I get the idea but not completely. maybe because I haven’t noticed my own struggles with why.
‘How has resolved issues I once thought intractable.’- could you give an example please? or just theoretical one, doesn’t have to be your own. I’m not sure I feel how the ‘how’ works so well without the ‘why’.
yes it helps. thank you very much for the detailed answer. this fits very well with my own conclusions of late. that insight into the ‘origin story’ is useless except to help one avoid the how in the now. and in general I’ve found most insights to be useless without implementing a how in the now. it gives the satisfaction of ‘understanding’ and ‘knowledge’ without the risk of actually putting yourself out there in the unknown in the attempt to change yourself in any meaningful way.
A “why” lens assumes hidden origins that need to be dug up. From that, we derive “understanding", which is world famous for not only changing nothing, but often making things worse. Often it's wrong, made up, or self-serving. Gold-standard CBT doesn't really address it for these reasons.
A “how” lens asks: What pattern now? Steps leading to or maintaining this? What cognitive trap do I run? Avoidance? Rumination? Muscle tension? Breathing patterns? Catastrophising thoughts... prior to an attack, etc These are steps in real time that lead to the behaviour.
i.e., Anxiety doesn’t just appear; there are steps we take to get there. We run these things, even if unconsciously. There is no time-travelling puppeteer sitting in our past, pulling strings.
You don’t need the Batman origin story to change the sequence/process as it is now. There are steps to riding a bike, how to; there are steps to running a behaviour, if you know what to look for.
Change/deenergise the steps, and the outcome changes.
If you want to understand this from a more scientific lens look up Korzybski. Hope this helps!
I get the idea but not completely. maybe because I haven’t noticed my own struggles with why.
‘How has resolved issues I once thought intractable.’- could you give an example please? or just theoretical one, doesn’t have to be your own. I’m not sure I feel how the ‘how’ works so well without the ‘why’.
yes it helps. thank you very much for the detailed answer. this fits very well with my own conclusions of late. that insight into the ‘origin story’ is useless except to help one avoid the how in the now. and in general I’ve found most insights to be useless without implementing a how in the now. it gives the satisfaction of ‘understanding’ and ‘knowledge’ without the risk of actually putting yourself out there in the unknown in the attempt to change yourself in any meaningful way.
Take anxiety in social situations.
A “why” lens assumes hidden origins that need to be dug up. From that, we derive “understanding", which is world famous for not only changing nothing, but often making things worse. Often it's wrong, made up, or self-serving. Gold-standard CBT doesn't really address it for these reasons.
A “how” lens asks: What pattern now? Steps leading to or maintaining this? What cognitive trap do I run? Avoidance? Rumination? Muscle tension? Breathing patterns? Catastrophising thoughts... prior to an attack, etc These are steps in real time that lead to the behaviour.
i.e., Anxiety doesn’t just appear; there are steps we take to get there. We run these things, even if unconsciously. There is no time-travelling puppeteer sitting in our past, pulling strings.
You don’t need the Batman origin story to change the sequence/process as it is now. There are steps to riding a bike, how to; there are steps to running a behaviour, if you know what to look for.
Change/deenergise the steps, and the outcome changes.
If you want to understand this from a more scientific lens look up Korzybski. Hope this helps!