The credit you gave me for the comments:
>>but as some of the
>>cog-behaviourists in the UK are also asking- what of the personal construals/
>>beliefs about voices, how do they relate to client histories etc and (as you
>>have been discussing) how do clients construe adherence and recovery??
and
>>...Is the client with
>>no insight one who simply invalidates the world view of the worker? I see
>>these as serious questions to consider, not to be thrown away as "anti
>>psychiatry rhetoric".
really belongs to Lindsay Oades.
I did refer to the Dutch literature, which did involve a TV show. this is
how they elicited their 'data', i.e., they invited viewers to write in about
their experiences (if I rememeber correctly).
Regarding your comments:
>But I ramble. Point is, isn't this a fairly clear vindication of the basic
>idea of constructive alternativism? Reconstrue your voices & thus establish
>some sort of control over dialogue (and when it happens) much as you would
>in the office or over the dinner table. ..snip
I was reading an interesting article on 'command' hallucinations, i.e,
hallucinations which command a person to perform a certain act such as not
eat or harm someone. Again, if my memory serves me correctly, voices which
were construed as positive were more likely to be obeyed than voices which
were unwanted or perceived as negative.
In these terms someone who construed their voices as negative and were
'commanded' to kill might be less likely to act on them than a person who
construed the voices positively. However, it is probably far more difficult
for someone to live with and accept voices which are perceived negatively or
they are unwanted by the person. Finally, while for some people voices are
construed positively, for others they are a source of great torment.
An interesting subject worthy of more attention,
regards,
Bob Green
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%