how can CBT deliver a better non drug outcome to reduce Substance addition triggered through addictive behaviour patterns that culture behaviour models with attention span mediation & human behaviour models ?
If I attend the word, "better", a question remains toward what that means, not simply in terms of general efficacy or optimization, but, and more importantly, particular outcomes.
Because after that, the next point to make is that such arts and sciences need to get better. Generally speaking, most program-package therapies—all requiring flexibility toward customization within their immediate circumstance, and many even proposing scalability in application—tend to view the behavioral economies they address far too simplistically.
In another context of psychoanalysis, I was recently chuckling to myself about an old cartoon, I think from the Lantz set, in which the protagonist gives a parent a book simply titled,
Child Psychology. Opening the book, the parent finds the pages cut out to hold a broad-paddle, steel-tined hairbrush, which is then used to beat the child. On camera. And it's supposed to be funny.
Around my area, one of the most enduring and effective addiction treatment centers is famous for being rather direct about its negative reinforcement.
Rigidity of cognitive conditioning is also really, really important, and I think of a society demanding, ever greater either fragmentation or overlap of attention spans, and increasing multivalence in function, yet ossification of behavioral expectation and goal assessment only reinforced demand for nearly, if not outright, impossible requisites.
I can't put a proper boundary or shape on the notion, but there are visceral moments, when one actually, behaviorally, lets go of something, and it is different from trying to intellectualize or even accept the outcome; one example would be the number of occasions and ways in which it keeps occurring to someone that the mere pursuit of Zen is preclusive, all the way down to even attending the word itself disrupting and preventing the state from occurring. Observe the contrast of conscious observance and living praxis. Consider Christians and questions of what God wants, or what Jesus would do; this is conscious observance. Those times when the kindness just comes out because that's what human beings do, those hint after and look more like living praxis; consider that in willful redemptive schemes, God knows when people are deciding according to a conscious question of what they think God wants.
Now, here's one: Every time you encounter information about psychology that is in any way new, the psychoanalysis of how you think also changes. Instantly, utterly, inherently.
I think of the first time I learned to consider human behavior in a zoological context; later, as behavioral economics solidified into a recognized discipline, merely observing how simple some decision structures could be in order to effect dramatic results in a population was utterly rattling.
Right now, the best of this research remains with marketing and advertising, both commercial and political. While manipulative marketing is nothing new in politics, it's true 2016 was a powerfully demonstrative year. Recent updates to user interfaces at Netflix and Twitter, alike, for instance, are clearly designed to limit and shape information access and, thereby, consumer behavior. They're hardly the only ones; a couple years ago, the trendy trick was to alter conditioned interface behavior in order that common actions result in different results intended to promote new products. The filthy secret, of course, is no secret: The greatest wealth of behavioral research in the free world is generally used to harm people. There is a reason the internet looks, clicks, swipes, and taps the way it does. Consider
Fischer↱, in 2017, on, "The death of the click", and consider it's not entirely irrelevant to remind, hey, remember when fake-autoplay clickbait became a website design trend. The death of the click as an analytical metric meant, per the Axios article, "Marketers are starting to attribute marketing success towards content exposure that drives you to click something, instead of the click itself."
That is simply a blatant example.
Meanwhile, consider that one need not know they are learning something about psychology and behavior; it could be subtly laced through the anthropology that is deeply buried in what reader and writer alike would describe as history.
Trying to tack back toward cognitive behavioral therapy in and of itself, it's also true I don't really know the state of the field, right now. A looming question has something to do with how fixed or dynamic are the baseline behavioral presuppositions describing the patient, subject, client, &c.? What of the decision trees describing expectations of both therapist and patient; how many layers, variations, or even dimensions, and what are the particular relationships between them?
I'm of the belief that conditioning can only accomplish so much, especially accounting for the listed associated factors, which I would colloquially describe as
noisy cognitive and behavioral disruption; to wit, if there is a lot of noise inside someone's thoughts, and we expect them to respond as if there wasn't, we're going about it wrongly. At the same time, trying to account for all of the noise vectors, and attend the perpetual dynamism of a moment unfixed and thus ceaseless, really does sound like a complicated proposition.
How much will be oriented toward settling the behavior, compared to what should be given toward reorienting the behavior itself. The thing is that while all solutions are imperfect, the better way to say it is that there are no absolute solutions; and if the applied therapy reorients the behavior without settling its pathology, the thereapeutic solution is held in place by a neurotic structure easily capable of fracturing, rupturing, or collapsing.
This sort of granularity is problematic, but still: If, for attention span or other noise-distraction dysfunction, one can easily be dislodged from addiction-disruption therapeutic behavior, conditioning, and results, it becomes really easy to suggest we revisit the presuppositions. That doesn't mean I can enumerate them, though.
And I know this part sounds silly, but there's a bit in my Twitter feed a few days back about the word "quite", and apparently it can cause contentious misunderstanding between Americans and those subjects of the British crown who we apparently confuse. I really haven't bothered looking it up more specifically because, really, if it's true, it will find its way to me again. But it does remind, in a strange way: What if the basic language of a given therapeutic approach toward just doesn't work in the context of an attention, signal-noise, or autism spectrum disorder?
Diversity and dynamism. I don't know the current cognitive-behavioral generalization about behavioral presuppositions at the heart of my most obvious questions. Still, if I say, for instance, that we can't "Dr. Phil" everyone back to function and expect it to work, sure, that's kind of blatant in its own right, but we might, as a more practical example, wonder if a given therapist is either failing or refusing to find communicative grounds by which the patient will actually trust therapist and, thereby, therapy.
Compared to your question, there is probably a lot that I'm missing.
____________________
Notes:
Fischer, Sara. "The Death of the Click". Axios. 20 February 2017. Axios.com. 28 July 2019. http://bit.ly/2mgSlwK
