I'm glad I managed to rekindle your interest in TEAM therapy!
Unless you have heard them already, I think the first 15-20 episodes give a pretty good overview of the structure and motivation of TEAM. The episodes with Mark, 29-35, also provide quite a good breakdown of the structure, since they stop and comment on each section before proceeding.
Regarding the podcasts, I agree that they are somewhat confusing and seem out of context, unless you listen to a substantial amount of them. I discovered the podcast before Feeling Great came out, and while the book is great, I think the podcast has helped me more on the "gut level" as it really drives the point home. I can definitely recommend listening to the live sessions in addition to reading the book - I've put together a list of some of the best episodes here.
Awesome, really glad that you've found the episodes helpful! I have also found that the live sessions focused on relationship issues to be some of the most enlightening ones. If you haven't already found them, there are several more episodes on the same theme. For example, you might be interested in listening to the ones with Mark:Live Session (Mark) — Introduction & Testing (Part 1)and the session with Brian:Anger in Marriage: The Five Secrets Revisited
Thanks for your comment!
Regarding your prior, yes I agree with this, and I also think the effectiveness of TEAM decreases dramatically with an unskilled therapist. All of the recorded live sessions are with David Burns, which might be an indication that it takes extreme practice to fully master it. I have only ever used it for "self-therapy", in order take the edge of some of my most self-critical thoughts as in the example. I think it works quite well for people who are looking for CBT-style therapy.
There are certainly similarities, but TEAM is a bit less "psychoanalytic" in the sense that it doesn't seek to unveil childhood trauma or anything like that. Instead, it focuses more on the here and now, and more on a person's positive qualities. The positive reframing step is meant to bring resistance to conscious awareness, since the patient usually do want to change their negative patterns of thought.
Immigration issues aside, I second the choice of the United Kingdom. Having lived in several European countries, the UK probably has one of the strongest intellectual cultures I've seen. The population is roughly that of California and Texas combined, and yet its combined cultural and scientific outputs is on par with the US as a whole (it has received the second largest number of Nobel prizes in the world, and in terms of Nobel prizes per capita it outperforms the US by a factor ~2). However, I would say that Oxford wouldn't be my first choice:
I would recommend living near London:
Where is the selection effect coming from? You'd think that the human body is large enough to host a range of different bacteria, so unless they have some way of competing within the body, sterilization would just remove some bacterial populations rather than select for those resistant to antibiotics.
Thanks, I agree that LW is a good place to start reading. I would add that LW can also be a good source for curated material, i.e. someone might post about the best primary and secondary sources to find out more about a topic.
I also get your point about "broad" vs "shallow". I do wonder what a good model would look like for reading since broad understanding in itself is relatively useless - it needs to be translated into shallow, technical understanding at some point.
Thanks, knowing about this game mode makes me want to play Civ again!
I was wondering if you have any thoughts on how we as individuals might act to acquire useful information effectively. A lot of information out there that we normally consume (social media/news etc) is often eye-catching or interesting but not very useful (it doesn't change our plans or outlook in life). Personally I would guess that books might be the best bet, but it can be hard to find the right ones.
I wondering if an hint of answer could be found by exploiting the fact that economic growth (which should be closely related to progress?) has been differential across the world over the past century. For example, you might argue that China and India are experiencing the same levels of economic growth as did Europe earlier in the 20th century. If this is the case, I would study how different indicators varies with the economic growth in Asia and Europe to find out if these indicators can explain the growth (or are explained by the growth). You could say look at whether energy (oil/gas/electricity/coal etc) usage is a leading or lagging indicator, and do something similar with "ideas" (patents/degrees/companies/advanced products). This should give some indication of what the most important factors of growth have been historically, and if they have been consistent in different parts of the world.