Join Us
In This Section
Recent Posts
PP0004: Treating Anxiety: The Latest Advances
Dramatically shorten treatment time and improve clinical effectiveness with a new powerful motivational approach to anxiety and other presenting problems. Join David Burns as he uncovers and dispels resistance to treatment and enhances collaboration between therapist and client.
Learn how to clearly convey neuroscience information to clients in ways that can have a calming effect and enhance treatment effectiveness. Join Margaret Wehrenberg as she reviews how brain science has allowed therapists to match treatment to the brain structures characterizing anxiety and discusses why it is helpful for clients to have an understanding of neuroscience in treatment.
Expand your understanding of the sources for different kinds of anxiety along with your repertoire of interventions. Join Danie Beaulieu as she explores what metaphors, visual images, and multisensory messages you can use to more fully engage clients and achieve greater impact than is possible with purely word-bound communication.
Learn techniques drawn from Neuro-Linguistic Programming that target the auditory and visual representations that clients make. Join Steve Andreas as he brings about immediate and enduring changes in clients perceptions and feelings as they deal with anxiety.
Learn the 3-step program to help parents and children deal with anxiety. Join Lynn Lyons as she teaches exercises that help normalize anxiety (de-catastrophize it), externalize it (turn the internal state into external metaphors that can be dealt with more readily), and experiment with it (find innovative, playful ways to deal with it).
Join Reid Wilson as he explores a step-by-step approach that helps clients shift their relationship with panic so they can overcome their anxiety. By gradually learning to approach, exaggerate, personify, and caricature panic, the client is able override the responses that perpetuate anxiety.
After the session, please let us know what you think. If you ever have any technical questions or issues, please feel free to email support@psychotherapynetworker.org.
Creating Multiple Streams of Income with Casey Truffo
Expand Your Practice: NP0037 – Session 3
Learn how to leverage your time and energy by distinguishing between having a job and running a business. Join Casey Truffo as she discusses how to increase your income, include new offerings in your practice, and still deliver your therapeutic services. After the session, please let us know what you think. If you ever have any technical questions or issues, please feel free to email support@psychotherapynetworker.org.Whatever Happened to Parental Authority?
By Rich Simon It seems astonishing that even just two or three decades ago, parents not only pretty much knew what was expected of them to turn their offspring into civilized adults, but they could actually count on society to back them up. Even more astounding, kids seemed to understand this, too. Even if they rebelled against, yelled about, or sullenly resented how “unfair” adults were, they seemed to acknowledge adult authority and realize that they would just have to wait until they turned 18 to get for themselves the keys to the kingdom of grown-up independence. 
 NP0008 The Great Attachment DebateThis blog focuses on discussion regarding the course NP0008 The Great Attachment Debate. NP0008, Attachment, Session 4, David SchnarchAre there any downsides to basing clinical treatment on Attachment Theory? In this session, discover why David Schnarch, a leading advocate of differentiation in the therapy process, believes that Attachment Theory keeps clients functioning as needy children. Schnarch will discuss how to use confrontation as an effective therapeutic approach. After this session with Schnarch, please take a few minutes to engage in the Comment Board and let us know what you think about using this strategy with clients. What was most relevant about this presentation? What questions did this bring up for you? We invite you to include your name and hometown along with your comment. If you ever have any technical questions, contact support@psychotherapynetworker.org.
Comments  |
© 2013 Psychotherapy Networker
Something I like about your idea is that marriage isn't about being warm and fuzzy all the time. It sounds like, to you, a big part of real security in marriage is to have a couple acknowledge their baser impulses and conflict, and still be willing to stand with each other in the face of that, warts and all. "I see the parts of you I don't like and disagree with, and I still choose you in the face of that." Perhaps this is the heart of the differentiation you describe.
Yours, Walter Mehring
I very much like your take on my take on differentiation. If you're not describing the heart of differentiation, it's one of the vital organs. Or better said, you're describing the heart IN differentiation. And yes, it's part of real security in marriage.
Thanks for pulling out something I am indeed saying.
David Schnarch
This thread was recently started, coinciding with the re-showing of the Attachment Debate Webinars. The apparent goal is to promote new discussion with new participants, rather than adding them to the extensive discussion that arose from the original airing (available here: http://www.psychotherapynetworker.org/blog-communities/p004/viewpost/1294_P004_Attachment_Session_4_David_Schnarch.
I strongly recommend reading this prior thread for several reasons:
1. There are many thoughtful posts by other participants you might find interesting.
2. I've already responded at length to each of these posts, investing much time and energy in the process.
3. If you want to understand my responses to things you post here, realize you're coming in at the middle of an ongoing conversation. I hope you will appreciate why I don't plan to start over explaining things I've already covered in great detail previously. So what may sound like a cryptic or incomplete response by me, when taken by itself, may make more sense when viewed against the background of what I've already previously clarified. (This doesn't rule out the possibilty my responses are indeed cryptic or incomplete, but that hasn't characterized them so far.)
Thanks,
David Schnarch
It seems that Dr. Scharch is acutally supporting secure attachment when he is encouraging people to be in touch with themselves and to be true to themselves--in other words don't discount your sense of yourself (or betray yourself) to please your partner. To have a strong sense of self is attachment based. Dr. Siegel talks about mindfulness being one tool which can repair one's insecure attachment--and thus strengthen one's relationship with one's self.
Being attuned to another in relationship (to use attachment languate) is not about coddling, or interferring with differentiation. It's about knowing when to welcome and be close, and to encourage being on one's own.
In my humble opinion, it seems that Dr. Scharch misrepresents some of the basic assumptions of attachment based therapy.
Again, I appreciate the opportunity to hear Dr. Scharch's viewpoint, and I appreciate the Networker for providing the forum for this attachment debate.
Christine Walker, LCSW
Charlottesville, Va
434-923-8253
Denny McGihon
Sorry to hear that you had some technical issues with the video. Please contact support@psychotherapynetworker.org and they'll be able to help you figure out a way to resolve the issue and make sure you're able to access the session again.
Sincerely,
Psychotherapy Networker
Thereis an echo here of some of the classical work in the field of family therapy and communication, such as that of Paul Watzlawick. "We cannot not communicate," and focus on growth, not healing. . . Something old, something new!
I appreciate Christine Walker's comments, in terms of clarifying and correcting some of the assumptions about attachment-based therapy. Growth and transformation, I believe, require a skillful balancing of BOTH support and challenge, as is described in the work of Harvard developmental psychologist, Robert Kegan.
This is a rich and fascinating dialogue! Thank you.
Re your comment about "skillful balance of both support and challenge"--see my "Yoda comment" to Sam (above). I love Kegan's work too, and if you read my posts in the prior thread you'll see that I engage in "supportive" interactions too (although I strongly take issue with dichotomizing support and challenge because collaborative confrontation IS supportive). But this doesn't get around the fact that a "skillful balance" does not necessarily mean "equal balance," and even a brief review of other posts make it clear attachment-based therapists don't think a 50-50 blend is the way to go.
As I said to Sam, our field is going to have to look harder to find an optimal balance-point than simply saying we need a "balanced" point of view.
Thanks for taking the time to comment.
David Schnarch
Thanks for the positive comment. In case you can't see my facial expression at the moment, I'm grinning from ear to ear, trying to look as non-combative and collaborative as possible. Wish I could see your expression as you read this.
I've watched many therapists try to deal with the discussion as you have, that differentiation and attachment are different parts of the same elephant, two sides of the same coin, etc. The point is it's NOT the same elephant or coin:
The world of attachment keeps envisioning an ATTACHMENTdifferentiation animal, whereas differentiation based therapists envision of DIFFERENTIATIONattachment elephant. In other words, within the attachment world, attachment is the overriding process and differentiation is a sub-process that occurs within it. In the world of differentiation, differentiation is the over-arching process and subsumes attachment. Just read posts from other readers (e.g., Christine Walker among many others) and you'll find it shockingly evident. This is not a semantic issue, it’s a very practical clinical one that very much determines what a therapist will/should do. Christine is absolutely certain attachment takes precedent over differentiation, and no doubt she does therapy that way. She envisions attachment is “the big part” of the elephant.
Yoda-like attempts to say, “there’s no real conflict here, you silly people are just focusing on different sides of the same thing” are our field’s attempt to reduce its own anxiety that these really are two different views that give rise to very different therapies. I imagine that when the Catholic Church could no longer suppress the Copernican revolution, some “peacemaker” proposed that “the earth revolves around the sun” and “the sun resolves around earth” were just two sides of the same coin and the real idea is “everything revolves around everything.” This couldn’t be farther from the truth, and avoids the crucial struggles of science at that time. Sure, many centuries later, Ken Wilber’s brilliant “holon” theory sounds like “everything is connected,” but even this is a hierarchical model.
Hope you like what you read in my book. (I’m still smiling non-combatively.)
Thanks,
David Schnarch
It was refreshing to get a different perspective on this subject. My thanks to David Schnarch for this presentation.
My point is not just that attachment therapy is deleterious when incorrectly done, or that some attachments are not positive for people. It’s that the attachment paradigm applied to adult therapy encourages deleterious therapy, and the current hegemony it enjoys makes its pitfalls invisible to many therapists.
Glad you find my different perspective refreshing. Thanks for your comment.
David Schnarch
Thanks, once again, for all the important ideas and information, and for opening our eyes and minds--broadening our views!!
I think you have an excellent point!! I do much of my thinking out loud and last night I was having one of my "thinking-out-loud" sessions in which I found myself bouncing this same viewpoint off of an acquaintance of mine. In the history of psychotherapy the various theories and therapies have often demonstrated this very idea--that there can be more than one path to the same objective.
my own feeling of being fully seen without judgement, which is in itself transforming.
Thank you for sharing that experience!!! It sounds so inviting!!
Good to see and hear you talking again about mind-mapping,rewiring the brain through intense moments of meeting etc. I especially liked the part of the interview in which you talked about how to deal with the issue of lost of trust when people come in because of an affair. Furthermore I want to thank you for the very interesting link you also made in Berlin to the work of a.o.Norman Doidge about brain plasticity. I since then used it a lot in working with couples and clients really start to derive hope from it and work with it, through Hugging Till Relaxed for instance. It seems a great contribution in transformation and in working with the best in them. I look forward to next year's Berlin workshop, greetings to Ruth,
Vera Steenhart
Amsterdam
Another area is how do you define forgiveness? I have seen it handled badly and misapplied in religious circles- the reference to turning the cheek if struck on the right cheek has more to do with not accepting a backhand blow from someone's right hand but offering to be viewed as an equal by offering a cheek that would not be hit with a back hand. I assume your statement on forgivenss has more to do with not being slapped around and saying a behavior is ok than a rejection of keeping accounts current and forgiving debts of negative and hurtful action as a means of not falling into resentment. Will you enlighten me on what your aim at knocking forgiveness and trust was in this interview?
I appreciate the modle of reaching for the best as the means of healing and empowerment, wounds need to be healed but constantly poking them does not let someone meake much progress.
Stephen Woods, Raleigh NC
Very refreshing to have somebody challenge the hegemony of attachment-based therapy. The assumption that the (only?) way to heal "attachment wounds" is through corrective emotional experience of secure attachment recreated in the theraoeutic dyad and in the marital dyad is just a theory-driven assumption, not a scientific fact. In other words, why are we assuming that differentiation is only possible after secure attachment has been achieved and experienced? Just because somebody said, you can't skip develpmental steps? And even if that might be true in childhood, why are we assuming that the same rules apply to dealing with it in - somehow achieved - adulthood?
The idea that we can achieve security via trust in our significant others has an absurd angle to it, one which can hijack and destroy therapy (although I am not denying the validity of soothing, joy, and a ton of other benefits stemming from connection with others.) The famous question: "Will you be there for me when I need you, will you hold me tight?" can be only aswered, realistically and soberly, with "Are you out of your mind? How can I possibly promise such a thing? I don't know!"
My perspective as a therapist grounded in Buddhist philosophy, psychoanalytic thought as well as CBT (Third wave) allows me to see these perils quite clearly. But if we focus on differentiation, that will lead to connection in the intersubjective space of freedom and curiosity, rather than safety based on a fantasy about a perfect (or even semi-perfect) holding by another person. Yes there is security in interpersonal relationships - but it is security derived from developing a trusting relationship with oneself and respecting even enjoying other people's separateness. A lot (not only good sex) is possible in such space...