Archive for May, 2011

Being a very concrete and realistic person makes accepting subjective data very hard for me.    Behavioral therapy is probably my most favorite because of the objectivism and empirical evidence that can be drawn from it.  But at the same time, the unconscious aspect of the mind intrigues me greatly.  I also find techniques that attempt to tap into and evaluate the unconscious very interesting.  I greatly enjoy reading about and trying to understand techniques such as hypnosis, dream analysis, free association, and even ink blot tests.  It makes me think of the old saying, “We only use 10% of our brains.”  Although this statement is widely disregarded by the scientific community, I think that it sheds light onto the vast and relatively unexplored unconscious.  I think that Freud and his followers did a great job of raising awareness and attempting to explain this unconscious portion of the mind.  I think that as technology advances and our understanding of the mind becomes more complete, that we will see some astonishing progress in this area.  I for one would love to see more of these techniques that are supported by sufficient objective facts.  I am interested in whether or not you guys think that objective data will ever be able to measure the dynamics of the unconscious.

Sigmund Freud was a very interesting man with some very interesting ideas. In my opinion, however, Freud makes some very questionable leaps in his theories. While I do agree that there are many processes that take place subconsciously, I tend to disagree with Freud that obscure symbols in dreams always have some sort of hidden meaning. I also disagree with the jumps that he makes in his interpretations. For example, Freud once interpreted a boy’s fear of horses to be a fear of his father because the horse wore blinders and had prominent parts and the father wore glasses and was fully grown. Things like that kind of reminded me of the clip from Monty Python that we watched at the beginning of the year about a woman accused of being a witch. To determine whether or not she was, they made giant leaps in logic that are really very comical. The other criticism that I have with Freud’s psychoanalysis is that you can’t tell if it actually does any good. As Dr. McAnulty said during class, “Psychoanalysis is like mental masturbation. It’s interesting and it feels good, but it doesn’t get anything done.” I feel like with Freud’s interpretations, he could just make anything mean whatever he wanted, and that what he did, for the most part, probably didn’t help that many people.

If i had to pick my favorite class day of the year or at least the most interesting, I would probably pick today. I was first intrigued when one of my favorite movies, “Good Will Hunting” was  the opening for today’s class. I absolutely love this movie, and even chose to critique it for my movie critique essay. It was interesting to get someone else’s perspective on the movie, and to see how it differed from mine. I myself saw Sean’s methods as a form of Rogerian therapy, but could not quite put my finger on the other therapy he seemed to be drawing from until today. It was interesting to hear about how the math professor wanted to project his life upon Will, but was afraid that Sean was trying to project his failures onto Will. The math professor almost saw it as a slap to the face that Will would throw away his genius intelligence in order to be a construction worker with his friends. Sean on the other hand identifies with Will more and understands that if you push him to do what you want him to do, then he is just going to run away. It was also cool to see how Sean used Rogerian therapy, especially his genuineness. He real talked Will during their first session. Instead of holding back the way he felt, Sean actually at one point grabbed Will by the neck and let him know I am going to be completely open and honest to you, and you do the same. I like how the movie employs this Rogerian therapy, but I also understand that the therapy is really just beginning when Will is told “it’s not his fault”.

I readily agree with Roger’s three qualities of an ideal therapeutic relationship. I feel that perhaps these are not the sole cures to a client’s issues, but I completely understand how it would be quite necessary for their presence in therapy for improvements to occur. If the therapist’s office is no different than the world outside of it that the client has previously been exposed to, why should any action or internal quality change? The therapist must work to provide an atmosphere that is remarkably different than almost any other atmosphere the client is used to. If a client cannot face flaws, needs for change, or even areas of progress because a therapist has created an atmosphere of judgment, fear, or disapproval, both parties are wasting their time. To me, the whole reason that people go to therapy is to get objective advice from a professional that will keep confidentiality, respect, acceptance, and understanding to the utmost degree. Unconditional positive regard, empathy, and congruence simply further the chances of this trustworthy environment in which a client may discover growth.

It has been great to hear about Carl Rogers over the past few classes because I was beginning to wonder if nearly all therapists felt that creating a better relationship with the client is not in either party’s best interest. I also have heard little to nothing about Carl Rogers in my previous classes. He is a breath of fresh air in a sea of deterministic psychological theories. I do not find much value in telling a client something like you have a subconscious that is extremely difficult to control/change, but I do see value in Rogers telling the client they have choice and a say in who they are. Not only does Rogers believe that clients and therapists have a stronger relationships but he also has things to say to encourage the further development of the relationship even after they start to open up. I love how Rogers uses lines/sounds like “hmm,” which I have always been told is rude and improper speech, to successfully bring out more from the client. Rogers’s style is as if he is trying to get down on the same level and learn what it is the client is experiencing, rather than lessening objectively, leaving himself almost venerable to the client. I do feel that Rogers’s method requires some kind of similar experience to your client to effectively work. There is some concern to me about how deep this client and therapist relationship goes especially the part where the therapy comes to an end one way or another. I do have to worry about the idea of centering therapy to the point that the client controls the direction and the method so much, but I can appreciate how not putting more consideration into their feelings can hurt rather than help.

I really enjoyed the clip that was shown today in class because I have been struggling with finding my type of therapy that I wanted to go with. To see this clip and how Sean used different aspects of a couple of schools of psychology in his therapy sessions. I think that this is something that I am going to want to do when I am a counselor. What do some other people think about this? Are you set on one type of therapy or do you feel like you could take from several? or even all?

As the end of the semster appraoches and we have been through the different schools of psychology, Behaviorism, Psychoanalysis, Humanistic. All three of these schools have a place in the present day some more than others but still a place. There are so many arugments against this and that how do you decide what is right. How do you, I guess find the balance between your faith and practice. Like people who study history find that there are some discrepancies in the Bible and things that they find in the field. My question is I guess how do you find your balance and how do stand up for what you do as a counselor without discrediting the Bible. Obviously, it is possible, but when you come up against that one person who is so dead set on that if God has not fixed it then it should not be fixed how do you persuade them that you are here to help.

I feel like this post may be more just spilling the thoughts of my mind than writing about a specific subject, but now that we are nearing the end of our time in this class I looked back on the theories that we have learned about. Psychoanalysis, behaviorism, humanisitic, exisistential, etc. And within each of those big categories, there are smaller ones to choose from. What makes someone choose what approach to take in therapy? I do not plan on being a counselor, but for those of you who are, I am curious as to what one you identify with and why? I feel like each of the theories have positive and negative attributes. It is interesting to see how something as simple as the background of your family and how you grew up can influence how you approach therapy. Each approach seems to build off oof the other and it makes me wonder about the future and how much each theory we know now will grow and what new approaches we will see in the future.

In our class discussion today we covered the three main qualities that Carl Rogers’ proposed were necessary for reversing neuroses/maladjustment. According to his client centered therapy approach, Rogers believed that geniuty, unconditional positive regard, and congruence were most imporant in illiciting a change from a patient. As Dr. McAnulty stated, when you are trying to get someone to open up to you, you have to be genuine. If they have any reason to think you have a hidden agenda or ulterior motives, they won’t take the risk of making themsleves vulnerable. If you want people to be straight with you, you have to be straight with them first. In order to create an opportunity for openness, you have to first create an environment in which people are comfortable. And a key to doing that lies in being genuine. Show an interest in the person rather than in “curing their issues.” The next key factor for growth is unconditional positive regard. If a patient, (or even a friend or family member) knows that you are going to be there for them no matter what happens, they will be more open to receiving help from you. You have to let that individual know that even though you support them, that does not mean you support their lifestyle or behavior choices. People are much more inlclined to be themselves around you when they know you are not going anywhere. The last key factor Rogers’ discussed was congrruence. This kind of ties into the first point of being genuine, but the difference is that it entails showing empathy as well. Who you are, what you think, and how you behave must be in line with what you believe in order for you to  be truly congruent. Congruence enables the patient to open up because it creates an inviting environment. The more “real” the patient thinks you are, the more likely they are to be “real” with you. As far as empathy goes, I think everyone should work on having empathy towards their fellow human beings. And I think Rogers was a genius for realizing this. If you take the time to try and understand where someone else is coming from, it will open your eyes to a whole new view on life. Empathy and genuity are key when trying to get someone to open up. Its all about comfort. If you want people to talk, you have to create comfort. In a quote that I think perfectly sums up our discussion,Frank Warren states, “Every single person has at least one secret that would break your heart. If we could just remember this, I think there would be a lot more compassion and tolerance in the world.”

Well, as we come to the end of the semester, I am reflecting back on what we have learned. The great minds we have investigated and the theories and studies they produced that have allowed us to learn and continue to manipulate and help heal the minds of many in our society. Where would we be without any given one of these who have contributed so much? It is in classes like this where I am always reminded and inspired to look at all sides of an idea and theory. Why do we need to pick “one single” theory? Why can’t we accept that no theory works as an umbrella over ever issue that will ever come up? No two people will ever respond exactly the same to the same theory. None of our minds work exactly the same, but we also have to remember that there is much more in common between human beings is than we sometimes give credit. We must be humble and realize that we will never be able to know everything there is to know about the mind, but we should continue to seek continually for truth because even the bible tells us that the truth will set us free. God gave us minds for a reason, but we also must try to use them to his glory and also keep them open to his revelation.