Knowledge is a tree, not a conclusion, and it has been a tree for all of time. Sometime, however, it verboten in the Bible with a didactic “tale” apparently by oligarchs telling the average religious person to view the tree of knowledge and its information as verboten. This is the beginning of the limits and control of information necessary for oligarchic dominance, as opposed to capital-type control which is more commodity-based --though information is now a commodity as “intellectual property.” (With “intellectual” being a strong word for the slurry capital pumps into the population.)
The most important extension of this type of information control currently exists as academia with its early revival of control as the dialectic and didactic by academy founders Socrates and Plato in ancient Athens, and recently by Hegel to fit current capital. Important is that these instructors specifically used sexual abuse to control, which survived to our time as, for instance, the Aboriginal residence schools openly, and covertly elsewhere.
Causality is a rational reduction of the complexity of life saying that “if something happens in relation to something else, that something else caused the first thing.” As a rational reduction, it is a “dumbing-down” of all the highly sophisticade life-system that affect us. Knowledge is naturally structured both in society and in our minds in tree structures, also called “complex data structures” Personally, I have never been “causal” (I believe) because I have been influenced by aboriginal knowledge organization, and also abstract art and music early on as a child with access to all of New York’s museums and libraries (access has since been restricted to children.)
If I something is unavoidably causal, I say “simple math” --this causes that, w/o making a bid deal about it.
Empiricism is the scientific method (and system) built from causality and is considered the only (measurement) science, even by scientist who should know better. It suffers from being highly-fractured, as it is built from independent causal conclusions that also tend to be ego-vehicles from empiricist scientists. Another widely-misused term is “objective” as a synomym for “cruel” such that normal human thinking, such as the recollection of experiences, is excluded from empiricist conclusions; only empiricist numbers are used, often as an output of highly-purposed statistical systems. Dependance on statistics is such that statistics now often produce hypothesis and theory, that is validated by the same statistical systems. Information from other sources such as experience and observation, no matter how detailed, cannot test well against conclusive information produced specifically to test well by statistical systems. This statistical reality is most true for current control of the mind (both human and animal) in cognitive-behavioral strategies of CBT. Interestingly, in CBT, the dialectic method as the socratic method is also key for (as they say) “thought control.”
Objectivism, such as Ayn Rand’s and (current-capital’s) Adam Smith’s objectivism simply “objectify’s” people to make then inanimate numbers rather than feeling people to allow for capital exploitation. As it happens, capital-supporting empiricism, as info-oligarchic, also leverages this, and fills its capital-supportive role by defining and maintaining it as its own from of exploitation, originally sexual abuse.
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Stages of Change in addiction
In the first phase, precontemplation, the client is in denial of his problem, yet he has come to therapy; the clinician understands from the nature of this first phase that patience is necessary as the client may leave therapy if too much cognizance of the problem is expected. In the second stage, contemplation, the client is only grasping the problem and that concrete change will happen in the next two stages. In this context, the other steps in the model are somewhat self-explanatory: preparation, action, maintenance, and relapse. Clients will cycle through stages, but always with a positive approach to change (Noar, Benac & Harris, 2007).
Validating the model's effectiveness is not the same as comparing it to other treatments as it is not a treatment. It can be used as an abstraction of the process to provide, for instance, demarcations for client progress (Callaghan, 2008), though a recent study suggested that the model needed further refinement as clients were having positive outcomes before reaching the action phase. The model can also be used to "tailor" intervention strategies to meet clients' unique needs within each of the model's phases (Noar, 2007). At least one study shows the effectiveness of this use of the model, and there has been commercial implementation.
Callaghan, R. C., Taylor, L., Moore, B. A., Jungerman, F. S., Vilela, F., & Budney, A. J. (2008). Recovery and URICA stage-of-change scores in three marijuana treatment studies. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 35(4), 419-426. doi:10.1016/j.jsat.2008.03.004
Donovan, D., & Diclemente, C. (2004). Substance abuse treatment and the stages of change: Selecting and planning interventions. New York: The Guilford Press.
Noar, S. M., Benac, C. N., & Harris, M. S. (2007). Does tailoring matter? Meta-analytic review of railored print health behavior change interventions. Psychological Bulletin. 133(4).