Re: Mindfulness in the New York Times

A little criticism of the article...

  It does not mention how Kabat-Zinn and Linehan both have done a great deal
to structure their approach so it is empirically useful, offers anecdotes in
support of mindfulness and sweeping, rather vague claims against it. It does
cite a few studies, but also calls the evidence "thin".

  It mentions nothing of the neurology involved in mindfulness. And perhaps
worst of all, inflates the dangers of it. Dangers? in being mindful? I guess
must be some downside to being self-aware!
 
  I would have preferred that the article had more on a) DBT's success rate
with such a difficult population b) the comparative safety over, say, drugs
c) the many types of practice a therapist can draw on for every type of patient
and d) how a mindfulness approach certainly does not exclude any other type of
approach.

 A primary mistake in reporting on this subject is that rarely is it mentioned
that mindfulness is simply everyday engagement. I guess it is a "kind of sort of"
attempt to introduce it to the NYT readership. But on balance it doesn't seem to
say much at all.

I really should post some information on both Linehan's and Kabat-Zinn's work. It
is very important.