Posted by Dinah on December 28, 2003, at 10:42:16
In reply to Re: What about Hypnotherapy? And groups? , posted by gardenergirl on December 28, 2003, at 9:21:06
I am thoroughly enjoying your posts. They bring a practical viewpoint to this theoretical discussion. I liked your description of process-experiential approach, and although my therapist doesn't use that term, he does a lot of what you describe. Especially in terms of my favorite and overused coping mechanism, dissociation.
"This approach emphasizes that we are all composed of cognitive-affective schemes or combinations of thoughts and feelings related to our past experiences. These are constantly being revamped and reconstructed as we encounter experiences which may conflict with our schemes or may validate them. What I like best about this type of therapy is that it focuses on the experiencing and exploration of emotion, but also adds the cognitive aspect of it. Because we all attempt to make sense out of our feelings and experiences. This involves using cognition to label and associate the feeling with the concurrent event. We did this in the past, and we continue to do this. What may have made sense in the past, such as the child of an alcoholic learning to suppress negative feelings in order to avoid setting off the intoxicated parent and risking a beating, is maladaptive in the present when faced with justifiable anger say towards the drycleaner who ruined your skirt. If the adult with the maladaptive scheme represses the anger instead of assertively communicating with the drycleaner, they are less likely to get their needs met. This can then lead to feelings of hopelessness or resentment, depending on the current construction of the scheme. It seems like in this approach you are processing on a more effective level versus focusing on one or the other, cogntitions or emotions."
I like that in a couple of ways. First it brings some validation to the ways that we are currently doing things by explaining them in terms of how they were adaptive in previous circumstances in our lives. It also seems to emphasize learning through experience? That appeals to me because unless something reaches both my brain and my gut it's unlikely to work.
I too enjoy the ideas behind self psychology and even more, object relations. And of course attachment theory. Since attachment theory works directly on my area of weakness - a desire for safety above *anything* else, it speaks to me far more than Freud's talk of agressive and sexual drives. But I must confess that I do better reading the translations to semi-layman (and more practical) terms than the originals so I might be missing the subtle nuances.
What do you think of my basic theory that most therapy orientations bring you to the same point, albeit through different learning mechanisms? If that is true, it would seem to suggest that an eclectic approach geared toward the client might be the best solution. Either that or an awful lot of referrals. I'm glad that your training program introduces you to more than one approach.
On the other hand, haven't I read outcome studies that therapists with strong theoretical positions tend to have the best outcomes? Of course, I'm a bit dubious about outcome studies...
poster:Dinah
thread:293462
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20031221/msgs/293994.html