Belief and Thought in Therapy
The words belief and thought are the two most misused ones in the English vocabulary.
The difference is a vital to understanding the transformation process.
This is important to anyone seeking change in themselves or others.
This includes improving performance, effecting accelerated healing, and resolving any dysfunctions in how we behave - and think.
A belief involves the relationship between a perception or concept and a previously established meaning and understanding.
In other words, I may say that I think that today is Friday.
But that is incorrect.
Saying that I believe it is Friday is what I actually mean.
When our senses detect an object, we receive a suggestion, or our imagination conceives an idea, our brain is designed to rapidly find previously programmed associations.
This allows us to instantaneously establish meaning and develop an understanding.
For this to work we need to have already programmed our mind with the correct association.
As this is a programming phenomenon, beliefs are synonymous with habituated mental patterns and behaviors.
In other words, we are programmed to become who we are.
The role of a therapist or someone seeking self-transformation, is to change these beliefs.
When perceptions, suggestion, and imagination are not readily matched with existing patterns of meaning in your brain, then new associations must be developed.
This process is often very uncomfortable and may even cause considerable mental suffering as the adaptation process occurs.
This happens since belief habituation is a dominant human characteristic.
Indeed, for the vast majority the word happiness can be defined as the situation that exists when habituated beliefs are not challenged, i.
e.
the expected and routine always happen.
(That is, of course, unless a person has habituated the thinking process.
In that case, mundane belief habituation would be a source of unhappiness to the thinker.
) Let me give an example of the difference between the two.
Suppose you are in a window-less room that has one door.
Previously you were taught that the door represented the potential action of leaving the room.
That established meaning is a belief.
It has been programmed into you.
You do not question it.
However, what if you desired to leave the room and tried using the door, but could not get it to open.
Or, suppose that the room had no door.
If you were committed to your exit plan, how would you get out? Your solution would be the byproduct of the thinking process, rather than a belief.
Your clients and patients come to you because they have dysfunctional habituated beliefs.
These patterns represent a level of comfort as they are known and expected.
However, somehow they have recognized that their belief patterns have come into conflict with each other.
For example, their desire to take illegal drugs may conflict with their belief (i.
e.
value) that staying out of jail is important.
They realize that these conflicts refuse to allow them to be happy and may even affect their relationships, health, and possibly lead to self-destructive behaviors.
This motivation to change comes into conflict with their new-found realizations.
They come to you for help.
Changing belief patterns requires a thinking process.
New perceptions, suggestions, and imagined phenomena must enter their brain.
These must be sufficiently antithetical to become powerful enough to promote change.
This adaptive and entraining process is the same as a thinking process.
Any study of Dr.
Milton H.
Erickson's therapeutic methods will reveal his continual use of challenging situations that encourage this to happen.
Additionally, Bill O'Hanlon's do one thing different concept also supports my point.
However, the problem that I frequently notice is that the success of such an intervention relies on the subject's competence when it comes to thinking.
Indeed, if a person has extremely strong habituated beliefs, they may have less ability to change - and be more susceptible to acquiring addictive behaviors.
Likewise, a clinician's mental rigidity will also tend to retard progress.
The ability to think, which is the hallmark of creative and inventive minds, requires two essential characteristics.
The first is cognitive flexibility that comes when the brain's energy concentration can smoothly shift from one set of functions to another.
(Please note that I am not referring to pathologically damaging multi-tasking.
) The second characteristic is the development of competence in the parts of the brain that are uniquely associated with the thinking process.
Habituated beliefs are neurologically concentrated in the temporal and parietal regions of the brain.
Conversely, thinking is predominantly a feature of the higher brain functions represented by the advanced human frontal lobe.
A person who is predominantly driven by habituated belief patterns will not have the same neurological development in their frontal lobes - and especially their prefrontal lobes.
This means that even when the clinician uses challenging interventions, their client simply does not have the mental "muscles" required to respond as hoped.
This is why it is necessary to have a multitude of techniques so that you can find one or more that will achieve the desired result.
A person with more developed thinking competency - which may very well be the same as a higher IQ - will respond to challenging interventions.
Otherwise, a more directive approach of providing them with new belief patterns will most likely be the best approach.
These new patterns can be installed through direct suggestion or some type of parallel, metaphorical communication.
The other critical mental characteristic involves the existence of the two aforementioned thinking characteristics in the mind of the clinician.
Does the clinician possess the cognitive flexibility and the frontal lobe thinking competency required to effectively use creative and challenging interventions? Or, are they stuck in a rigid mindset controlled by schools of psychological theory and/or the strictures of peer-established associations? As educational and certification programs tend to emphasize indoctrination rather than critical or flexible thinking, assuming that multiple graduate degrees and certifications equate with intellectual thinking is an unfortunately erroneous illusion.
While a balance toward habituated belief pattern rigidity in the minds of the subject or therapist is a real consideration that needs to be considered, this is not an insurmountable problem.
As pointed out above, when working with any subject it is necessary to make the correct assessment and choose appropriate interventions.
However, this does not negate a clinician's opportunity to continually encourage their subject to engage in more and more intellectual thought.
As increasing thought competency is correlated to more efficient transformation, this should be encouraged.
Of course, this applies to the clinician, who should always seek novel ideas even if they seem farfetched.
Although I often get accused of seeking to argue semantics, it is our precise use of the symbols and meanings related linguistics that differentiates one from the banal and allows a movement toward a more accurate understanding.
By grasping the difference between the concepts of belief and thinking, a clinician can understand the why their subject seems to be hopelessly mired in restrictions of their limited beliefs.
It is through the development of competent thinking capacity that our true human potential as a creator of our destiny emerges.
The difference is a vital to understanding the transformation process.
This is important to anyone seeking change in themselves or others.
This includes improving performance, effecting accelerated healing, and resolving any dysfunctions in how we behave - and think.
A belief involves the relationship between a perception or concept and a previously established meaning and understanding.
In other words, I may say that I think that today is Friday.
But that is incorrect.
Saying that I believe it is Friday is what I actually mean.
When our senses detect an object, we receive a suggestion, or our imagination conceives an idea, our brain is designed to rapidly find previously programmed associations.
This allows us to instantaneously establish meaning and develop an understanding.
For this to work we need to have already programmed our mind with the correct association.
As this is a programming phenomenon, beliefs are synonymous with habituated mental patterns and behaviors.
In other words, we are programmed to become who we are.
The role of a therapist or someone seeking self-transformation, is to change these beliefs.
When perceptions, suggestion, and imagination are not readily matched with existing patterns of meaning in your brain, then new associations must be developed.
This process is often very uncomfortable and may even cause considerable mental suffering as the adaptation process occurs.
This happens since belief habituation is a dominant human characteristic.
Indeed, for the vast majority the word happiness can be defined as the situation that exists when habituated beliefs are not challenged, i.
e.
the expected and routine always happen.
(That is, of course, unless a person has habituated the thinking process.
In that case, mundane belief habituation would be a source of unhappiness to the thinker.
) Let me give an example of the difference between the two.
Suppose you are in a window-less room that has one door.
Previously you were taught that the door represented the potential action of leaving the room.
That established meaning is a belief.
It has been programmed into you.
You do not question it.
However, what if you desired to leave the room and tried using the door, but could not get it to open.
Or, suppose that the room had no door.
If you were committed to your exit plan, how would you get out? Your solution would be the byproduct of the thinking process, rather than a belief.
Your clients and patients come to you because they have dysfunctional habituated beliefs.
These patterns represent a level of comfort as they are known and expected.
However, somehow they have recognized that their belief patterns have come into conflict with each other.
For example, their desire to take illegal drugs may conflict with their belief (i.
e.
value) that staying out of jail is important.
They realize that these conflicts refuse to allow them to be happy and may even affect their relationships, health, and possibly lead to self-destructive behaviors.
This motivation to change comes into conflict with their new-found realizations.
They come to you for help.
Changing belief patterns requires a thinking process.
New perceptions, suggestions, and imagined phenomena must enter their brain.
These must be sufficiently antithetical to become powerful enough to promote change.
This adaptive and entraining process is the same as a thinking process.
Any study of Dr.
Milton H.
Erickson's therapeutic methods will reveal his continual use of challenging situations that encourage this to happen.
Additionally, Bill O'Hanlon's do one thing different concept also supports my point.
However, the problem that I frequently notice is that the success of such an intervention relies on the subject's competence when it comes to thinking.
Indeed, if a person has extremely strong habituated beliefs, they may have less ability to change - and be more susceptible to acquiring addictive behaviors.
Likewise, a clinician's mental rigidity will also tend to retard progress.
The ability to think, which is the hallmark of creative and inventive minds, requires two essential characteristics.
The first is cognitive flexibility that comes when the brain's energy concentration can smoothly shift from one set of functions to another.
(Please note that I am not referring to pathologically damaging multi-tasking.
) The second characteristic is the development of competence in the parts of the brain that are uniquely associated with the thinking process.
Habituated beliefs are neurologically concentrated in the temporal and parietal regions of the brain.
Conversely, thinking is predominantly a feature of the higher brain functions represented by the advanced human frontal lobe.
A person who is predominantly driven by habituated belief patterns will not have the same neurological development in their frontal lobes - and especially their prefrontal lobes.
This means that even when the clinician uses challenging interventions, their client simply does not have the mental "muscles" required to respond as hoped.
This is why it is necessary to have a multitude of techniques so that you can find one or more that will achieve the desired result.
A person with more developed thinking competency - which may very well be the same as a higher IQ - will respond to challenging interventions.
Otherwise, a more directive approach of providing them with new belief patterns will most likely be the best approach.
These new patterns can be installed through direct suggestion or some type of parallel, metaphorical communication.
The other critical mental characteristic involves the existence of the two aforementioned thinking characteristics in the mind of the clinician.
Does the clinician possess the cognitive flexibility and the frontal lobe thinking competency required to effectively use creative and challenging interventions? Or, are they stuck in a rigid mindset controlled by schools of psychological theory and/or the strictures of peer-established associations? As educational and certification programs tend to emphasize indoctrination rather than critical or flexible thinking, assuming that multiple graduate degrees and certifications equate with intellectual thinking is an unfortunately erroneous illusion.
While a balance toward habituated belief pattern rigidity in the minds of the subject or therapist is a real consideration that needs to be considered, this is not an insurmountable problem.
As pointed out above, when working with any subject it is necessary to make the correct assessment and choose appropriate interventions.
However, this does not negate a clinician's opportunity to continually encourage their subject to engage in more and more intellectual thought.
As increasing thought competency is correlated to more efficient transformation, this should be encouraged.
Of course, this applies to the clinician, who should always seek novel ideas even if they seem farfetched.
Although I often get accused of seeking to argue semantics, it is our precise use of the symbols and meanings related linguistics that differentiates one from the banal and allows a movement toward a more accurate understanding.
By grasping the difference between the concepts of belief and thinking, a clinician can understand the why their subject seems to be hopelessly mired in restrictions of their limited beliefs.
It is through the development of competent thinking capacity that our true human potential as a creator of our destiny emerges.