BFL promised a 60-day refund guarantee if they fail to meet shipping and/or performance claims.

Oops, read it wrong.  If it ships over 60 days late you can get a refund.

Goddamnit.  #1769.  I waited all day for this announcement, then went to my parents house to do some landscaping for them.  15 minutes after I leave, the announcement goes up.  Son of a...

Edit:  It was for 3 Jalapenos.

Interesting.

Dare I clarify the irony/hypocrisy?

I agree.  It's a shame.

Well, that's part of it.  Funding is definitely an issue.  In Illinois where I live, funding has been severely cut to social service departments in recent years and it's not looking to improve anytime soon.  I wasn't paid for my internship at the hospital, and even still we were grossly understaffed.  3 counselors (myself and 2 social workers) are not nearly enough to work with a 30-person inpatient milieu.  It's not just counseling that we're responsible for, its assessments, discharges, case-management, and documenting every single interaction with the patients.  For example, if we have a group counseling session, then a case note is needed for every single person that participates in that group.

On an average day, I had to complete 3 assessments (about an hour-long each), document each assessment in the computer, provide a group counseling session and subsequently type a case note for every patient that attended the session.  These tasks alone would take up about 5-6 hours of my 8-hour work day with a half-hour lunch included.  That only leaves about 1 1/2 - 2 1/2 hours for all case-management related services and discharges.  When all is said and done, there is rarely any time for individual counseling sessions which are desperately needed.  Needless to stay, I often stayed late even when I wasn't required to.

Another issue is an almost complete lack of coordination between the medical staff and the social work staff.  The medical staff uses the medical model which is almost completely opposite of the social work model (though the two could be thought of as complimentary).  So, this adds confusion to the mix because a patient may hear one thing from a medical staff member and then hear something completely different from a social worker, and they're never really given an opportunity to be informed as to how these apparently contrasting pieces of information can compliment each other.

I will say this:  Having actually worked in the inpatient unit, I understand why patients usually receive inadequate treatment.  Given the current system, it's virtually impossible for a patient to really be given the time and attention they deserve.  As a result, you see very high rates of recidivism.  I remember seeing several of the same patients readmitted 3, 4, or even 5 times during the 9-month course of my internship.  It sucks.

Edit:  Another thing to consider is the time given to each patient from the doctors.  Many patients complain that their psychiatrist spends very little time with them.  It's not the doctor's fault.  The lead doctor on our unit works at 4 different hospitals throughout the day, and on average will see 35-40 patients in a day.  This gives him an average of 8 minutes to spend with each patient, and those 8 minutes include all the notes and charting that the doctor must report for each patient.  This means he has about 3-4 minutes each day to listen to a patient and prescribe/adjust medications.  Is 3-4 minutes per day enough?  Fuck no.

I plan on buying a few coffee warmers.  It's almost the same $/hash ratio as the single.  No lulz about it.

Edit:  Just glanced at the figures again.  Guess the coffee warmer is a little more expensive.  But, it should still prove to be a good investment.  I have enough BTC for the coffee warmers but not enough that I'd want to throw down on a single yet.  I really think that being able to get your name on the list quickly to be one of the first to receive the products is absolutely essential here to recoup the investment before the difficulty spikes.

No,  I once held your viewpoints and I found out the hard way that they suck.  Is it more important to you that I understand your sadness or that you understand happiness?  

The slippery slope:  when people with mental health issues give advice and support to others with mental health issues.  If you're fat, do you want to sit in a group with other fat people talking about what it's like to be fat and how nobody understands what it's like to be fat, or would you rather go to a personal trainer who knows what the hell he's doing?  You understand mental illness.  Great.  But if you do, don't talk as though you know what works to treat mental illnesses unless you've done it yourself.  I've done that, Atlas.  I'm better now.  I fixed me.  Have you?

I've seen my model work for me and I've seen it work for others.  After 10+ years of intense study and philosophical masturbation, I've found that my model is reasonable.  I've seen overwhelming scientific evidence to support it.  It works.

Your notion that I "quantify all human subjects into one book" is completely off-base and that is why I believe you didn't really read anything I said in my thread.  You forget the parts where I mentioned that it is important to consider individual circumstance.  But, you would have to be a fool to believe that each individual is utterly independent of every other and that no common ground exists between us.  You're butchering logic and you butchered the message of my thread.  You're in denial when you say that you're not stubborn.

You've admitted before you promote chaos.  And then you wonder why I can't agree with what you're saying.  Damn dude.  Listen up, you could learn something.

It's obvious from this post that you didn't really read anything I said in my thread.

What about what is self-evident?  I think it's self-evident that I observe and that I observe things that are not me.

Let's break down your sentence:

You (subject) are (2nd person 'to be') only your own perception (object).  

Identity implies stability over time.  If you "are only your perception," and if your perception changes, then accordingly your identity changes.  So, if your perception changes, how can you be the same you?

You just contradicted yourself.

Good question.

In every-day usage, self-awarness seems to correlate with introspection.  This can be very dangerous.  Becoming too introspective can leave a person trapped in a world of thought.  Many depressed people are this way, and they find themselves catastrophizing their thoughts -- they become so aware of their thoughts that they become utterly drawn to them, and one negative thought can snowball into the next.

Have you ever sat and just watched the clouds pass by?  I'm sure virtually all of us have done this.  Now, have you ever tried to control the clouds, to twist them and mold them into a particular shape?  No?  Well, what would happen if you did?  Do you think that you would become frustrated very quickly once you found out that you can't shape the clouds to your liking?

Now, apply the same logic to your thoughts.  Many people with mental illness will tell you that they get frustrated by their negative thoughts, and no matter how hard they try to control them they fail.  I contend that this is similar to trying to change the clouds in the sky.  The clouds will continually pass by, taking on various forms and shapes, just as your thoughts do.  But, if you can simply observe your thoughts rather than trying to control and manipulate them, you will find that you can calm and relax yourself even when the most negative of thoughts are passing in front of you.

Ideally, I contend that your awareness should be placed on equal-parts subject and equal-parts object.  I believe you need to be aware of your role as an observer at the same time you are aware of what is observed.  As a result, you will be focused on stillness and chaos equally.  Then, you will still be able to navigate the world with your body, intending to reach your goals and accomplishing them whether they are as simple as getting a glass of water when you're thirsty or studying for a doctoral degree.  But, you will also be aware of that underlying stillness that is associated with your very nature as an observer.  This will help you to remain calm among all the chaos unfolding before you.

Edit:  I believe this boils down to focusing your awareness on your direct experience of phenomena.

Believe me, I get what you're saying.  I dislike the DSM-IV as much as you do at the same time I recognize the benefits it can have.  It's a slippery slope...a very slippery slope.

Atlas, for the record I was diagnosed with OCD, GAD, and I easily met the criteria for clinical depression when I was in my late-teens/early-20s.

It is by the method I outlined in my thread that I have overcome all of them.

I look for 3 things in a therapeutic approach:
1)  Is it logical?  Does it make sense?
2)  Is there scientific evidence to support the model?  Can it be tested and can the results be replicated?
3)  Do I have experiential evidence of its effectiveness?  Has it worked for me or have I seen it work for others?

This is the golden trio.  I fully believe that my model prescribed in my thread fits all 3 of these. 

Well, in terms of 'scoring' successes and failures, I haven't done that in an objective manner, no.  I documented therapy sessions with clients in the form of case notes, but none of my roles in the workplace have necessitated such a scoring, nor would I have been allowed time at work to devote to such objective scoring, nor would it have been feasible to even try.  That's definitely the downfall to being an intern -- I could only do so much.  My 'scoring' has only come from feedback from clients. I personally think I was quite successful with many people.  But, the average length of stay for patients at the hospital where I was working is only 5-7 days.  That doesn't really give you any length of time to form baseline data, apply an intervention, collect outcome data, then formulate correlations or conclusions.

It came off as irrelevant because you asked about my method, and then instead of commenting about the method itself, you commented on the way the explanation was presented.  Furthermore, you commented on the way it was presented as if you were actually a client being given this information.  It's really not a fair critique of any sort.

I get what you're saying, but I acknowledged in the very same post that as a therapist I need to find what the person can identify with so as to make the information more easy to convey.  The posts on this thread are to a general audience, not just you, hence I used the word 'we' and used very general examples.

Now, if I go on to write a book or something (which I intend to do at some point in my career) then I agree, I will need to be especially choosy about the language I use.  But I'd still bet that the majority of us have had experiences similar to the examples I just used.

For the record, I've been counseled too.

Edit:  Here's a little more detail to explain why I think the critique wasn't relevant.  A client who is genuinely interested in learning my method will likely ask about it after we have developed some kind of personal rapport.  If this is the case, then I will have some basic idea about the way to approach them as an individual.  You seemed to be forming your critique from two differing perspectives.  If you're simply an individual on the Bitcoin forum asking about my method, that's one thing.  But then to also simultaneously take the perspective of a resilient, emotional client puts my explanation at a disadvantage because you can play both sides when convenient.  In other words, it seemed that when you asked about my method, you were asking from the perspective of a curious person reading this thread.  The response seemed to be from a client's perspective. 

... are you my client now or something?  I think that response was a bit foolish.

By the way, I truly want to thank everyone so far who has commented.  You have no idea how helpful your comments have been.

I have a general system, yes.  I utilize a set of what I believe are Universal principles and then try to tailor them to an individual's situation.

Assuming a person is in full control of their mental faculties (i.e. they are not delusional, hallucinating, mentally retarded, high on drugs or withdrawing from drugs to the point where they are significantly incapacitated, etc.), then my first goal is to simply develop a rapport with the person and try to understand what kind of information they are likely to absorb, and the best ways of helping them to absorb this information.

It is my belief that people naturally are drawn to that with which they can identify. This is why (generally) nerds hang with nerds, beautiful people hang with beautiful people, gym rats hang with gym rats, whites hang with whites, blacks with blacks, happy people with happy people, and 'mentally' ill' people with 'mentally ill' people.  Accordingly, this is why I have found analogies are useful.  I try to use analogies that people can relate to, and as such I find that people are more ready to absorb information presented in the form of an analogy rather than simply spilling them loads of dense information.

After I've developed a certain rapport with a client (the strength of this rapport is usually restrained by the client's length of stay), I then try to emphasize the importance of increasing self-awareness within the client, and try to help them understand why increasing self-awareness is the critical first step to recovery.  Virtually any and all genres of therapy including CBT, REBT, psychodynamic, existential, etc. are designed to increase a client's level of self-awareness.  Increasing self-awareness helps us to become more in tune with the subtleties of our thought patterns, behavior patterns, habits, and tendencies.  

The more we become aware of these patterns (i.e. by becoming more observant of them), we can begin to develop some increased insight into our situation.  We can begin to identify negative habits and tendencies more readily, and by becoming more observant of these habits and tendencies, we can begin to find ways to intervene in situations where we would ordinarily react without thinking.  Becoming more observant of these tendencies allows us a moment of stillness for insight and clarity, and it is during this moment of stillness that change is possible.  We become more distant and disconnected from our negative habits and tendencies the more we observe them, and when we are distant from them, we become more free to act differently.

To give an example, how many times have we become so completely angry or frustrated that we literally wanted to grab the nearest thing to us (e.g. a remote control, a phone) and chuck it across the room.  Sometimes, we actually do this!  Other times, we actually have the object in hand, and we even may make the arm motion to begin to throw it, but then something stops us in our tracks.  We might have the thought, "I can't throw this, I'll have to spend $250 replacing my new I-Phone!"  Somehow, we had a moment of clarity.  We were able to intervene.  We were able to, for a very, very brief moment, distance ourselves from our anger and have a moment of rational clarity.  Now, the question is, why were we able to intervene?

We were able to intervene because we briefly became more observant of our situation.  We took a look at the situation in a broader context.  No longer was it simply "Me and my anger"  but it became "Me, my anger, my phone, my money, my future need to replace my phone if I break it."  In other words, we distanced ourselves from the situation, even if only slightly.  Sure, we might just go back to being really frustrated, but we must not forget that moment of clarity.  The more observant we become, the more moments of clarity we will have like this.  How often do we change the channel when it reaches a commercial without even thinking about it?  Do you even know why you changed the channel, or has it become so instinctively natural for you to do so that you haven't even realized that there was anxiety present?  "Oh, this channel doesn't satisfy me anymore, I desire something else."

So, the first step is to drive home the importance of increasing self-awareness.  Increasing self-awareness is a skill that is developed through continued practice.  As we become more self-aware, and as we gain more clarity and insight, then we can begin to find ways to replace negative habits of thinking and acting with positive ones.  Increasing self-awareness which results in clarity and insight develops hope for recovery, and hope for a better future when we realize that positive change is possible.  From hope stems motivation, from motivation stems positive intention to do better and think better which will reap positive results.  This is the path to recovery.

TL;DR:    
Understanding the importance of increased self-awareness leads to...
Motivation and intention to increase self-awareness leads to...
Increased self-awareness leads to...
Increased clarity and insight leads to...
Hope leads to...
Motivation to do better and think better leads to...
Positive habit formation leads to...
Positive results and recovery

December 6th, 2012.  250W.

BTW, you're a cunt Mr. Messiah Complex 

My personal model of therapy incorporates  CBT with a heavy dose of existentialism.  I cannot control how others respond to what I say.  I can only do my best to present what I have learned in my 10+ years of experience and intense study into the origins of human happiness and suffering.  I recognize that the people on this forum are generally of a different type and are generally more homogeneous than the clients I have worked with in hospital inpatient settings, and so my responses here are vastly more intricate than the ways in which I would present them to most clients that I have worked with in the past.   After spending some time with a client, I try to present my model in a way that I think the client will be able to resonate with.  Usually, I find that analogies work extremely well, so I often try to incorporate as many analogies as I can when working with someone.

Is the desire to eliminate desire negative if all desire is negative?

Your statements lead into those "self-resolving paradoxes" that I talked about.

When we look at our world in the 3rd dimension, we can describe what the 4th dimension might be like.  But, no matter how hard we try, it is impossible to intellectually understand the 4th dimension as it is the sum of all possible yes AND no operations in the 3rd dimension.

When I present an assertion such as "desire is a root cause of mental illness" which then leads to the inevitable conclusion that "all desire is negative," this naturally brings up questions such as "is the desire to eliminate desire negative if all desire is negative?" or the questions that you posited.

As I stated in an earlier post in this thread, due to the human intellect being confined to yes OR no operations only, we must pick a certain level of logical syntax and act as though it is the highest level of syntax.  From this syntax we can then resolve paradoxes that arise in lower levels of logical syntax.  The questions that you posited, and the question that I posited "i.e. is the desire to eliminate desire negative?", can be thrust into this lower level of syntax and resolved, even when we are actually talking about things that are only fit for a higher level of syntax (e.g. trying to understand the 4th dimension as if it were the 2nd dimension).

So, I would respond as follows:  On a certain level, yes, the desire to eliminate desire, the desire for happiness, the desire to eat, the desire to love, to obtain wisdom, etc.  is negative as it still implies dissatisfaction.  I don't know about you, but when I'm hungry, I get rather cranky.  When I long for knowledge or wisdom that I do not have, I feel inadequate.  Even when I desire to eliminate desire, I long for a certain state of contentment that I have only had glimpses of while in a state of deep meditation.

But, on a different level, desire can be good.  Desire and intention allow us to successfully navigate the world around us, to go out and obtain that food when we are hungry, to help the sick or poor in need, to learn, to develop skills, etc.  But remember, on a higher level of syntax, just as the 4th dimension relates to the 3rd dimension, desire is both good and bad simultaneously, and neither good nor bad simultaneously.  However, this type of statement simply cannot be comprehensively intellectualized.  

If you want a glimpse of how yes AND no operations operate, try to focus on your direct experience of phenomena.  Direct experiences in and of themselves prior to any intellectual abstraction are the unification of subject of object, and an experience of duality itself.  If you pay attention to the studies and works of quantum researchers, they are completely disinterested in any phenomena that cannot be observed.  Ever hear the old question, "If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it (i.e. observe it), did it make a sound?"  Quantum researchers don't care whatsoever about this kind of question -- it is more or less a nonsense question that isn't even worth trying to formulate any kind of intelligent response.

Quantum researchers only care about what is observed, and with good reason.  It is through the direct experience of phenomena that a glimpse of yes AND no operations arises, and it is something that the intellectual mind cannot fully comprehend.  In an attempt to understand direct experience, the rational mind must parse the experience -- whereas a direct experience is akin to duality itself, the rational mind parses duality into halves (remember, the root word of "rationale" is "ratio").  It is only from a comparison of yes and no states that anything can be rationally comprehended.

Important Point:  Keeping this in mind, lets go back to the question, "Is the desire to eliminate desire negative (if all desire is negative)?"  Well, if desire eliminates something negative, then it seems to be the opposite of negative (after all, it is axiomatic that removing the cause of something negative removes that which is negative).  So, this means that the desire to eliminate desire must be non-negative at the same time that it is negative!