![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 6 of 6. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by tabitha on January 28, 2004, at 0:09:56
I'm mulling over what seems like a contradiction from my group session. It started last week. One guy 'K' shared about an experience of having to go to the emergency room alone to get stitches. We mostly empathized with how lonely that must have been.. but one guy 'V' said something about how there were people all around, so 'K' could have struck up conversation in the waiting room and so forth, and some sort of bromide-sounding remarks about how we feel alone but we're really never alone in the bigger picture. Several people reacted to that remark, it bothered them, didn't seem supportive and so on-- there was really quite a bit of criticism.
This week we processed all that. At first 'V' shared about how hurt he had been by the reactions. The group leader led him though it, validating his feelings of how he was coming from a place of caring about 'K', genuinely wanting to help and so forth, and having his comments criticised. He processed with the 2 people he felt most hurt by. Then the session went on, still focused on 'V', and the group leader eventually got to how 'V' doesn't allow himself to stay in hurt or lonely or angry feelings, so he wasn't comfortable staying with 'K's lonely feelings and wanted to prod him out of them with his comments. She went on to explore how this type of response might be causing problems with 'V's partner as well.
I'm now confused about how both interpretations can be true. The therapist validated both scenarios.. in the first place how 'V' was coming from a place of caring about 'K', then she led him to how 'V' just wasn't comfortable letting 'K' be in his sad feelings, so was trying to move him out of them. How can both of these things be true at the same time? Can anyone grasp this?
Posted by Medusa on January 28, 2004, at 4:44:50
In reply to Mulling over a contradiction, posted by tabitha on January 28, 2004, at 0:09:56
> I'm now confused about how both interpretations can be true. <snip> How can both of these things be true at the same time? Can anyone grasp this?
>Hi Tabitha,
Both interpretations could be valid as part of the whole picture. My take is that almost everyone has at least some capacity for caring for others. At the same time, each person has differing levels of drive to preserve one's own comfort. So, to get as close as possible to "truth", a real picture, both elements have to be included.
(My gut reaction is that in this case, V's discomfort with sad feelings was the dominant motivation and that the therapist was sugar-coating that, acknowledging his 'caring' side in order to facilitate the delivery of what everyone else wanted to drive into his head with a sledge hammer.)
Posted by 64Bowtie on January 28, 2004, at 6:30:32
In reply to Mulling over a contradiction, posted by tabitha on January 28, 2004, at 0:09:56
Can be confusing....
I want to side with "V" that we can all withstand lonely feelings, especially when slated as lonely in a croud. But then "V" got hurt by individuals in the group instead of learning from the group. So now I want to side with the group leader. Where was "V"'s ability to withstand now?
Did those that "hammered" "V", display anger and frustration? Ask the two in the group if they fealt angry with "V" and his attitude.
Again, more confusion. Do they have short fuses in genereal or just toward "V" or ???? Gets confusing. I work with short-fuse folks alot (chemical and person abusers assigned by the court) so "angry folks" is my bias.
My hope is that I helped without adding to the confusion.
Rod
Posted by Dinah on January 28, 2004, at 8:38:18
In reply to Mulling over a contradiction, posted by tabitha on January 28, 2004, at 0:09:56
I'm not sure it was a contradiction. The group leader both validated V's conscious intention (which was positive) and pointed out that his actions didn't support his intent. It may be entirely possible that he wasn't aware that what he was doing was making "K" feel bad about expressing his honest emotions and being vulnerable, and making the rest of the group wary at the idea of "V" "caring" about them when they make themselves vulnerable.
I did notice that "V" didn't mind sitting with his own sad feelings. :) But I suppose there's no need to point that out if he gets the bigger picture about how he's alienating others even while he's trying to be helpful. And your therapist did it in a nonjudgmental way, putting the best possible interpretation on "V"'s unconscious motivations - that he couldn't tolerate "K"'s sad feelings. That's a much nicer interpretation than that "V" has no tolerance for what "V" might consider whining, and wants (especially other) people to yank themselves up by their bootstraps and straighten out their feelings and thoughts. Come to think of it, there are a fair number of people who are like "V". My father was one. If you tried to share pain, he would brush it off with one of his favorite personal beliefs. Suicidally depressed? You just need to party more. See, your brother is partying more and he's not depressed! Pat and easy answers to all of life's unpleasantness. While he emoted without worrying about alternatives.
But now I'm projecting. :) It sounds like "V" was more annoyingly chipper than "direct". It's a learned skill I think, and one I still haven't mastered, to listen to someone's pain without trying to cheer them up or "fix" the problem. Even my therapist falls into the "fixing" trap too often.
Posted by Dinah on January 28, 2004, at 8:59:04
In reply to Re: Mulling over a contradiction » tabitha, posted by Dinah on January 28, 2004, at 8:38:18
To be fair, I should add that my father's intentions were definitely good. He loved me as much as anyone in the world and he didn't want to see me hurting. And if his secondary motivation was to get me to quit annoying him, or that he couldn't stand to see me hurting, well... that's ok too.
I wish someone like your therapist had been around to teach him better ways to express his caring.
Posted by lookdownfish on January 28, 2004, at 10:20:14
In reply to Mulling over a contradiction, posted by tabitha on January 28, 2004, at 0:09:56
I think both are valid. "V" may have been genuinely caring, but his response was not.
It sounds to me like the therapist was showing that although this made "V" seem uncaring to the rest of the group, his response was actually not due to his lack of care, but due to his discomfort with the lonely feelings. This can have the benefit of showing "V" how uncomfortable he is with such feelings - and maybe he can recognise this and learn from this. And it also shows the group that he is not uncaring, but has a problem with handling the sad feelings of others and so tries to dismiss them.Group therapy sounds great. I could use some of that.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Psychology | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.