There are different kinds of “hard”—for example hard and fun (beating the final Super Mario level), or hard and painful (finishing the last meters of a marathon run with a broken leg). The former kind of “hard” is great for deliberate practice, but I suppose the introvert socially overloaded during rationality lessons feels like the latter kind of “hard”.
If the goal of the lesson is dealing with the ugh fields, bringing people to their ugh fields may be useful. (But seems to me that CBT shows that this is better done slowly.) If the goal of the lesson is learning bayesian statistics or similar stuff, bringing people to their unrelated ugh fields is harmful. Challenging the introverted behavior has its place during the “comfort zone expansion” exercises, but is not essential for the remaining lessons.
If the goal of the lesson is dealing with the ugh fields, bringing people to their ugh fields may be useful. (But seems to me that CBT shows that this is better done slowly.)
That depends on what you mean with “better”. People who practice CBT are generally paid by the hour and don’t have a real issue to spend more time with an issue. That different than someone who wants to produce as much personal change as possible in 3 days.
Challenging the introverted behavior has its place during the “comfort zone expansion” exercises, but is not essential for the remaining lessons.
To me that seems like a strange way of doing things. Exercises should reinforce each other instead of being completely distinct.
different than someone who wants to produce as much personal change as possible in 3 days.
Sure. But the “we must make big changes in three days” model is itself a choice, which may turn out to be suboptimal for making long-term life changes.
Exercises should reinforce each other instead of being completely distinct.
As I understand it, it’s generally true of skills training that if there are multiple independent aspects to a skill (say, precision and power in a golf swing), the skill improves faster if I train those aspects separately.
There are different kinds of “hard”—for example hard and fun (beating the final Super Mario level), or hard and painful (finishing the last meters of a marathon run with a broken leg). The former kind of “hard” is great for deliberate practice, but I suppose the introvert socially overloaded during rationality lessons feels like the latter kind of “hard”.
If the goal of the lesson is dealing with the ugh fields, bringing people to their ugh fields may be useful. (But seems to me that CBT shows that this is better done slowly.) If the goal of the lesson is learning bayesian statistics or similar stuff, bringing people to their unrelated ugh fields is harmful. Challenging the introverted behavior has its place during the “comfort zone expansion” exercises, but is not essential for the remaining lessons.
That depends on what you mean with “better”. People who practice CBT are generally paid by the hour and don’t have a real issue to spend more time with an issue. That different than someone who wants to produce as much personal change as possible in 3 days.
To me that seems like a strange way of doing things. Exercises should reinforce each other instead of being completely distinct.
Sure. But the “we must make big changes in three days” model is itself a choice, which may turn out to be suboptimal for making long-term life changes.
As I understand it, it’s generally true of skills training that if there are multiple independent aspects to a skill (say, precision and power in a golf swing), the skill improves faster if I train those aspects separately.