By ‘multiple parts’ or ‘inner multiplicity’, we don’t mean to suggest that the human psyche comprises multiple conscious agents
Disappointingly, that leaves out those on the more severe end of the CPTSD spectrum. But maybe it works for milder cases, those whose childhood trauma didn’t leave their psyche in pieces.
compassion-focused therapy (CFT) views the human mind through an evolutionary lens, as being formed of multiple, often conflicting, emotional, motivational, and cognitive systems. CFT groups these systems into three different clusters, depending on their primary evolutionary function: i) threat/protection, and ii) drive/seeking/acquisition, both associated with the sympathetic nervous system, and iii) rest/soothing/attachment, associated with the parasympathetic nervous system
That does make sense as a model, or one of many, potentially with some explanatory and predictive powers, though therapy is not really a science, so one can’t ask for too much.
Likewise, CFT views many of our unhelpful tendencies and problems as at least partly resulting from our evolutionary past. In contrast, most other therapies see mental health problems as almost exclusively arising from distressing experiences in our lives and (early) development, at least in practice.
Is this assertion borne out by twin studies? Or is believing it a test for CFT suitability only?
By the way, one of the more promising “therapies” I came across recently is some form of Accelerated Resolution Therapy, where the logical part of the brain is less engaged than in other therapies, and the subconscious part is involved much more.
In my experience, ~nothing in this area is downright revolutionary. Most therapies are heavily influenced by previous concepts and techniques. (Personally, I’d still say that CFT brings something new to the table.)
I guess what matters if it works for you or not.
Is this assertion borne out by twin studies? Or is believing it a test for CFT suitability only?
To some extent. Most human traits have a genetic component, including (Big-Five) personality traits, depressive tendencies, anxiety disorders, conduct disorders, personality disorders, and so on. (e.g., Polderman et al., 2015). This is also true for (self-)destructive tendencies like malevolent personality traits (citing my own summary of some studies here because I’m lazy, sorry).
(Also agree with Kaj’s warning about misinterpreting heritability.)
More generally speaking, I’d say this belief is borne out of understanding evolutionary psychology/history. Basically, all of our motivations and fears have an evolutionary basis. We fear death, because the ancestors who didn’t were eaten by lions. We fear being ostracized and care about being respected because in the Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness our survival and reproductive success was dependent on our social status. Therefore, it’s to be expected that most humans, at some point or another, worry about death or health problems or feel emotions like jealousy or envy. They don’t have to be rooted in some trauma or early life experience—though they are usually exacerbated by them. In most cases, it’s not realistic to eliminate such emotions entirely. This doesn’t mean that one is an “abnormal” or “defective” person that experienced irreversible harm inflicted by another human sometime in one’s development. (Just to be clear, as mentioned in the main text, no one believes that life experiences don’t matter. Of course, they matter a great deal!)
But yeah, if you are skeptical of the above, it’s a good reason to not seek a CFT therapist.
When presenting a concept to an audience that is not aware of the concept it’s easy to explain it in terms that the reader likely understands. Aspects that are hard to explain get usually explained during the actual training of a method and not in summary descriptions of it.
Which “unhelpful tendencies and problems” occur in both twins with radically different upbringing and which do not?
That doesn’t distinguish between e.g. unhelpful tendencies that occur due to genes that all humans share vs. unhelpful tendencies that occur due to living in an industrialized society.
In general, twin studies only tell you what proportion of the variance in a trait is genetic in a given society. But you can’t use that information to determine whether the trait is evolved vs. cultural; that’s not the question that the studies are asking. E.g. in a society that had a custom of lobotomizing all red-haired people, “being lobotomized” would be an entirely hereditary trait (since hair color is genetically determined) that turned up in twins with radically different upbringing, even though it was an entirely cultural practice. (More examples here, here and here.)
Yeah, I get that shared cultural aspects (including prenatal) are hard to tell from inherited. In this particular case of someone seeking therapy for a specific issue that troubles them, I would expect that the situation can be uncommon enough to stand out in twin studies if the cause is genetic. I am no expert though.
Disappointingly, that leaves out those on the more severe end of the CPTSD spectrum. But maybe it works for milder cases, those whose childhood trauma didn’t leave their psyche in pieces.
That does make sense as a model, or one of many, potentially with some explanatory and predictive powers, though therapy is not really a science, so one can’t ask for too much.
A quick look through https://www.goodtherapy.org/learn-about-therapy/types/compassion-focused-therapy gives an impression of yet another mix of CBT, DBT and ACT, nothing revolutionary or especially new, though maybe I missed something.
Is this assertion borne out by twin studies? Or is believing it a test for CFT suitability only?
I must say that most of this post sounds like an example from https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/11/20/book-review-all-therapy-books/ though maybe I missed something.
By the way, one of the more promising “therapies” I came across recently is some form of Accelerated Resolution Therapy, where the logical part of the brain is less engaged than in other therapies, and the subconscious part is involved much more.
In my experience, ~nothing in this area is downright revolutionary. Most therapies are heavily influenced by previous concepts and techniques. (Personally, I’d still say that CFT brings something new to the table.)
I guess what matters if it works for you or not.
To some extent. Most human traits have a genetic component, including (Big-Five) personality traits, depressive tendencies, anxiety disorders, conduct disorders, personality disorders, and so on. (e.g., Polderman et al., 2015). This is also true for (self-)destructive tendencies like malevolent personality traits (citing my own summary of some studies here because I’m lazy, sorry).
(Also agree with Kaj’s warning about misinterpreting heritability.)
More generally speaking, I’d say this belief is borne out of understanding evolutionary psychology/history. Basically, all of our motivations and fears have an evolutionary basis. We fear death, because the ancestors who didn’t were eaten by lions. We fear being ostracized and care about being respected because in the Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness our survival and reproductive success was dependent on our social status. Therefore, it’s to be expected that most humans, at some point or another, worry about death or health problems or feel emotions like jealousy or envy. They don’t have to be rooted in some trauma or early life experience—though they are usually exacerbated by them. In most cases, it’s not realistic to eliminate such emotions entirely. This doesn’t mean that one is an “abnormal” or “defective” person that experienced irreversible harm inflicted by another human sometime in one’s development. (Just to be clear, as mentioned in the main text, no one believes that life experiences don’t matter. Of course, they matter a great deal!)
But yeah, if you are skeptical of the above, it’s a good reason to not seek a CFT therapist.
When presenting a concept to an audience that is not aware of the concept it’s easy to explain it in terms that the reader likely understands. Aspects that are hard to explain get usually explained during the actual training of a method and not in summary descriptions of it.
How would you test it with twin studies?
Well, the usual nurture vs nature? Which “unhelpful tendencies and problems” occur in both twins with radically different upbringing and which do not?
That doesn’t distinguish between e.g. unhelpful tendencies that occur due to genes that all humans share vs. unhelpful tendencies that occur due to living in an industrialized society.
In general, twin studies only tell you what proportion of the variance in a trait is genetic in a given society. But you can’t use that information to determine whether the trait is evolved vs. cultural; that’s not the question that the studies are asking. E.g. in a society that had a custom of lobotomizing all red-haired people, “being lobotomized” would be an entirely hereditary trait (since hair color is genetically determined) that turned up in twins with radically different upbringing, even though it was an entirely cultural practice. (More examples here, here and here.)
Yeah, I get that shared cultural aspects (including prenatal) are hard to tell from inherited. In this particular case of someone seeking therapy for a specific issue that troubles them, I would expect that the situation can be uncommon enough to stand out in twin studies if the cause is genetic. I am no expert though.
It’s not just hard in practice, it’s a question that the studies are theoretically incapable of answering.