Posted by spoc on May 8, 2004, at 14:55:00
In reply to Re: On the other hand » spoc, posted by antigua on May 8, 2004, at 11:29:02
> Which types of issues do you think would be easier to handle with the tough love approach? I'm just interested in your thoughts.
> antigua----
Hi antigua,Preliminary note: I assume that many/most times when someone picks a T, the various selection criteria don't end up being based on anything like the following. And that whatever "demeanor" the T ends up displaying can also just be a matter of chance. In other words, the below is not at all related to any assumptions about why anyone here is seeing the kind of T they are.
But ok, from logic (and maybe too many movies or something), I'm guessing that the kind of issues that do best with "tough love" are ones wherein the client really has worked against themself by confining themself to people who tend to coddle them and "enable" them not to change. Or, people whose inaction really is mostly due to feeling that the specific hand they were dealt in life excuses them from responsibility. Or justifies getting stuck at blaming others. Or who use drama or other devices to put a halt to any pressure or accountability applied to them.
In those cases I can see calling in someone who accepts no excuses; cuts little slack; confronts and wears down behaviors and thought processes that end up in continued stalling; and who purposely avoids giving any more sympathy/empathy than necessary, so as not to reward or encourage certain behaviors and excuses.
And at the other end of the spectrum, I place the kind of therapy approach that uses exceptional warmth and nurturing; and encourages the client to give in to the healing power of that; and to believe that it can also be transferred to people in their real life. And here, my oversimplification assumes that the people who would do best with this would be those who were clearly deprived of having their emotional and/or physical needs met for much of their lives, and may have had little control/choice in it (whether neglect, abuse, tragedy, bad health, isolation, etc. etc.). And as a result, they may not feel they deserve to ever have those needs met, or may be afraid to ask or try; or can't see or trust the opportunity even if it does present itself.
It seems that if a client's traumas and experiences have had the effect of leading them to expect to be treated harshly, betrayed, or not seen/heard/cared about, a T would at least initially need to build a lot of trust and safety before getting "tough," if ever. Otherwise the person would be likely to perceive even well-intentioned "sternness" as the same void or rejection as always, and probably due their own un-likeability or unworthiness.
Does that make any sense? Of course, most clients surely don't fit neatly into *either* extreme. And ideally, the approach of most Ts would be somewhere in between too. Maybe in reality they usually are. I just jumped in here in relation to the "tougher" approach -- and its ultimate benefits following the prolonged period of seemingly pointless discomfort. The last time I undertook therapy I had not wanted a lot of emphasis on nurturing and even said that, although not asking for or accepting help and love are actually problems of mine. But with an exceptionally cool/abrupt character, I'd have to feel some type of connection or suitability from the start (which fallsfall clarified that she did in her case).
But in my recent attempt, there was no connection, beyond my thinking he was handsome with a comforting, kind face; which hypnotized me initially. And, having noted that he was involved in some industry and academic things (which I later heard can actually work *against* their likelihood of being well-versed in the bedside manner, human interaction aspect...another subject...). So, I just have to choose differently next time. The main thing was that this last "T" was a pdoc whose method turned out to be classic analysis (albeit 'only' twice a week) -- and I hadn't known that. And realize now that it was just not the right method for me (or his in particular wasn't).
So when I talk about the "tough" vs. "nurturing" approaches above, in my case I guess what I'm actually comparing is analysis vs. other kinds of psychotherapy (maybe that means in my simplified examples, I think clients falling within the first category would do better with psychoanalysts??). It's not surprising that analysis can end up not having a warm fuzzy component -- BUT I had not known that that was what I was in!! And that's probably why it felt empty, disturbing and confusing. I had *thought* I was in a place where this person would help me help myself feel better, dig out of a depression, and start setting little goals. I was/am in a bad way and could have used some "stabilizing." But that is not how his method proceeds; it's not about in-the-moment help and shoring-up. So, up until this all came out months later, I had thought it was just *me* who elicited such a cold front and lack of interaction and feedback. But actually I just wasn't even in the right ballpark for me.
(Standing disclaimer: This is NOT to speak for what methods of therapy work best for others, nor to imply that any kinds of therapy always fit some mold and are good or bad ideas.) :- )
poster:spoc
thread:343053
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20040503/msgs/344832.html