Effectiveness of cognitive behavioral therapy on health‐related quality of life: An evaluation of therapies provided by trainee therapists

The present study was carried out to examine the treatment effect of cognitive behavioral therapy provided by trainee therapists at a university clinic, focusing on health‐related quality of life (HRQOL) optimism and symptoms. The study was conducted through a repeated measures design and included a treatment group (n = 21), which received cognitive behavioral therapy for an average of 10.7 therapy sessions and a control group (n = 14), that was put on a wait list for 8.6 weeks on average. After treatment, the treatment group improved significantly concerning general health (p = 0.028) and optimism (p = 0.027). In addition, clients improved in several areas within mental health and displayed some reduction in anxiety symptoms. Concurrently, the results also indicated some improvement within the control group, which may have been caused by the initial therapeutic contact, expectancy effects or spontaneous remission. The study concluded that cognitive behavioral therapy provided by trainee therapists may have a positive effect on areas within HRQOL and optimism.     

Against representations with two directions of fit

The idea that there are representations with a double direction of fit has acquired a pride of place in contemporary debates on the ontology of institutions. This paper will argue against the very idea of anything at all having both directions of fit. There is a simple problem which has thus far gone unnoticed. The suggestion that there are representations with both directions of fit amounts to a suggestion that, in cases of discrepancy between a representation and the world, both should change—the representation and the world. But that would merely amount to another discrepancy, and so both should change again, ad infinitum. The paper will first elucidate the notion of a “direction of fit” and clarify how the criticism to be presented here differs from earlier criticisms (Section 1).The next section sheds some light on why and how acts and attitudes with both directions of fit have seemed to play a part in explaining the existence of institutional reality (Section 2). The next sections present the argument against any representations with both directions of fit, relying on a normative understanding of the distinction. The argument will have three steps (Sections 3, 4, and 5). The section that follows shows that the criticism also applies to the dispositional understanding of the notion of a direction of fit (Section 6), and then the paper asks whether a third kind of reading would be available (Section 7) and whether the infallibility of the relevant representations would be of help (Section 8). Finally, the paper assesses briefly the consequences of dropping the notion of two directions of fit (Section 9).     

Danto's rejection of immanent causation

This article suggests first that the concept of interpersonal recognition be understood in a multidimensional (as opposed to one-dimensional), practical (as opposed to symbolic), and strict (as opposed to broad) way. Second, it is argued that due recognition be seen as a reason-governed response to evaluative features, rather than all normativity and reasons being seen as generated by recognition. This can be called a response-model, or, more precisely, a value-based model of due recognition. A further suggestion is that there is a systematic basis for distinguishing three dimensions of recognition, depending on whether recognition is given to someone qua a person, qua a certain kind of person, or qua a certain person. Finally, it is argued that recognition is a necessary condition of personhood, but whether it is of direct or indirect relevance depends on our theories of personhood (social vs. capacity-theory) and practical identity (dialogical definition model vs. feature-model). Despite the apparent opposition, it is shown that interpersonal recognition is both a response to value and a precondition of personhood.     

Misrecognition, Misrecognition, and Fallibility

Misrecognition from other individuals and social institutions is by its dynamic or ‘logic’ such that it can lead to distorted relations-to-self, such as self-hatred, and can truncate the development of the central capabilities of persons. Thus it is worth trying to shed light on how misrecognition differs from adequate recognition, and on how misrecognition might differ from other kinds of mistreatment and disregard. This paper suggests that misrecognition (including nonrecognition) is a matter of inadequate responsiveness to the normatively relevant features of someone (their personhood, merits, needs etc.), and that if the kind of mistreatment in question obeys the general dynamic or ‘logic’ of mutual recognition and relations-to-self, then it may be called ‘misrecognition’. Further, this article considers the multiple connections between misrecognition and human fallibility. The capacity to get things wrong or make mistakes (that is, fallibility) is first of all a condition of misrecognition. Furthermore, there are two lessons that we can draw from fallibility. The first one points towards minimal objectivism: if something is to count as a mistake or incorrect response, there must accordingly exist a fact of the matter or a correct response. The other lesson points towards public equality: if our capacity to get things right on our own is limited, then public, shared norms will probably help. Such norms are easier to know and follow than objective normative truths, and they may contain collective cumulative wisdom; and of course the process of creating public norms embodies in itself an important form of mutual recognition between citizens.     

Effects of an Online Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Intervention on Children’s Quality of Life

Journal of Child and Family Studies - The present study examined if an Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT)–based online intervention for parents had indirect effects on their...     

Unity for the sake of missions

Pentecostal-Charismatic Christians form a block of over 600 million people inside Christianity. This article assesses the theological and missiological reasons behind the development of Pentecostal-Charismatic Christians since the beginning of the 20th century. Pentecostals have been hesitant in developing contacts with the World Council of Churches (WCC) and conciliar churches, fearing to be connected to a collaboration that is more human-oriented than spirit-oriented. Slowly, however, the openness toward visible, concrete cooperation on a larger basis has developed in mutual dialogue with others, such as the Global Christian Forum, which represents the Roman Catholic Church, the WCC, the World Evangelical Alliance, and the Pentecostal World Fellowship. Pentecostals today are involved in many kinds of collaboration between the different denominations among themselves but also with other evangelical and even conciliar churches when possible, to fulfil the Great Commission of Jesus Christ.     

Pedagogy as a Framework for a Proper Dialogue between Science and Literature

An aim of science is to find truths about reality. These truths are collected together to form systematic knowledge structures called theories. Theories are intended to create a truthful picture of the reality behind the study. Together with all the other fields of science we get a (complete) scientific picture or a world view. This scientific world view is open in the sense that not all truths are known by scientists and not all present day theories are true. So, there is no reason to assume that any field of science has been or will be completed; science is essentially progressive, or an open ended approach. Science is not the only method of picturing, but the view that science is the best human method for knowledge acquisition is well justified. Knowledge is not all we humans are looking for; we need to make our lives meaningful. The meaningfulness may be achieved through science, art, or practical activity. It is interesting to compare literature and science. Both are expressed linguistically, but the aims of literature and science seem to be very different. We are looking for the theoretical interconnection between science and literature, but the proper dialogue can be found not through science, literature or philosophy, but through pedagogy.