Oh man, mindfulness is probably the actual biggest component of DBT in terms of time devoted to it according to the standard methods of DBT. There are three main "modules" taught over the course of the year, but mindfulness is taught and re-taught at the beginning of every module.
And that's an important aspect of looking at radical acceptance when it comes to DBT - Radical Acceptance isn't taught in isolation. In fact, it's only one component of the Distress Tolerance module, which is only one module of the main three (four if you count mindfulness as separate). I would say that the way I was taught Radical Acceptance, it's not so much about accepting everything in a passive way OR unconditionally. Rather, Radical Acceptance is an important concept for those who try to deny the existence of either their pain or the conditions that led to their pain. Try to imagine someone who's suppressing their emotions or constantly in battle with the existence of the emotions at all - Radical Acceptance is a method of getting past all that energy being devoted to fighting it. It's also a way to move past the feeling of "it's not fair that this happened to me". (Note that I'm probably missing quite a bit of nuance because I haven't studied it for a while.)
In DBT we were also taught to separate controllable and uncontrollables, though the definitions of the two may differ somewhat from stoicism. For example, many people had to be taught that they cannot control what other people do or say or think. Controllables were mainly focused on one's own actions. This would then incorporate other aspects of DBT such as training to balance self-respect with the ability to maintain relationships with others, and so on and so on. DBT is a very action-oriented therapy in my experience, so when Radical Acceptance is taught, it's difficult to see it as a passive tool. It's included in the Distress Tolerance module as a method for surviving distress until you can change something controllable.
Thank you for elaborating on this. Judging from what you said I don't think there is much difference between stoic acceptance and DBT . The stoic view on control is also similar with what you described: we can control our actions thoughts and feelings but we can't control how other act or what they think about us.
The main difference between the two is in their purpose, DBT is a therapeutically tool that assumes the individual already suffers some traumatic pain or other unwanted emotions while stoicism is a life philosophy that it's supposed to be practiced constantly so it focuses more on preventing that kind of traumatic pain from arising in the first place. Psychotherapy doesn't have that luxury since people are unlikely to seek help before they need it.
In other words DBT is more focused so it's probably more equipped to deal with pain because it's has a lot more practical tools while stoicism is more general so it has a wider range of applications. Stoic methods are just as often used for enhancing positive emotions as in getting rid of negative ones. It also often used in coping with success and and ultimately in leading a life of "virtue" which is stoic's ultimate goal.
If you will allow me one more question about DBT: what it's DBT's view on emotion? Is it something within our control or just something that happens to us and that we have to accept?
Your last question is very pertinent, actually, because I would say DBT doesn't argue that you can control emotion - but it doesn't state that they're completely out of your control either. I don't think anything is actually ascertained explicitly when it comes to how controllable emotions are. I think because people coming into DBT already feel like their emotions are in control of them, to say "no, you can control those emotions that you feel are ruining your life" would only serve to invalidate them and make it more difficult to teach them how to increase their quality of life.
For example, a common metaphor brought up in DBT is the idea of seeing emotions as ships on a body of water. If you try to force ships away from you, they'll often get stuck in a sandbar and no amount of forcing will help (a metaphor for negative emotions). If you try to keep them closer, the ship eventually has to sail away (a metaphor for positive emotions). DBT focuses less on controlling emotions explicitly and more in partaking in actions (mindfulness exercises, distress tolerance methods, visualization exercises, etc. etc.) that will inevitably lead to reducing the intensity of painful emotions. While this may seem like controlling emotions, I think they explicitly don't call it that because of how easily it is to mix that up with suppressing emotions, which is not something they want to encourage with those who require DBT therapy in the first place.
That being said, I'm in no way an expert and I don't have my gigantic binder beside me with all the DBT modules and descriptions, so please take my conclusions with a hefty grain of salt. I'm sure someone who's done a PhD involving such therapies would likely find a ton of flaws in my statements.
You make a very good point about how telling people from the beginning that they can control their emotion could be seen as invalidating by them. I think a mixed approach where you begin by acknowledging and validating the other person's feelings and experience then guide them towards methods of improving those feelings would work best.
The metaphor you used for controlling emotions is very apt. Which is why stoics don't try to control their emotions directly but influence them by changing their cations and perspective. Stoics are opposed to suppressing emotions. The stoic way of dealing with an unwanted emotion is to acknowledge it but not let it control your actions. Then they analyze what they felt try to find the cause of the emotion and change their perspective in such a way that the emotion becomes irrelevant.
Oh man, mindfulness is probably the actual biggest component of DBT in terms of time devoted to it according to the standard methods of DBT. There are three main "modules" taught over the course of the year, but mindfulness is taught and re-taught at the beginning of every module.
And that's an important aspect of looking at radical acceptance when it comes to DBT - Radical Acceptance isn't taught in isolation. In fact, it's only one component of the Distress Tolerance module, which is only one module of the main three (four if you count mindfulness as separate). I would say that the way I was taught Radical Acceptance, it's not so much about accepting everything in a passive way OR unconditionally. Rather, Radical Acceptance is an important concept for those who try to deny the existence of either their pain or the conditions that led to their pain. Try to imagine someone who's suppressing their emotions or constantly in battle with the existence of the emotions at all - Radical Acceptance is a method of getting past all that energy being devoted to fighting it. It's also a way to move past the feeling of "it's not fair that this happened to me". (Note that I'm probably missing quite a bit of nuance because I haven't studied it for a while.)
In DBT we were also taught to separate controllable and uncontrollables, though the definitions of the two may differ somewhat from stoicism. For example, many people had to be taught that they cannot control what other people do or say or think. Controllables were mainly focused on one's own actions. This would then incorporate other aspects of DBT such as training to balance self-respect with the ability to maintain relationships with others, and so on and so on. DBT is a very action-oriented therapy in my experience, so when Radical Acceptance is taught, it's difficult to see it as a passive tool. It's included in the Distress Tolerance module as a method for surviving distress until you can change something controllable.
Thank you for elaborating on this. Judging from what you said I don't think there is much difference between stoic acceptance and DBT . The stoic view on control is also similar with what you described: we can control our actions thoughts and feelings but we can't control how other act or what they think about us.
The main difference between the two is in their purpose, DBT is a therapeutically tool that assumes the individual already suffers some traumatic pain or other unwanted emotions while stoicism is a life philosophy that it's supposed to be practiced constantly so it focuses more on preventing that kind of traumatic pain from arising in the first place. Psychotherapy doesn't have that luxury since people are unlikely to seek help before they need it.
In other words DBT is more focused so it's probably more equipped to deal with pain because it's has a lot more practical tools while stoicism is more general so it has a wider range of applications. Stoic methods are just as often used for enhancing positive emotions as in getting rid of negative ones. It also often used in coping with success and and ultimately in leading a life of "virtue" which is stoic's ultimate goal.
If you will allow me one more question about DBT: what it's DBT's view on emotion? Is it something within our control or just something that happens to us and that we have to accept?
Your last question is very pertinent, actually, because I would say DBT doesn't argue that you can control emotion - but it doesn't state that they're completely out of your control either. I don't think anything is actually ascertained explicitly when it comes to how controllable emotions are. I think because people coming into DBT already feel like their emotions are in control of them, to say "no, you can control those emotions that you feel are ruining your life" would only serve to invalidate them and make it more difficult to teach them how to increase their quality of life.
For example, a common metaphor brought up in DBT is the idea of seeing emotions as ships on a body of water. If you try to force ships away from you, they'll often get stuck in a sandbar and no amount of forcing will help (a metaphor for negative emotions). If you try to keep them closer, the ship eventually has to sail away (a metaphor for positive emotions). DBT focuses less on controlling emotions explicitly and more in partaking in actions (mindfulness exercises, distress tolerance methods, visualization exercises, etc. etc.) that will inevitably lead to reducing the intensity of painful emotions. While this may seem like controlling emotions, I think they explicitly don't call it that because of how easily it is to mix that up with suppressing emotions, which is not something they want to encourage with those who require DBT therapy in the first place.
That being said, I'm in no way an expert and I don't have my gigantic binder beside me with all the DBT modules and descriptions, so please take my conclusions with a hefty grain of salt. I'm sure someone who's done a PhD involving such therapies would likely find a ton of flaws in my statements.
You make a very good point about how telling people from the beginning that they can control their emotion could be seen as invalidating by them. I think a mixed approach where you begin by acknowledging and validating the other person's feelings and experience then guide them towards methods of improving those feelings would work best.
The metaphor you used for controlling emotions is very apt. Which is why stoics don't try to control their emotions directly but influence them by changing their cations and perspective. Stoics are opposed to suppressing emotions. The stoic way of dealing with an unwanted emotion is to acknowledge it but not let it control your actions. Then they analyze what they felt try to find the cause of the emotion and change their perspective in such a way that the emotion becomes irrelevant.
Our discussion inspired me to post an explanation on how stoics view control: http://snapzu.com/ReV/what-we-control/
You can also check out this blog about the application of stoicism in modern psychotherapy.