Join Us

Facebook Twitter YouTube

In This Section

Recent Posts

Tough Customers: Is It Them or Us?

Tough CustomersBy Rich Simon As therapists, many of us practice in two different worlds. In the first, we see polite, well-behaved, articulate clients with solid values. They engage fully in therapy, talk cogently about their problems, listen attentively to our responses, make reasonably good-faith efforts to follow our suggestions, and sooner or later get better. No wonder we genuinely like these people!

Does This Kid Need Medication? with Ron Taffel

Meds: Myths and Realities: NP0035 – Session 3

Do you feel like you could be a more effective therapist with your younger clients? Do you find it hard to determine when interventions--psychological and pharmacological--might be needed? Join Ron Taffel and learn to identify key diagnostic signs that indicate medications could be helpful when dealing with depression, anxiety, AD/HD, and affective disorders. 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.

You Don’t Have To Choose

Casey Truffo On Doing The Work You Love And Making It Pay

In Consultation

Peer Supervision Groups that Work

By Eleanor Counselman

Three steps that make a difference

Q: I’d like to organize a peer supervision group, but I’ve heard their failure rate is high. What do you recommend? A: Peer supervision groups provide a welcome respite from the isolation of private practice and an informal, nonevaluative setting after years of formal supervision, particularly for young therapists. They offer valuable guidance on difficult cases and tough ethical dilemmas to therapists at any level of experience. And they’re free! However, as you note, many of them fail. In my experience, careful attention to the initial contract and the ongoing group process can make a huge difference in helping them sustain their membership and thrive. Though they’re often called peer supervision groups, it would be more accurate to call them peer consultation groups. Members don’t have direct supervisory responsibility for one another’s cases: they simply offer suggestions, which members can accept or reject. They typically have four to six members who have approximately the same level of professional experience or share a specific area of interest. Members meet on a regular, usually biweekly, basis. Group consultation, with or without a leader, offers advantages over individual consultation. It includes the possibility of multiple perspectives on the same problem and the reduction of clinicians’ shame about confusions and mistakes as they share similar stories about their struggles with difficult cases. Another benefit is peer interaction, which develops one’s professional sense of self. The hall-of-mirrors effect—seeing yourself as others see you—which is so potent in therapy groups, is a major component of the supervision group experience. Nevertheless, despite the many benefits, it’s challenging to start and maintain a consultation group, particularly if it’s a leaderless one. They can fail to thrive or suffer from “task drift,” moving them away from discussing clinical material and into a form of therapy. It can be difficult to integrate new members and maintain clarity about the group’s own process. Presenting cases in supervision in any format poses obvious risks to one’s self-esteem, and group dynamics add additional risks: issues of power, competition, exposure, and shame can lead members to drop out. It’s especially challenging to manage group dynamics in leaderless groups, as it’s usually the leader’s role to remain aware of what’s happening within the group, and without a leader in charge, shame or fear of being judged may silence members. The most successful leaderless groups seem to be those in which the group members find a balance between a focus on cognitive and emotional issues—talking about cases and about the feelings that arise when seeing clients—while consciously managing the functions that a designated leader would serve. These include protecting the group contract, setting and maintaining appropriate norms, and handling gatekeeping matters, such as bringing in new members. A crucial component of maintaining an atmosphere of group safety is regular, dependable member attendance. Without this, a group will never feel like a place to take risks. Members need to be willing to bring up concerns about irregular attendance because, just as in a therapy group, member lateness and absences can indicate issues that need exploring. Chronic irregular attendance can be demoralizing and cause a group to fail. When it comes to group safety and cohesion, Woody Allen was right: 90 percent of supervision group success is about showing up. A significant issue in any supervision group is shame and the reluctance to expose oneself. To make supervision groups feel safer, therapist David Altfeld developed a model of group consultation in which all group members simply share their emotional reactions and associations to a situation being discussed, instead of one person presenting a specific case issue and everyone else giving advice as resident “experts.” This procedure levels the playing field by not allowing members to compete for the best case analysis. It leaves room for highlighting emotional issues, countertransference reactions, and parallel process. Making everyone vulnerable in this manner avoids opportunities for excessive criticism (or its counterpart, excessive niceness) and encourages emotional sharing. Another group consultation model, developed by Irish therapist Bobby Moore, focuses only on minimal case information, such as a patient’s age, length of time in therapy, and perhaps a little demographic information. Then the presenter talks about his or her thoughts, fantasies, feelings, and associations about the patient and the therapy. Group members then share their associations. Following that, the initial presenter is invited to share any further associations. Only at this point does the presenter give the facts of the case and the clinical dilemma. Finally, the group thinks together about what’s been discussed and what it indicates about the case. For those interested in the power of the collective unconscious, this is a fascinating process to experience. To succeed, a consultation group must feel safe and useful to its members. Here are a few simple principles to follow: Clarify the group structure. The group needs to agree on the frequency and length of meetings, which is best accomplished with a predictable schedule. The group needs to agree on its task and focus: is this group for any clinical issue or just for couples, or trauma, or group therapy? How much time will the group spend on “schmoozing,” and will there be one or more than one case presented each time? What will be the presentation format? While most groups use verbal presentation, some groups are now using videoclips—which makes the discussion much livelier. Agree on membership issues. How many members will the group have, and how will new members be integrated? Once a group has formed, I believe that decisions about adding more members should be a group decision. While it may be tempting to accept a request from someone who wants to join the group, a total of six members seems to be the maximum number for each member to have enough opportunities for presentations. Attend to the group process and dynamics. While groups should build in a “schmooze” or “check-in” time, there needs to be an agreed-upon limit to the socializing, so that the group doesn’t become a therapy group or a coffee klatch. Without a leader, the members themselves must monitor the group’s procedures and raise any important issues. Some groups do this ad hoc; others schedule a regular review meeting to evaluate how things are going. Leaderless peer supervision groups can help clinicians at any stage further clinical learning and combat professional isolation. They’re likeliest to succeed when the group members have a clear working agreement, maintain regular attendance, and create an environment in which both emotional and cognitive learning occurs. Eleanor Counselman, Ed.D., is a past president of the Northeastern Society for Group Psychotherapy and an assistant professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. She’s published numerous articles on psychotherapy and has a private practice in Belmont, Massachusetts.

Case Study

Women Who Cheat

By Tammy Nelson

Understanding the message of the affair

Even though our ideas about sex and sexuality have greatly advanced over the last half-century, our culture still holds a double standard about infidelity. While no one is entirely surprised by the behavior of a Bill Clinton, an Elliot Spitzer, or a Tiger Woods—men will be men, after all—we still tend to pathologize women or shame them (or both) for having affairs. In my view, far from being evidence of pathology or marital bankruptcy, a woman’s affair can be a way of expressing a desire for an entirely different self, either separate from the marriage altogether or still in it. An affair can be what I call “a can opener” for women unable to articulate for themselves why they’re unhappy in their marriages, much less empower themselves to leave or begin an honest conversation with their husbands about what they feel is wrong. In my practice, I’ve heard many women say, “I didn’t even know what I wanted until the affair was over and I realized that I really wanted to end my marriage,” or “I had no idea that I used the affair as a way to wake up our relationship.” Many infidelity treatment approaches today are based on the idea that the unfaithful spouse is a perpetrator, someone who wronged the other person. While the pain caused by infidelity can’t and shouldn’t be denied, it generally isn’t understood well enough that many women cheat because they struggle with their self-identity in their lives and lack of empowerment in their marriages. To some extent, the affair makes up for a felt lack of an adult self. Sometimes, understanding an affair as an unconscious bid for self-empowerment, relief from bad sex, or a response to a lack of choices or personal freedom is an important first step toward a fuller, more mature selfhood. Searching for the Bartered Self Sarah came to therapy with her husband, Rob, for couples therapy after he caught her cheating. Married for 10 years, he felt hurt, angry, and hopeless about the marriage. He sat across from Sarah on the couch, with his head in his hands. “I have no idea how we’re going to get past this. Sarah says she wants to work this out, but I don’t know if we can put this marriage together again after what she’s done.” Rob had read emails between Sarah and her boyfriend that explained in detail how much they were enjoying virtual sex—watching each other masturbating over a webcam—which had both shocked and devastated him. He’d thought their sex life was good, but admitted that having kids had gotten in the way of their relationship. He thought they still loved each other, and Sarah agreed. They were both unclear why the affair had happened, but said they wanted to recover their marriage, if possible. At the end of their first joint session, Sarah asked whether she could see me individually. Rob consented, so I asked if they’d be OK with an open secrets policy: what’s said in the individual session stays in the session. They agreed that whatever Sarah said could be kept private, though she could share with Rob what she wished to from our individual sessions. In our first individual session, Sarah asked if therapy could be a place where she could talk honestly about the affair. This led to a discussion of the difference between privacy and secrecy, both in her marriage and in her sessions with me. Keeping secrets in her marriage had given Sarah a sense of space—a secret place where she could grow her sexuality, dream her dreams, and keep a part of her that no one else had control over. Our first conversation revolved around how the space she’d created could be shifted from secret to private, and how she could keep a differentiated, individuated boundary around herself in her relationship. This could give her a healthy degree of separation from her husband without having to lie or be deceptive to stake out her space. I then explained to Sarah that, in my view, infidelity recovery has three phases: crisis, insight, and vision. The crisis stage occurs right after disclosure or discovery, when couples are in acute distress and their lives are in chaos. At this point, the focus of therapy isn’t on whether or not they should stay together or if there’s a future for them, but on establishing safety, addressing painful feelings, and normalizing trauma symptoms. In phase two, the insight phase, we talk about what vulnerabilities might have led to the extramarital affair. Becoming observers of the affair, we begin to tell the story of what happened. Repeating endless details of the sexual indiscretion doesn’t help, but taking a deeper look at what the unfaithful partner longed for and couldn’t find in the marriage—and so looked for outside of it—as well as finding empathy for the other, who was in the dark, can elicit a shift in how both partners see the affair and what it meant in their relationship. Phase three is the vision phase, which includes seeking a deeper understanding of the meaning of the affair and moves forward the experience and resulting lessons into a new concept of marriage and, perhaps, a new future. In this phase, partners can decide to move on separately or stay together. This is where the erotic connection will be renewed (or created) and desire can be revived. In this phase, the meaning of monogamy changes from a moralistic, blanket prohibition on outside sex to a search for deeper intimacy inside the marriage. A vision of the relationship going forward includes negotiating a new commitment. Establishing Safety During early sessions in the crisis phase of treatment, Sarah’s view of the world was shifting, and she didn’t know what she wanted. She wavered about whether she wanted to stay with Rob, wondering whether she should move on and seek genuine emotional independence alone or stay and try to be both fully herself and fully married to Rob. She wasn’t sure she could trust me to understand her and didn’t trust her husband, either, even though she herself had acted in a way that wasn’t trustworthy. Gradually, Sarah revealed that she’d felt that she had no space of her own in the marriage, literally or figuratively. Her husband had a home office, but she had no comparable space for herself. Her dependence on Rob was nearly total: he balanced the checkbook, paid the bills, earned the money, and told her when she could make ATM withdrawals. He even counted the cash in her wallet and decided how much she should spend at the hair salon. She’d never been encouraged or allowed to feel empowered and independent. As a result, she’d started rebelling against her husband like an adolescent against a too-strict father, sneaking out at night or during the day when he was at work and having clandestine sexual encounters. Sarah’s affair consisted primarily of quick liaisons in the back of her car. Her boyfriend met sexual needs not being fulfilled at home. Although the sex was quick, furtive, and secret, he gave her orgasms and oral sex and was willing to experiment in ways she found exciting. But while buoyed by the thrill and energy of this new relationship and her long-buried ability to feel pleasure—even wondering if she might be falling in love—she also felt guilty. Frightened by the growing intimacy with her lover when they were together, she began meeting him online, masturbating with him through a webcam. After Rob discovered the affair, he’d demanded Sarah’s email and voice mail passwords, which she gave him. Although this made her feel exposed, vulnerable, and humiliated, she thought her husband deserved the transparency—as the “innocent” party—and that she should be punished. All these thoughts conformed with many of society’s constructs about women who have affairs, but they reinforced her long-brewing resentment that her marriage wasn’t an equal partnership: she was the “bad child”; her husband, the aggrieved parent. At this point, I reframed the affair for Sarah in a way quite different from her own perspective (and that of many therapists). I asked whether it was possible that the infidelity was less a transgression than a move toward self-respect and self-empowerment. Could she have been seeking autonomy and individuation, as well as a more mature state of sexual development? Was she trying to find her voice, maintain a stronger sense of herself, create a personal boundary that no one could cross, and remain in her marriage? Yes, she’d betrayed her husband; this was beyond doubt, I added. And this method for finding herself was clearly not working if she wanted the marriage to survive. But perhaps she’d paradoxically tried to sabotage the marriage as a desperate attempt to develop more emotional maturity and become a more independent and grown-up wife. As we spoke, Sarah realized that, while her intentions in having the affair hadn’t been conscious, she did want to grow into a fuller woman and mature sexual adult. She admitted she thought she could bring that woman back into the marriage and into the relationship. This made one point crystal clear: she could no longer be satisfied with the marriage as it was. Gaining Awareness Having gotten a clearer portrait of Sarah’s marriage, we moved on to the insight phase of treatment. What did the affair mean about her? What did it mean about Rob? And what did it mean about their marriage? As we explored these questions, Sarah discovered quickly that the affair had far more to do with her marriage than with her husband, whom she said she loved and with whom she wanted to stay—but only if it could become a more equal partnership. When I asked what the affair told her about Rob, she said, “I felt that he wanted me to fill a certain kind of role; it wasn’t just about replaying my mother’s position. Rob liked being in charge, liked bossing me around and being a kind of father. I know why, too. He recently lost his job, and the only place he felt any power or control was at home. He was mad that they’d fired him and took it out on me. In a way, he’s always done that: when people reject him, he gets angry and controlling. But with us, the more he tried to control me, the more I wanted independence from him.” We worked in sessions to identify some key areas where she could feel more autonomy and still be in relationship with Rob. She started small, choosing their television shows, making decisions on where to go to dinner, instead of saying, “I don’t care where we go. Where do you want to go?” When Rob asked her to have sex, she told him she wasn’t ready yet, but would let him know when she was. Although Rob felt he had little or no control in these situations, he did begin to appreciate signs of the new, more adult Sarah, someone equal to him, with whom he could have a conversation and negotiate choices. He realized it was a relief that he didn’t have to do it all himself, and he actually felt less lonely in the marriage. When I asked Sarah what the affair meant about her marriage, she said, “In the affair, I felt stronger, more mature, sexier, calmer, more charming, and more alive.” We talked about whether she could integrate her sexier, more mature self into the marriage or whether the relationship was fundamentally flawed. To her, being in her marriage meant giving up a sense of personal power, while having an affair gave her a sense of independence, choice, and more control. She didn’t know how to have a grown-up relationship with her husband that encompassed safety and desire. Reenvisioning a Marriage Treatment in the third phase included helping Sarah get in touch with her fantasies and reconnect with pleasure—one of her greatest challenges in therapy. She felt guilty when she thought about her own pleasure, and had compartmentalized her needs into the affair, as something separate, wrong, and forbidden. Her fantasies and desires were something she felt shame about sharing with her husband. Bringing that sexual part of her into the marriage was the beginning of erotic recovery for her and for her marriage, but she still had to learn to connect with her desires and to communicate them to Rob. I asked her to write down some of her sexual fantasies and share what she thought the desire or longing underneath them was. For instance, if the fantasy was to have someone grab her hair and kiss her, was this spurred by a longing to be held, to be out of control, to know that she was wanted and desired, or all of the above? The goal was to normalize her sexual needs: her affair had been a breach of monogamy, not a sexual pathology. “If you could have anything you wanted, what would you ideally expect from your sex life with your husband?” Sarah answered shyly, “That he’d pursue me and we’d try new things in bed.” When I asked her if she knew what the longing underneath might be, she said, “My real longing underneath is to be totally special to him.” Sarah went on to work on a vision of a more intimate and adult sexuality. This included asking Rob to behave in ways that made her feel special and trying to make him feel special as well. By this point, she was committed to creating a mutual vision of a new monogamy with her husband, and I suggested they return for couples therapy and focus together on their erotic recovery. Several months later, Rob and Sarah are still working on an agreement for a new, monogamous marriage together. Sarah is committed to sharing her real thoughts and feelings with Rob. In this way, her adult self and her adult needs become a priority that can be talked about and negotiated in the relationship. She feels they’re now given as much importance as Rob’s needs. Rob’s commitment to Sarah is that he tries harder to share his feelings and work on creating a more emotionally intimate relationship. They both try to be conscious of the distant and disconnected roles learned in their childhoods, and focus instead on the emotional intimacy they really want from the relationship. Their new monogamy includes a focus on their erotic recovery. The affair created an erotic injury to their relationship, and Rob and Sarah continue to work on this as a goal of healing. They’ve made a commitment to sharing their fantasies and talking about what’s working in their love life. When they feel distant or dissatisfied, they want to learn to talk about it and turn toward each other instead of shutting down or turning to someone else outside the marriage. Sarah now understands that her journey to self-empowerment and freedom can happen at the same time that she’s a wife and partner. Her adult choices include staying in a mature, monogamous relationship, while creating space for working on her own self-identity. Her worth in the relationship continues to be a focus of our couples therapy. Her cheating makes sense to her now in the context of her life issues, but she has a new empathy for Rob and how it affected him. As therapists, it’s important to discern what our goal is for the women we treat in infidelity therapy. Are we helping them end an affair or end their marriage? Is it our job to remind them of their vows or simply to help them heal? By viewing women’s infidelity as a possible search for a new way of being, we can help them reenvision a fully committed relationship with greater empowerment and equality. CASE COMMENTARY By David Treadway While I admire the sensitive work Tammy Nelson did in rejuvenating Sarah and Rob’s marriage, both emotionally and erotically, I believe that zooming in too quickly to examine the root causes of an infidelity without addressing the emotional impact of the betrayal on both parties usually leads to incomplete healing. Although I say to couples that each partner is 50 percent responsible for what’s not working in a marriage, I always add that choosing to have a secret affair is 100 percent the responsibility of the unfaithful spouse. Most of the time, couples need a way of healing the fundamental breach of trust before being able to fully repair the relationship. In working with couples following a secret affair, I use a four-step model based on the treatment approach of clinical psychologist Janis Abrahms Spring: Step 1: The betrayed partners have as much time as needed to share their hurt, anger, and sense of devastation while unfaithful partners listen as nondefensively as possible without explaining or rationalizing their behavior. The therapist helps the partner who had the outside relationship to be compassionate and caring about the impact of the affair. Needless to say, this may take more than a single session. Step 2: The unfaithful partners are then taught to write a letter in which they take full responsibility for having done harm, indicating what they’ll do to ensure it won’t happen again and what concrete steps they’ll take to make amends. In addition to agreeing never again to see the other party in the affair, other ways to make amends might include giving up drinking for a year or getting rid of the boat where the affair took place. Step 3: The letter of amends is read in session, and the concrete actions that constitute an attempt at atonement are agreed upon by both partners. Step 4: Only at this point is the challenge of learning how to forgive discussed, and only if betrayed partners are ready to begin to work on it. If so, they’re coached on how to write a forgiveness letter that involves accepting the attempts at atonement and expressing a willingness to let go of a sense of injury. This all takes place with the understanding that forgiveness can’t be legislated; it has to grow over time. It’s my experience that patiently and thoroughly working through this difficult process without shaming and blaming is what allows a couple to move on to achieving a level of intimacy and trust that they typically never had before. I remember a man named Paul who’d gone on to transform his relationship with his wife after her affair and referred to their new sense of connection as his “second marriage.” In one of our last sessions, he put his arm around his wife, smiled at me conspiratorially, and said, “You know what I like best? Here I have this extraordinary woman and a brand new ‘second marriage,’ and the lawyers didn’t get a dime!” AUTHOR'S RESPONSE I agree with David Treadway’s observation that working with couples after an infidelity takes lots of finesse and that, of course, the feelings of the person who’s been deceived and betrayed need to taken into account and addressed. Like Treadway, I think Janis Spring’s “secrets policy” can be invaluable, offering helpful clinical guidelines for individual work when necessary. Since this case study was told from Sarah’s point of view, it doesn’t delve into Rob’s feelings, nor do we get to see much of the couples work. Instead, the focus is on the special issues of identity and empowerment for women who have affairs. If I’d told the fuller story of the therapy with this couple, I’d have devoted more attention to the third phase of treatment—the attempt to help them develop a new vision of their marriage, which I call the “new monogamy.” However, the most important message I hope readers take away from this case is that even after the wrenching pain of an affair, therapists still have an opportunity to help troubled couples create a new relationship with better communication, fuller intimacy, and realistic hope for a better future together. Tammy Nelson, Ph.D., M.S., a board-certified sexologist, licensed professional counselor, certified sex therapist, and Imago therapist, is the founder and executive director of the Center for Healing. She’s the author of The New Monogamy; Getting the Sex You Want; and What’s Eating You? David Treadway, Ph.D., is director of the Treadway Training Institute. He’s the author of Home Before Dark: First Year with Cancer and Intimacy, Change, and Other Therapeutic Mysteries: Stories of Clinicians and Clients.
Networker Excel Clubs
Subscribe to the Magazine
Requested page not available (because user or community was deleted)

P004, Attachment, Session 6, Allan Schore

 
Thank you for attending this final session of “The Great Attachment Debate.” We hope you’ll come away from this course with a better understanding of attachment research and an awareness of the range of viewpoints about attachment theory and the consulting room.

During this session with Allan Schore, one of the leaders of the neuropsychology movement, he’ll delve into how affect and psychobiological change are significant in the therapy process. He’ll cover intersubjectivity and how understanding it can help us in our work, how to help clients develop a body-based relationship unconscious, and much more.

After listening to the course, please take a few minutes to comment about what was most interesting to you about this session, and to reflect on the course in its entirety. What was most relevant to you in your practice and everyday life? What questions remain for you? Thank you all for your participation in this series, and for taking the time to share your thoughts.
05.05.2011   Posted In: P004 New Perspectives on Practice: The Great Attachment Debate   By Psychotherapy Networker
27
Comments
 

  • 0 avatar Diana Bunday 05.10.2011 13:06
    Thank you so much for these wonderful and thought provoking expert lessons. I would like and hope to hear more about all of the ideas presented.

    Diana
    Reply
  • 0 avatar Charlie Love 05.10.2011 13:11
    Alan captured the process of Being with clients as a learned skill though practice as well as knoweldge.
    Rich interrupted him nunmerous times which I feel was disrutptful. Rich would ask him a question and not allow him to expand on his process. I felt that Alan was making sense and giving needed information. The interruptions were so frequent that it actually interrupted Alan giving information on the topics on the slide. I appreciate the fact that Rich was trying to get Alan to either give a case study or describe his process with clients, but I feel Alan did describe his process as well as a non verbal process can be described.
    Charlie Love
    Austin, TX.
    Reply
    • 0 avatar Merrilee Gibson 05.11.2011 10:24
      Just a comment about Rich's interactions. First, I am enormously grateful for his efforts in making these presentations happen. In most previous sessions, I found Rich's comments helpful most of the time There were, however, several occasions when I actually found myself saying "Be quiet, Rich, and let him(her) speak." I particularly had that feeling in Dr Schore's presentation. It seemed to me that Rich was being very "left brain" about "right brain" processes. While I do understand that as moderator that it is his job to move the presentations along and make the major points in the allotted time. I found his constant interruptions of Dr. Schore and his repeated insistence, with very little time remaining, for specifics of how to do therapy in the ways Dr. Schore was discussing, as very jarring and disrespectful. It really felt like Rich was hounding Dr. Schore. It was not a welcome process to behold. Rich was asking for "left brain" answers to "right brain" questions. I really had the sense that Rich just didn't get it. If he had really been LISTENING to the essence of Dr. Schore's message, I don't believe he would have asked THOSE questions in THAT way at the end of the session.
      Reply
  • 0 avatar Debra Tripp 05.10.2011 13:23
    As a therapist I am reassured to find that many of the approaches I have learned by receiving my own therapy and have consciously or non-consciously put into place are now being presented as solid. I've always drawn a diffence between 'counseling' and 'therapy' with clients. Some want to just work on a problem, others want to change their manner of being. For the latter the work is often a mystery to me as clients report some shift in themselves that I didn't intend or forsee, yet it occurred.
    It also is interesting to me that my spouse, a very LEFT brained man, gestures all the time. Is is fair to say that is his right brain trying to find an outlet?
    Reply
  • 0 avatar Christine Imgrund 05.10.2011 13:37
    Throughout these sessions I have been struck by the dearth of women experts in the attachment field, and wonder, if more women were involved in this research how much richer it could be today. Today’s presentation really brings this home with the newfound importance of “reading under the words” and “non verbal communication”. I am surmising that cognitive theories have dominated because men – who tend toward favoring their left brains - were the primary researchers.

    Chris
    Reply
    • 0 avatar Merrilee Gibson 05.10.2011 22:48
      Well, I think Mary Ainsworth, Mary Main, Inge Bretherton, to name just three women, are certainly primary attachment researchers. Also, Arietta Slade, Joan Stevenson-Hinde, Jude Cassidy, come to mind. I'm sure there are several others. This is just off the top of my head.
      Reply
  • 0 avatar Donna Vogeler-Boutin 05.10.2011 15:12
    I agree with Christine above relative to cognitive theories. Men over the centuries (war etc) have needed to be in control of their emotions for their own survival not to mention the numbness that comes with too much war. I also worry about trauma to the right brain in utero, alcohol, medication, pollution (mercury etc), poisoned food, exposure to radiation - cell phones, tsunamis and damage to right brain development and feelings of empathy. There is such a spike in autism.
    Reply
  • 0 avatar Judith Gulko 05.10.2011 15:40
    I found myself exclaiming out loud “yes” when Allan reminded us of the origins and authors of ideas and beautifully wove together an interdisciplinary understanding deeply informed by both theory and research. However, his discussion of clinical application in psychotherapy was vague. I would rather he had declined or deferred, for his research and theoretical knowledge alone are more than sufficient. I too found myself wanting further clinical application, since unless I misunderstood, it seemed as if Allan was offering that, beyond the powerful yet already well-understood impact of the therapist-client relationship on many levels.
    Reply
  • 0 avatar Merrilee Gibson 05.10.2011 17:42
    My left brain is put in the unenviable position of trying to express the inexpressible satisfaction of hearing and seeing Dr. Schore speaking today, after long experience of reading his words on the printed page.

    My left brain struggles to make sense of all the information on attachment, as it has evolved since Bowlby’s initial presentations, as it appears in voluminous professional literature, and as presented in the past six weeks on these web lectures, with prestigious clinicians sharing their undoubtedly valuable but sometimes widely-differing opinions in this field.

    I am just one therapist in a small practice working with patients referred by State and County mental health programs. Most of my patients are children and I do see presentations of what certainly appears to be attachment-related behavior. My job is to help these children.

    So, Dr. Schore’s message spoke to my right brain, and in many ways supported what I have known all along, as a therapist. It also seems to me that Carl Rogers was right—therapy is a way of being, and the alliance is the principal mechanism of change. Virginia Satir was right, too, in her involving of multiple senses—the whole body-- into the therapeutic experience, in her reminding us that everything we do is communication, that we are comunicating all the time.

    Donald Meichenbaum once said, in a lecture I attended, that therapy is hard work. And he is right about that: it takes everything I can muster to work with the children I see. But in addition to the hard work, there is also the joy. There is a child’s sudden delighted smile; there is the enchanting music of a spontaneous peal of laughter; there is also an unseen but vividly felt mutual presence. I am humbled and thrilled with what I learn from the children all the time.

    My right brain thanks you, Dr. Schore.
    Reply
  • 0 avatar Pauline Druffel 05.10.2011 22:43
    I, too, am grateful for today's presentation by Alan Shore, as well as all six presentations. I come away from this exposure to Attachment Theory and those who disagree with its value, with an even greater appreciation for the theory. As others have said, it fits with what we are already doing.

    I also have been jarred when Rich interrupted a speaker--and I understood that he was trying to provide a structure for the dialogue. The hour long presentations all felt too short--especially those which were supportive of Attachment Theory. I'm glad to know the names of authors who I can go to for more in depth information.

    Thanks for the Webinar--my first.
    Reply
  • 0 avatar Kenny Meagher 05.11.2011 18:50
    I cant get the replay to work on my computer for the final segment. This is the only one I missed live. Rich I agree with several of the other comments that you played too big a role in the actual "interviews". They did feel more like interviews than presentations because of that. What you do is great but we need a little less of it!
    Kenny Meagher
    Reply
  • 0 avatar Joyce Buckner 05.12.2011 05:07
    I awoke at 4:30 this morning with the awareness that I need to comment about what I noticed yesterday as I experienced your face and body responses to Rich's question about what clues you could pass along to other therapists about how to "do" right brain to right brain work which you "be" so exquisitely. I worked with Charles Truax years ago as he was researching the interpersonal skills arena and continued the work researching the "teachability" of these skills. I've spent 30 years developing a process which I call The ERA (Empathy, Respect, Authenticity) Process and which I have published in the book MAKING REAL LOVE HAPPEN--THE NEW ERA OF INTIMACY. I struggled to make this book clear and simple--it is a primer. Joyce Buckner, PhD
    Reply
  • Not available avatar Amy Olson 05.13.2011 13:50
    Allan,
    Your notion of the importance of up-regulating positive emotions within a session was important, as often we respond with greater emphasis on the pain. Can you give me an idea of how YOU may up-regulate a positive emotion effectively in a session? I"d like to pay more attention to this. Thank you for your participation in the webinar
    Reply
  • Not available avatar barbara goodman-fischtrom 05.13.2011 13:52
    Great lecture. Thank you. My question is when you stated near the end of presentation about the therapist being in an intimate relationship. were you referring to the therapeutic relationship as being perceived as intimate or one's own personal intimate relationships are a good foundation to being open as a therapist?
    Reply
  • Not available avatar Larry Lease 05.14.2011 17:47
    Rich, At the risk of piling on, I must ditto the complaint raised by others. While it reached new heights today, you've trampled your guests lines in every other webinar, too.
    Reply
  • Not available avatar gail smith 05.14.2011 19:49
    Thank you for yet another stimulating web session. I agree that this is the future of psychotherapy (for now). I had to smile as Rich endeavored a response from Mr. Schore who was apparently in a right brain loss for words. As Mr. Schore stated, "language is a poor medium for expressing quality and nuancing of emotion". After all, how does one convey the act of intuiting with a patient. I'm sorry this series is over but I look forward to the next. Thank you Rich.
    Reply
    • 0 avatar Nick Child 06.12.2011 09:18
      There seemed to be more of an internet delay between Rich and Alan this time than in other webinars. I think there is some subtle technology going on to match audio to the pictures and wondered if this time we were seeing Alan taking a long time to answer not just because of being puzzled and not sure how to find the words, but just that he was receiving Rich's question a significant delay after we had heard it?!!
      Actually on this occasion I thought Rich - despite the overlaps and interruptions (perhaps also caused by some technical thing) - was more in tune with his guest than in some webinars! Despite these irritations, I have come to always admire Rich's steady, cheerful, intelligent management of the webinar event - acting on our behalf (the listener) to slow down and punctuate and repeat and ask for relevance, a kind of "every-person" character. When irritated by his slowing it down, I remind myself how it would be if we got 60 minutes solid from one talking head piling into the short time their lifetime's work!! I'm sure there are other ways to run a webinar, but I've become quite attached to Rich's way!
      Nick Child
      Scotland
      Reply
  • Not available avatar Dov F. 05.14.2011 22:52
    Thank you for a brilliant presentation. I am wondering if there is any difference in your clinical practice between Carl Rogers and yourself?
    Reply
  • Not available avatar Yetta Zelikovitz 05.15.2011 00:10
    This was a fascinating webinar, and I wished it would have gone on longer.I can't thank you enough Rich for the wonderful learning opportunities you are giving to your readership. Ditto re the interruptions, Rich. [A simple "can you show us what this would look like in session?" would have left room for Allan to expand, without need for you to expand on your comments and questions] Allan made a comment about the ideal being that the therapist would be working in a way as if he was doing nothing -if I caught the jyst of it - but it was interrupted, and I would love to hear more about this - can you oblige by discussing this further on the comment board Allan?
    I was trained as a family therapist in the 80s and I remember Minuchin wrote that therapists should steep themselves in learning the theories and techniques and then put it all on the back burner, and just be their spontaneous selves with their clients, and let their inner wisdom choose the approach that feels intuitively right for this client....which jibes very well with the approach you presented, Allan. Whitaker also spoke alot about being with and resonating with the client family...the brain science was missing in their writings, but was certainly intuited!
    Thank you again for the excellent webinars Rich, and for your mind opening presentation, Allan.
    Reply
  • Not available avatar Scot Liepack 05.15.2011 11:40
    Dr. Schore, you are a hero and a mentor for me. Your work, and the "Interpersonal Neurobiology" group that has formed around your work is truly transformative. Although the term "paradigm shift" gets used too frequently, the shift from cognitive-behavioral theory to regulation theory truly is the next major paradigm shift in psychotherapy. Thank you.

    Rich asked a very important question, one which could set up a whole series in itself: how to train to be an effective therapist in this regulation framework. I believe that the answer comes in our own attachment based psychotherapy. The abilities and skills being discussed become "freed up" in our own "secure" or "earned secure" status and remain accessible as we continue our own therapeutic process. Implicit in this is the transformation of psychotherapy from its sole status in an illness model to it prominence in a health and wellness model.
    Reply
    • Not available avatar Scot Liepack 05.15.2011 12:02
      P.S. Being brave to do our own work. In terms of therapy this means EMDR and somatic therapies. It also means a lifestyle incorporating mindful awareness practices including mindful exercise. Deep muscle emotional release body-work, such as Rolfing, is also profound. It has been said that therapy has been constrained to the left-hemisphere because as therapists we have not been willing to confront the "life-trauma" that resides in our right-hemispheres, yet this is exactly what opens us up to being the best we can be for our clients. A whole new example of "healer, heal thyself."
      Reply
  • Not available avatar Rosemary 05.15.2011 11:47
    Hi Rich, I have only had the luxury of viewing the final two sessions in this series and got a lot from them; the timing has been 'exquisitely perfect' in terms of current dilemmas with 'difficult cases' so I thank the intuitive right brain connections between my colleague and I, in that he sent me the link, (without knowing how relevant it would be to me just now!) The description of the practice application in the two seminars (Susan Johnson and Allan Schore) fits totally with my style of working.
    Thanks Rich for providing this opportunity and for bringing such a warm, relaxed and present sense of yourself to it, albeit with the limitations of minor webcam delay. I look forward to many more. I'd like to hear from you at some stage Allan (and /or Susan) re your thoughts on working with people who seem to use their trauma diagnosis as a weapon to control others and not take any responsibility for their actions.
    Reply
  • Not available avatar Niquie Dworkin 05.15.2011 18:55
    Allan Schore justifies in a left brain model what good therapists have known intuitively but have often diluted and muddied with confusing theories. Thanks for the reminders to therapists to pay attention to affect and push beyond our own defenses.

    Thanks for a very useful and thoughtful series.
    Reply
  • Not available avatar Susan LW Miller 05.15.2011 20:59
    Important tweaks, learnings, ect re: Dr. Shore's presentation: the importance of noticing and responding to 'points of contact' -- when the ventral vagal system comes into play--when left processing jumps to right processing, slow down the process during these times -- linger, stay, note what's happening in the body -- what's painful, what's joyful?; in the psychotherapeutic relationship, an over emphasis on negtive affects has downplayed the equal importance of assisting in increasing postive affect (e.g., joy, interest, surprise; Core 'project' of psychotherapy is affect regulation; Dr. Shore's clarification of right brain functions that were once attributed to the left hemisphere (e.g., the ability to reflect, intuition, symbolic functions); the developmental shift(s)in attachment theory--strange situation a bx paradigm; AAI a cognitive paradigm and now the psychobiology paradigm; early right brain functions are reactivated in the transference/countertransference; the importance of addressing 'controlled' emotions as well as 'uncontrolled' emotions; and last but not least..the paradox of creating safety that's not too safe! Thank you for a thought provoking session and series!
    Reply
  • Not available avatar Myrta E. Lange 05.15.2011 22:11
    Thank you for this thought provoking series. Have enjoyed participating in the attachement debate. Allan's ideas have highlighted aspects of the therapeutic work previously done unconsciously.
    Great contributions. Thanks again.
    Reply
  • Not available avatar Christine Fall Moore 05.16.2011 19:24
    Dear Dr. Schore,
    Thank you so much for your research and readings regarding the UC right brain communication, your work along with others such as Dr. Siegel's and Dr. Davanloos has been an inspiration to me first a person and then a therapist. You were so kind to reply/write me via email and give me some tips while I was completing my masters a couple of years ago...I thought this profound as I can only imagion how busy you must be with your left brain research on the right brain. What I would like to hear/learn more about is the physiological cues/expressions linked to the right brain.
    Reply
    • 0 avatar Nick Child 06.12.2011 09:30
      As usual, I see I'm a month late in viewing and blogging here. I imagine no one reads this! So just to repeat what others have said - this is such good CE - or CPD as we call it in the UK (Continuing Professional Development). And Alan Schore's integrating approach cannot help but be engaging and affirming as he echos so many old ideas while giving them the authority of the new brain science that CAN do what psychotherapists only joked about doing - that is, see into people's minds, it seems! Having done some analytical training in my time, how lovely to see the language coming up still with new meanings - unconscious, pre/oedipal, primary/secondary process etc.
      One question: He suggested that brief psychotherapy is not going to make deeper changes (by which I guess we now mean brain image visible, not just psychological depth!). He talked mainly of individual psychotherapy - ie one-to-one rather than couple or family therapy. Imago therapy most explicitly talks of the clients and their relationship being each other's therapist. As a family therapist, I feel that real short cuts are possible because you are working with a continuing relationship in your room - and certainly Imago and EFT describe the deep changes happening between the clients, not mainly with the therapist.
      Hope someone reads this and replies . . . !!
      Nick Child
      Scotland
      Reply
I do blog this IDoBlog Community