If we were to split up the practitioners of psychotherapy into to distinct groups, I think that one criterion that splits them might have to do with the relationship the therapist has with emotion. Better said: Will the facilitator allow himself or herself to feel with/due to the client? Feeling takes real energy from the practitioner that can manifest later or can crop up outside the relationship. It could also be a subjective marker for the client. Does feeling help the therapy process? Perhaps feeling leads to ethical dilemmas. Many of those sound, negative but assuredly there is much that is positive here.
As far as different theories are concerned, I think that we can all agree that fundamentalist clinicians, if such a thing were to exist, would come down on one side of this argument. More humanistic practitioners would describe the importance of being in the moment with the client, experiencing what they are experiencing to some degree. More cognitive therapists, by nature, would eschew such tactics and really heavily on the thought process of the client. Both the nature of the therapy and role of the clinician as expert would not really allow the therapist the space to identify the clients/their own emotional circumstances.
Were the therapist to allow himself or herself to feel, would there be any negative side effects in the session? Sure, emotions can be distracting. The clinician must not only track and pursue the emotions of the client, but must also keep a tight hold on his or her own feelings. These could cloud the counselor's judgement, disallowing good therapy to occur. It is very possible that, based on a clinician's own past, an intervention could fail. Feeling also takes up energy that the therapist could use thinking, filling out paperwork, or relaxing.
The client must e taken into account as well. Does he or she respect the emotional spectrum? Is there a previous diagnosis that precludes accessing emotional data? Just as the style of therapy should match the therapist, of course that same style should match the client. There are some who either militantly do not wish to access their emotions, or are so cognitive that emotions play little part in their lives. With these clients, showing what the therapist feels would be uncomfortable and, for them, almost bordering on inappropriate.
Feeling emotions is one thing, but showing them is altogether different. While the argument for or against showing emotions is not over, I'd like to cover this. Some clients would like the therapist to show some kind of emotion - this could vary from a slight pinching in the eyes in empathetic pain, to openly weeping. Personally, I would say that the former is better than the latter. There are some clients that might take advantage of the therapist of the latter emotional persuasion. Covering up emotions can also take up important time and energy that could be used for other things.
Opinion time: I am an advocate of the therapist feeling in session. There are some definite negative possibilities to the equation there, though. A therapist can choose to act on the feelings, engaging in either predatory, maleficent, or sexual acts with the client. This probably isn't the best option. Some other negatives are listed above. Emotional therapists can also use their feelings as tools. They can deduce, though their own state, what the clients if feeling. They can also attempt to use this superpower to try to predict behavior.
Thursday, December 25, 2014
Thursday, December 18, 2014
REBT as Technique, not Therapy or The Disadvantage of Logic in Therapy
I think a lot about the elegance of certain psychotherapeutic theories. One that comes up quite a bit is Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT). Certainly it is a very elegant theory. The way Ellis connects thoughts, beliefs, and feelings through the use of logic is a great technique. It is the logic part that we must discuss.
Ellis was a very logical guy. He used that innate logic, coupled with a review of some philosophy, to create REBT. This is all well and good, but we must ask ourselves whether a theory based strictly upon logic is good. Most of our clients are "stuck." Their "logic processes" are malfunctioning and they need someone to help these processors get up and running again. It seems to me that logicking a client to death might be somewhat counterproductive.
As we know, Ellis simplifies REBT through the use of the alphabet. "A" means activating event or antecedent, representing an event that has occurred that "sets off" the following behaviors. "B" means irrational/illogical belief - we'll come back to this. "C" is an emotional consequence that is normally negative (and thus the reason someone is coming to therapy). Ellis said that many people that outside situations or actions (A) affect them, created their distress (C). What they failed to grasp is the ever elusive B. The person's illogical belief, their interpretation, of A led to their disturbance. He would dispute (D) their thought pattern until they saw the light.
Disputing, in my view, can only go so far. This is especially true when the disputer talks from a standpoint of expertise. This tends to sound high and might to many clients, which can undermine any helpful tendencies of therapy. I think that it might be better to work with the client and that disputing a claim rather than discussing it is probably an incorrect approach.
I know I wrote that a theory based strictly upon logic probably isn't all that great. I would like to explain this. A lot of other theory is very metaphor-based, meaning that, to some degree, it is constructed with a good amount of wiggle room and space for project and interpretation. It leaves room for interpretation. REBT does not. It espouses an idea of total correctness. Is it correct? In its limited scope, yes. But there is much more to psychotherapy, "stuckness," and a client than the relationship between beliefs, feelings, and thoughts.
I think that REBT is better categorized not as a psychotherapeutic discipline, but rather as an effective group of techniques whose goal is to use psychoeducational techniques to help clients with their understanding of basic relationships between beliefs, feelings, and thoughts.
Ellis was a very logical guy. He used that innate logic, coupled with a review of some philosophy, to create REBT. This is all well and good, but we must ask ourselves whether a theory based strictly upon logic is good. Most of our clients are "stuck." Their "logic processes" are malfunctioning and they need someone to help these processors get up and running again. It seems to me that logicking a client to death might be somewhat counterproductive.
As we know, Ellis simplifies REBT through the use of the alphabet. "A" means activating event or antecedent, representing an event that has occurred that "sets off" the following behaviors. "B" means irrational/illogical belief - we'll come back to this. "C" is an emotional consequence that is normally negative (and thus the reason someone is coming to therapy). Ellis said that many people that outside situations or actions (A) affect them, created their distress (C). What they failed to grasp is the ever elusive B. The person's illogical belief, their interpretation, of A led to their disturbance. He would dispute (D) their thought pattern until they saw the light.
Disputing, in my view, can only go so far. This is especially true when the disputer talks from a standpoint of expertise. This tends to sound high and might to many clients, which can undermine any helpful tendencies of therapy. I think that it might be better to work with the client and that disputing a claim rather than discussing it is probably an incorrect approach.
I know I wrote that a theory based strictly upon logic probably isn't all that great. I would like to explain this. A lot of other theory is very metaphor-based, meaning that, to some degree, it is constructed with a good amount of wiggle room and space for project and interpretation. It leaves room for interpretation. REBT does not. It espouses an idea of total correctness. Is it correct? In its limited scope, yes. But there is much more to psychotherapy, "stuckness," and a client than the relationship between beliefs, feelings, and thoughts.
I think that REBT is better categorized not as a psychotherapeutic discipline, but rather as an effective group of techniques whose goal is to use psychoeducational techniques to help clients with their understanding of basic relationships between beliefs, feelings, and thoughts.
Saturday, December 6, 2014
Interplay between Thoughts, Emotions, and Beliefs
I think that it's about time to struggle through the trinity of experience explainers. This trinity, is, of course, thoughts, feelings, and beliefs. To some degree, I think that behaviors should be thought of as part of that system, but behaviors don't explain, they are the explanations. Better said: behaviors are the end result of feelings, beliefs, or thoughts - they are the effect to thoughts', feelings', and beliefs' cause. I think that there is very little that can be described as "pure behavior." One could cite reaction as pure behavior, but something started or informed such action - some previous thought, deep feeling, or belief. The experience explainers are precursors to all behavior as action cannot occur without thought or due to some deeply-rooted feeling or belief.
So what is the difference between these three states? Where do they come from? How are they linked? How/why are they so easily misunderstood or mislabeled? First, I'll try to define each one. 1) Thoughts: Thoughts are reason in electrical form. A true thought is complete, meaning that its very reason for existing is known. It exists in order to explain, or help explain, something. A thought is refined. Thoughts are created when problems are introduced and a reasoning chain is used to overcome it. Logic can be used to develop a thought, but there are indeed many that are formed without its consent.
2) Feelings: Feeling are much more primal than thoughts. The previously-mentioned reactions have more to do with feelings than they do with thoughts. Just as thoughts are refined through some kind of process, feelings most often aren't, or, perhaps, can't be. To think through a feeling strips it of its raw, primal nature, and transforms it, by definition, into a thought. In this way, we can say that feelings are precursors to thoughts. Whereas thoughts are a very cerebral ornament, feelings are less so. I very much hesitate to say that they are reptilian, as I do not know for sure if reptiles or similarly "un-evolved" animals have the capacity for higher-order feelings. Feelings can be based on the old adage of "mad, sad, bad, glad." Most feelings can be added to one of these headings. Feelings are created when an experience upsets or supports previously-held beliefs.
3) Beliefs: I think that beliefs are some of the most interesting constructs we know about. Beliefs are thoughts without evidence. One believes something only when a thought is impossible because reasoning cannot adequately occur. One must take a belief on faith. I don't really mean the same faith as religion, but a similar one that requires adherence without proof. Beliefs are inherently illogical. Logicality is the domain of thought. Violating a belief normally causes a negative feeling.
REBT would tell us that when we experience something less than savory, a belief is called into question, leaving us with a bitter feeling. It is only through complete and logical thought that the healing process can occur. I think that this makes sense, but that the CBTers are speaking to their boathouse on this one. OF COURSE thought would be the end result for a cognitive therapist. Emotion-focused theorists think that the examination of feelings (rather than the interplay under REBT) are the true path to understanding the self. Beliefs, it seems to me, are the jurisdiction of none (at least in the sense of this post).
I think that beliefs have no part in therapy or in everyday life. Beliefs are abstract, not thought through, and due to a lack of evidence, can really get a client into trouble. To some degree, I think that it is a therapist's job to help a client explore their beliefs and discard those that are so illogical that thought is not permitted and feelings run rampant.
So what is the difference between these three states? Where do they come from? How are they linked? How/why are they so easily misunderstood or mislabeled? First, I'll try to define each one. 1) Thoughts: Thoughts are reason in electrical form. A true thought is complete, meaning that its very reason for existing is known. It exists in order to explain, or help explain, something. A thought is refined. Thoughts are created when problems are introduced and a reasoning chain is used to overcome it. Logic can be used to develop a thought, but there are indeed many that are formed without its consent.
2) Feelings: Feeling are much more primal than thoughts. The previously-mentioned reactions have more to do with feelings than they do with thoughts. Just as thoughts are refined through some kind of process, feelings most often aren't, or, perhaps, can't be. To think through a feeling strips it of its raw, primal nature, and transforms it, by definition, into a thought. In this way, we can say that feelings are precursors to thoughts. Whereas thoughts are a very cerebral ornament, feelings are less so. I very much hesitate to say that they are reptilian, as I do not know for sure if reptiles or similarly "un-evolved" animals have the capacity for higher-order feelings. Feelings can be based on the old adage of "mad, sad, bad, glad." Most feelings can be added to one of these headings. Feelings are created when an experience upsets or supports previously-held beliefs.
3) Beliefs: I think that beliefs are some of the most interesting constructs we know about. Beliefs are thoughts without evidence. One believes something only when a thought is impossible because reasoning cannot adequately occur. One must take a belief on faith. I don't really mean the same faith as religion, but a similar one that requires adherence without proof. Beliefs are inherently illogical. Logicality is the domain of thought. Violating a belief normally causes a negative feeling.
REBT would tell us that when we experience something less than savory, a belief is called into question, leaving us with a bitter feeling. It is only through complete and logical thought that the healing process can occur. I think that this makes sense, but that the CBTers are speaking to their boathouse on this one. OF COURSE thought would be the end result for a cognitive therapist. Emotion-focused theorists think that the examination of feelings (rather than the interplay under REBT) are the true path to understanding the self. Beliefs, it seems to me, are the jurisdiction of none (at least in the sense of this post).
I think that beliefs have no part in therapy or in everyday life. Beliefs are abstract, not thought through, and due to a lack of evidence, can really get a client into trouble. To some degree, I think that it is a therapist's job to help a client explore their beliefs and discard those that are so illogical that thought is not permitted and feelings run rampant.
Sunday, November 30, 2014
Nature or Nuture in Becoming a Therapist
I'm struggling with the selection process for a good therapist - that is, selecting who could become a good therapist. Is this identity nature-based or could it be more driven by outside factors? That is - is the deep temperament of a therapist inborn or is it something that can be molded or taught? Of course when it comes to the satisfactory counselor, techniques and special inquiries can be instructed, but I'm more referring to the master therapist and researcher.
If we were talking about a genetic predisposition to the field, we would almost be able to track such career choices through a family genogram. All, or at least some/most, of the family member would exhibit behavior that would lead them along a similar professional line.
To be sure, such a project would be very unwieldy. We must take into account the fact that children are susceptible to lessons, modeling, and behavior perhaps more than others. Trying to separate the unadulterated behaviors from the learned ones would be quite impossible; the only route otherwise would involve either constant self-journaling or an as yet undiscovered technology along the lines of mind reading.
Such an endeavor is only possible through the subtle art of twin, adoption, or orphan studies. The main issue here is that our tabula rasa is not blank for long. From the first experience on this plane, a mind is most likely significantly altered. So it would seem that the study would have to begin almost on day one. No outside stimuli at all. This would lead, of course, to extreme legal penalties based on the current moral viewpoint on infant experimentation and deprivation.
As figuring this problem out through the pathway of nature would either be impossible or, at least, controversial, we would then have to funnel our energies through some type of nurture studies. The question here would be: Can we CREATE a master therapist? The final result, were it a success, would have to be repeatable. This involves some type of formula or quasi-formula of actions. This view is pretty Skinnerian.
I find that the selection process between two points tends more to be explained better through some combination of those two points, rather than an extreme on either end. It is very likely that a certain person has the core, rough characteristics that would yield a good master therapist. That being said, that person would need proper instruction (or some kind of outside motivation - positive or negative) in order to harness the ability afforded him through his genes. Just as clay can be formed into beautiful pottery by hands yet cloth or bubbles cannot.
The next step here would be to identify those traits that create a master therapist. The next stop thereafter would involve finding hereditary lines with those traits. An important note here is to understand that not everyone in that line would go into the field. There are many other very satisfactory professions (e.g. intelligence services, customer services, etc.) for those who naturally show the qualities of Rogers. After these steps, the big jump would be to create a curriculum that would yield near-perfect master therapist candidates. Not an easy job.
The end answer is simple. But first, what is the question? It is not, with nature and nurture combined, one of creating a master therapist. An end result of this process almost assures us of this. The question anew is: Can we create master therapists from ANYONE? to this, my simple answer is a simple no.
If we were talking about a genetic predisposition to the field, we would almost be able to track such career choices through a family genogram. All, or at least some/most, of the family member would exhibit behavior that would lead them along a similar professional line.
To be sure, such a project would be very unwieldy. We must take into account the fact that children are susceptible to lessons, modeling, and behavior perhaps more than others. Trying to separate the unadulterated behaviors from the learned ones would be quite impossible; the only route otherwise would involve either constant self-journaling or an as yet undiscovered technology along the lines of mind reading.
Such an endeavor is only possible through the subtle art of twin, adoption, or orphan studies. The main issue here is that our tabula rasa is not blank for long. From the first experience on this plane, a mind is most likely significantly altered. So it would seem that the study would have to begin almost on day one. No outside stimuli at all. This would lead, of course, to extreme legal penalties based on the current moral viewpoint on infant experimentation and deprivation.
As figuring this problem out through the pathway of nature would either be impossible or, at least, controversial, we would then have to funnel our energies through some type of nurture studies. The question here would be: Can we CREATE a master therapist? The final result, were it a success, would have to be repeatable. This involves some type of formula or quasi-formula of actions. This view is pretty Skinnerian.
I find that the selection process between two points tends more to be explained better through some combination of those two points, rather than an extreme on either end. It is very likely that a certain person has the core, rough characteristics that would yield a good master therapist. That being said, that person would need proper instruction (or some kind of outside motivation - positive or negative) in order to harness the ability afforded him through his genes. Just as clay can be formed into beautiful pottery by hands yet cloth or bubbles cannot.
The next step here would be to identify those traits that create a master therapist. The next stop thereafter would involve finding hereditary lines with those traits. An important note here is to understand that not everyone in that line would go into the field. There are many other very satisfactory professions (e.g. intelligence services, customer services, etc.) for those who naturally show the qualities of Rogers. After these steps, the big jump would be to create a curriculum that would yield near-perfect master therapist candidates. Not an easy job.
The end answer is simple. But first, what is the question? It is not, with nature and nurture combined, one of creating a master therapist. An end result of this process almost assures us of this. The question anew is: Can we create master therapists from ANYONE? to this, my simple answer is a simple no.
Tuesday, November 11, 2014
Should a Therapist Have a Theoretical Orientation?
December 12th, 2012
Is it good to have a working model from which one directly pulls during therapy or is it better to have none and work from scratch with each client? As with most extremes, working in the middle seems more appropriate. Both extremes have their distinct advantages and disadvantages.
Working from a model provides the clinician with a sound foundation, off of which he can issue thoughts and attempt techniques. These ideas have been milled down to their finer points and through practice, the practitioner makes them his own. Strictly working from a certain viewpoint can be very inefficient, through. If a client presents with depressive characteristics due to ideas an "inner language/dialogue" with himself, an analyst cannot move from home territory to talk about such communication.
On the other extreme, one without orientation can be dynamic and compelling. He can feel free to flit around the various models and use what seems appropriate at the time. A problem may arise when he is asked why he is taking route A instead of route B. Is he doing it because he thinks that B is grounded in better evidence-based research or that he feels more comfortable with it? Maybe. But it seems to me that such abstract knowledge disallows depth of insight into one (or more) particular categories of therapy. If the therapist knows a little about a lot, will he ever know a great deal about something more specific?
And so I think that a home base with much knowledge of other areas may be the best way to go.
_________________________________________________________________________________
October 4th, 2014
I find it unsettling when people ask me what my "theoretical orientation" is. It's a dumb question. Why does it matter? What box does a such a term put me in? Why can't I partake of many things? I have this image in my head that ACA or APA conventions or conferences are a little like gang hangouts. I picture a ballroom where analysts are in one corner with their cigars and conservative cravats; humanists are in another corner hugging each other and softly whispering, "I hear you." CBTers and true behaviorists in a third corner are re-programming passersby only to wash this behavior extinguish rapidly. I know that such a thing doesn't really happen, but part of me would really like if it were the case.
That all being said, if I had to pick a psychotherapeutic backer, it would be something very phenomenological and human potential-based. Authors that come to mind are Husserl and Heidegger for phenomenology and Rogers and Perls for human potential. I choose these not only because they closely follow my own thoughts and observations on human behavior, but also because they give me the freedom to supplement their incompleteness with other styles' techniques. I think it is very OK to harness the power of REBT when speaking of a client's fear of public speaking. I just don't think that REBT is a very good starting point in understanding the client.
My opinion tends toward the view of decreasing the limits on self. I find so many theories inherently limiting. CBTers can only use CBT. Behaviorists will only use behaviorism. Analysts with their analysis. Choosing a theory, while it seems to be almost compulsory anymore, is not a good idea.
_________________________________________________________________________________
November 11th, 2014
We must ask ourselves why we ask the question of someone's foundation theory. Is it for our benefit or is it for the benefit of the client? From a strictly professional point of view, the answer would most definitely involve the client more than the practitioner (perhaps substituting should for would would make that sentence a little more powerful). But how does this benefit the client? Yes, different techniques will be used and the therapist will approach the client from a specific standpoint, but if we look at each therapeutic theory, they are all interconnected, meaning that each is just another reframe of the former. There is much in various theories that blurs the lines between different, if not opposing, theories. For instance, irrational beliefs in REBT are so ingrained into the client's psyche that they most likely could be aggregated and be called the unconscious, a more Freudian term.
If we assume this, then we all seem to be coming at theory from different points, yet all are hitting something that bears fruit. So this can't be for the client, because no matter where we come from, we'll most likely be able to affect them positively. It must be for us. What use do we have for this designation? It seems somewhat idiotic to eschew one way of thinking for another due only to a particular school of thought's doctrine. Thinkers are supposed to take in voices from all sides of the equation, digest them, and allow some of the good ones to permeate their thought process. This will give them new avenues of thought. It seems that without new blood, some theories will stagnate and die out.
So why do we do this odd exclusion and choice warfare? Aren't we supposed to be empathetic and understanding professionals? It could be, just like in any other business where multiple people are involved, that there must be an us-vs.-them designation. While I think that this is natural (as it seems to be a human reaction to happiness or strife or lack thereof), to an extent I would think that clinicians would have the understanding nature that would allow them to not engage in such behavior.
This point would be moot if it were not for the fact that there is much distress in the (at least beginner) clinical community as to which general psychological philosophy to choose. This can stunt us or retrain us to think differently about other theories or practitioners.
Is it good to have a working model from which one directly pulls during therapy or is it better to have none and work from scratch with each client? As with most extremes, working in the middle seems more appropriate. Both extremes have their distinct advantages and disadvantages.
Working from a model provides the clinician with a sound foundation, off of which he can issue thoughts and attempt techniques. These ideas have been milled down to their finer points and through practice, the practitioner makes them his own. Strictly working from a certain viewpoint can be very inefficient, through. If a client presents with depressive characteristics due to ideas an "inner language/dialogue" with himself, an analyst cannot move from home territory to talk about such communication.
On the other extreme, one without orientation can be dynamic and compelling. He can feel free to flit around the various models and use what seems appropriate at the time. A problem may arise when he is asked why he is taking route A instead of route B. Is he doing it because he thinks that B is grounded in better evidence-based research or that he feels more comfortable with it? Maybe. But it seems to me that such abstract knowledge disallows depth of insight into one (or more) particular categories of therapy. If the therapist knows a little about a lot, will he ever know a great deal about something more specific?
And so I think that a home base with much knowledge of other areas may be the best way to go.
_________________________________________________________________________________
October 4th, 2014
I find it unsettling when people ask me what my "theoretical orientation" is. It's a dumb question. Why does it matter? What box does a such a term put me in? Why can't I partake of many things? I have this image in my head that ACA or APA conventions or conferences are a little like gang hangouts. I picture a ballroom where analysts are in one corner with their cigars and conservative cravats; humanists are in another corner hugging each other and softly whispering, "I hear you." CBTers and true behaviorists in a third corner are re-programming passersby only to wash this behavior extinguish rapidly. I know that such a thing doesn't really happen, but part of me would really like if it were the case.
That all being said, if I had to pick a psychotherapeutic backer, it would be something very phenomenological and human potential-based. Authors that come to mind are Husserl and Heidegger for phenomenology and Rogers and Perls for human potential. I choose these not only because they closely follow my own thoughts and observations on human behavior, but also because they give me the freedom to supplement their incompleteness with other styles' techniques. I think it is very OK to harness the power of REBT when speaking of a client's fear of public speaking. I just don't think that REBT is a very good starting point in understanding the client.
My opinion tends toward the view of decreasing the limits on self. I find so many theories inherently limiting. CBTers can only use CBT. Behaviorists will only use behaviorism. Analysts with their analysis. Choosing a theory, while it seems to be almost compulsory anymore, is not a good idea.
_________________________________________________________________________________
November 11th, 2014
We must ask ourselves why we ask the question of someone's foundation theory. Is it for our benefit or is it for the benefit of the client? From a strictly professional point of view, the answer would most definitely involve the client more than the practitioner (perhaps substituting should for would would make that sentence a little more powerful). But how does this benefit the client? Yes, different techniques will be used and the therapist will approach the client from a specific standpoint, but if we look at each therapeutic theory, they are all interconnected, meaning that each is just another reframe of the former. There is much in various theories that blurs the lines between different, if not opposing, theories. For instance, irrational beliefs in REBT are so ingrained into the client's psyche that they most likely could be aggregated and be called the unconscious, a more Freudian term.
If we assume this, then we all seem to be coming at theory from different points, yet all are hitting something that bears fruit. So this can't be for the client, because no matter where we come from, we'll most likely be able to affect them positively. It must be for us. What use do we have for this designation? It seems somewhat idiotic to eschew one way of thinking for another due only to a particular school of thought's doctrine. Thinkers are supposed to take in voices from all sides of the equation, digest them, and allow some of the good ones to permeate their thought process. This will give them new avenues of thought. It seems that without new blood, some theories will stagnate and die out.
So why do we do this odd exclusion and choice warfare? Aren't we supposed to be empathetic and understanding professionals? It could be, just like in any other business where multiple people are involved, that there must be an us-vs.-them designation. While I think that this is natural (as it seems to be a human reaction to happiness or strife or lack thereof), to an extent I would think that clinicians would have the understanding nature that would allow them to not engage in such behavior.
This point would be moot if it were not for the fact that there is much distress in the (at least beginner) clinical community as to which general psychological philosophy to choose. This can stunt us or retrain us to think differently about other theories or practitioners.
Sunday, August 24, 2014
The Similarity of Man, or, The Ego of Man
May 23rd, 2014
There are only a few types of people in the world. I know that we like to think that everyone is a unique individual with wholly different plumbing than anyone else. This is true and untrue. It is true int hat, biologically, there is almost infinite variability in man. There will most certainly never be two men with the exact same neuron organization pattern in existence. It is untrue in that the general behavioral consequences have many less probabilistic reactions (mostly due to learned/simulated responses seen in the past demonstrating what is proper or possible, and due to the natural lack of response reactions to any given stimulus). While biology may yield a human who has never before set foot upon the earth, many people will have the same reactions to specific stimuli. When stimuli are viewed back-to-back, it is, of course, less likely that the individuals will continue behaving similarly. But these are broad categories under which some people may be catalogued. I will not administer titles to these groups at this time; such categorization is tricky due to the common man's need to be individualistic. Were I to create such broad groups (and other theorists have done so in the past), they would lead to different types of interventions that would be used to pursue betterment. I must be clear in saying that these titles would not label the client, but instead would only describe behavior (much like diagnosis should do).
_________________________________________________________________________________
June 24th, 2014
I'm wondering if we romanticize the human personality too much. We continually marvel at the complexity of our own brains, but are they really so intrigue-worthy? We revel in our own superiority due to our increased intelligence. I think that there are equal parts stupidity and ingenuity where the human collective is concerned. Sure, we've created books and harnessed electricity, but we've done so many things that warrant repugnance. We've created so many wonders fit for gods, yet we still lack basic self-control and morality.
I don't want to go too far off track here. We see ourselves as superior to all due to our inventions. Douglas Adams said it best when he wrote: "For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much - the wheel, New York, wars and so on - whilst all the dolphins had ever done was much about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins believed that they were far more intelligent than man - for precisely the same reasons."
I think that the turning point in our superiority in intelligence occurred when we became conscious of our consciousness. Somehow this imbued us with a sense of supremacy so vast that the behavior study of humans became very different from the study of any other animal. We have shown, though, that the needs, habit, tendencies, etc. of man are similar to the "lower" animals. Primates close to us, like chimpanzees and gorillas, exhibit behavior that is so close to ours, such as grouping and communication. Verbal language, something uniquely human (another engineering marvel of ours), isn't just ours. Well, it isn't our insofar that not only we can learn it. We can teach other beings communication (parrots (though meaning behind the words might not be understood) and gorillas), so can we teach them to feel? To think? I believe that primates have already answered that for us.
Complexity in behavior deals pretty heavily with brain plasticity and neuroscience as well as previous education and experience (nature versus nurture at its finest). I can't help but equate this to the biological variance inherent in DNA. Just like we see people who resemble others (including, sometimes, that other's behavior as well) we experience different behavior-styles in people. If these groups can be given names and whose elements can be catalogued, doesn't it then seem as if personality variance is finite? We act as if it is not.
I think that it can follow that certain measures can then be taken for certain personality types. This can help when people are seeking treatment. If all this is correct, and I have no reason to think that it is, then human personality is not as infinite as idealists once thought. In fact, it is the finiteness of personality that allow us to treat it. Were the human mind a constantly changing and uniquely independent variable, it is somewhat reasonable to think that only the deepest of psychotherapies could work. Perhaps that is the crux of some of the deeper psychotherapies' arguments.
There are only a few types of people in the world. I know that we like to think that everyone is a unique individual with wholly different plumbing than anyone else. This is true and untrue. It is true int hat, biologically, there is almost infinite variability in man. There will most certainly never be two men with the exact same neuron organization pattern in existence. It is untrue in that the general behavioral consequences have many less probabilistic reactions (mostly due to learned/simulated responses seen in the past demonstrating what is proper or possible, and due to the natural lack of response reactions to any given stimulus). While biology may yield a human who has never before set foot upon the earth, many people will have the same reactions to specific stimuli. When stimuli are viewed back-to-back, it is, of course, less likely that the individuals will continue behaving similarly. But these are broad categories under which some people may be catalogued. I will not administer titles to these groups at this time; such categorization is tricky due to the common man's need to be individualistic. Were I to create such broad groups (and other theorists have done so in the past), they would lead to different types of interventions that would be used to pursue betterment. I must be clear in saying that these titles would not label the client, but instead would only describe behavior (much like diagnosis should do).
_________________________________________________________________________________
June 24th, 2014
I'm wondering if we romanticize the human personality too much. We continually marvel at the complexity of our own brains, but are they really so intrigue-worthy? We revel in our own superiority due to our increased intelligence. I think that there are equal parts stupidity and ingenuity where the human collective is concerned. Sure, we've created books and harnessed electricity, but we've done so many things that warrant repugnance. We've created so many wonders fit for gods, yet we still lack basic self-control and morality.
I don't want to go too far off track here. We see ourselves as superior to all due to our inventions. Douglas Adams said it best when he wrote: "For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much - the wheel, New York, wars and so on - whilst all the dolphins had ever done was much about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins believed that they were far more intelligent than man - for precisely the same reasons."
I think that the turning point in our superiority in intelligence occurred when we became conscious of our consciousness. Somehow this imbued us with a sense of supremacy so vast that the behavior study of humans became very different from the study of any other animal. We have shown, though, that the needs, habit, tendencies, etc. of man are similar to the "lower" animals. Primates close to us, like chimpanzees and gorillas, exhibit behavior that is so close to ours, such as grouping and communication. Verbal language, something uniquely human (another engineering marvel of ours), isn't just ours. Well, it isn't our insofar that not only we can learn it. We can teach other beings communication (parrots (though meaning behind the words might not be understood) and gorillas), so can we teach them to feel? To think? I believe that primates have already answered that for us.
Complexity in behavior deals pretty heavily with brain plasticity and neuroscience as well as previous education and experience (nature versus nurture at its finest). I can't help but equate this to the biological variance inherent in DNA. Just like we see people who resemble others (including, sometimes, that other's behavior as well) we experience different behavior-styles in people. If these groups can be given names and whose elements can be catalogued, doesn't it then seem as if personality variance is finite? We act as if it is not.
I think that it can follow that certain measures can then be taken for certain personality types. This can help when people are seeking treatment. If all this is correct, and I have no reason to think that it is, then human personality is not as infinite as idealists once thought. In fact, it is the finiteness of personality that allow us to treat it. Were the human mind a constantly changing and uniquely independent variable, it is somewhat reasonable to think that only the deepest of psychotherapies could work. Perhaps that is the crux of some of the deeper psychotherapies' arguments.
Tuesday, August 12, 2014
Change vs. Persistence
What is the correct methodology behind psychotherapy? Namely, should clients be encouraged to change or to persist in their behavior? Both points have their advantages and disadvantages. Also: what is the metric through which the two sides are measured? Health (whatever that means)? Decreased distress after the treatment? Increased feelings of "at-oneness"? Are both points correct but should be used for different populations? Why is it at all relevant or important to current discourse?
Change is a scary thing. The familiar has a certain amount of safety. Safety, as any introductory course in psychology would note, is one of the core needs of humans, after basic physiological requirements. When the familiar is disrupted, as it most likely will be in vigorous therapy, one feels as if the bottom has been dropped out them. Skills must be re-learned, relationships re-crafted. All other non-physical needs (again referring back to Maslow) are secondary, meaning that such things as love and family, education, or exercise are obscured by the re-prioritization that occurs when a change is made.
The argument can be made (and should be made) that any change that a client incurs is of their own making. A client must accept change. I think that the subject of conscious and sub- or un-conscious comes into play here. A client, after having been force-fed a treatment, even a necessary one by a practitioner, might deny it consciously, but their subconscious may be have soaking in the teaching, allowing the chain reaction to start whereas the client's front mind is not yet willing to grasp it.
A change has the ability to bring a client to a more beneficial place. A change in behavior may allow the client to attract less unwanted attention to him/herself when on an outing. Such slight behavioral changes could be both positive and relatively simple to implement. Changes in thoughts and feelings are much more difficult to access and implement because the operate at the core of our being. When it comes down to it, we are walking bundles of thoughts and feelings, spewing out behaviors.
Changes can also be hazardous to our health. When change occurs too quickly and dramatically, it is foreseeable and understandable that these individuals with an especially weak grounding or constitution might turn to self-harm or inhibitors as a way to cope. We experience unwillingness to change from clients in the form of words and actions in the office. We can lose points with our clients by forcing change that they are not ready for or by promoting too much change to the thirsty client that they cannot handle.
Persistence is something else entirely. I see persistence occurring in two ways: First, persistence may occur through lack of encouragement to change. In effect, this position emphasizes only the strengths that a client owns, while not looking at the deficits in the client's character. I think that a client might also go along the path of persistence by choosing to change the world instead of themselves. This is a difficult course of action, but that which is frequently taken by many organizations vying for the inclusion of certain non-behavioral, biologically-based mental disorders (autism, intellectual disability, lefthandedness (heh)).
We must ask ourselves if persistence is enough. Change shows that a client has learned a new way of thinking/feeling/behaving through an observable alteration. Persistence is the opposite. At best, a client would learn more about themselves and endeavor to piss of others as little as possible. The gold standard for results in psychotherapy is change. The metric is change. Persistence has a lot to live up to.
I think that persistence could be seen by many people as "persistence of intrinsic directive" versus an extrinsic imperative set onto the client. The latter here is change. Of course, in this interpretation, persistence takes on the identity of more fundamental humanism while change adopts the mantras similar to structured psychoeducational methods.
In general, I think that it is difficult to advocate for a persistence model of psychotherapy when compared to a change model. In this circumstance, I must add that I am specifically referring to behavioral issues, not biological ones. Society needs to learn to work with these people, not against them. I do wonder if there is any middle ground between the two. To a pretty high degree, I think that the Wellness Model fits the bill nicely.
I think that two main methods of persistence are normalizing and universality - both cooling techniques. Normalizing is the act of telling a client that their actions/behaviors/thoughts/feelings are normal and representative of their bracket. Universality is more helping the client understand that others have behaved/suffered as the client has behaved/suffered and have walked away from it. While these two techniques are viable and useful, they are not unto themselves total means of therapy.
One thing that goes along with change that might incur the most resentment is the tendency for either side of the relationship to want to "fix" the other. Here, an additional point about change must be written. Change must come intrinsically. The therapist can only do so much; more is over-working of and over-functioning for the client. This is not useful to either party.
One thing that goes along with change that might incur the most resentment is the tendency for either side of the relationship to want to "fix" the other. Here, an additional point about change must be written. Change must come intrinsically. The therapist can only do so much; more is over-working of and over-functioning for the client. This is not useful to either party.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)