Totally agree with this. In fact I'm mystified where the idea comes from that all behaviour has to be voluntary, or can necessarily be trained out. Some behaviours will be involuntary at the deepest levels. Some involuntary behaviours can possibly be trained out, others not.
There are presumably easily confused areas as well. e.g. Shivering/twitching with a high fever?
And that "leap of faith" (
) from '3' to '4' is the real travesty. There seems to be this attempted land grab by the psychobabble people, that if it's something in the brain, then it must unconditionally be their territory ... which is b*llocks. There will be a great many physiological brain conditions that '3' is valid for, but which '4' is nonsense. A mindset that basically illustrates why their approach to science is so spurious.
Soldiers, police, etc, will have to do it to some degree, as well as sharpen other reflexes. I suspect many professions have to do it to some degree. For instance, though outside my own experience, I believe a survival technique is to not gasp when suddenly immersed into cold water; it is a reflex action that can kill you, but with training can be avoided. Many other such examples I believe. Of course some reflexes would be impossible and deeply unwise to try and change.
Shows that language itself can be at the root of some of this. A word such as "depression" is an umbrella word that covers many variations, but sounds like it means one thing. In-build conflation, ready-made for psychobabblers to exploit.
Here's something we should all be aware of.
Agreed, but we sometimes need to be much more careful about "blanket labelling" different things that are sometimes only loosely grouped, with a label that misleads into thinking they are the same thing. Not just talking about people who deliberately conflate issues, but about language itself, and the way language evolves. Once some conflation or other has, literally, become part of the language, confusion occurs inadvertently, which the unscrupulous can then ride on the back of, and exploit and perpetuate.
If you go back to the OP here, I did a brief intro to the concept. No, the concept definitely encompasses more than just cellular level stuff.
I agree with your caution here of course. The big flaw in the BPS thinking is the presumption that ME symptoms are modifiable by the changing of involuntary behaviours. If - and the "if" is all-important here - a situation exists where some latched condition persists due to a vicious circle, symptoms reinforced by behaviour that the symptoms foster, then it may be possible to break that vicious circle by changing the behaviour. But that is absolutely not what ME is! There is no such vicious circle, no more than there is with any other physiological disease. But it suits the BPS crowd to think there is.
Long time ago as a young person I had a great deal of growing up, readjustment and personal sorting out to do. I developed my own version of CBT, before it became the fad, and even longer before I ever heard of it. And it certainly is very helpful if the underlying problems are behaviour driven. But ME is not behaviour driven of course, so CBT is no ******* use at all in fixing it.
It most often is in my experience. That's why things must be defined in an exact manner, at least on paper and always in science. When speaking I always try to understand what the person in front me means by the words he uses. It may sound "technical", and most will say: "You cannot speak while defining everything". You should if misunderstandings occurr.
Woolie said:
Woolie said:
