, not the "player" who is hypnotized by terror. The principle of why technology is effective is here - when we are manipulated by "content," our hearts turn around and of course become slaves to the situation; when we are not manipulated by "content," our hearts do not follow the trend. Of course, it will not be a slave to the situation. This is the most basic principle of effectiveness.
If you face better technology, you will spontaneously produce a causal understanding of "why I am afraid of this situation," and the "story transformation" that spontaneously arises from this understanding, even "see-through, let go," which is known. Of course, knowing why - solving the bell still needs to ring the bell, creating a director of "fear of people", is our own heart, understand, the director will not play this play - if there is comfort In the drama, why do people have to go with you? Therefore, this "transformation" through "face" is a transformation from the root cause, not only the indicators can cure the problem.
Of course, everything I say is based on what I have learned and experienced. The words on one side do not represent the truth. I just share my point of view truthfully and for reference only.