Role of the Therapist with Couples

There is a continuum with two extremes.

Its all in the dialogue between the couple
Education is the main focus.
____________________________________ Its all in the safety of the relationship with the therapist. The therapeutic relationship with each partner and the relationship is the main focus.

Of course it is both, I doubt anyone holds the extreme positions. However it is an interesting question as to when one of these aspects needs to be to the fore.

This discussion with Rick & Sherry Stolp addresses this question very well, among other things.

Click to play & downloadListen or download here

Rick Stolp website

 

__________________________________________________

Later : Saturday, 6 October, 2012

I have further clarified that there are some criteria that indicate readiness for dialogue. The ability to move from adversarial positions is required for a dialogue. We do not want to foster something that is dialogical in form but adversarial in essence. As dialogues involve mirroring, the psychodrama principle that doubling comes before mirroring comes into play.

The therapist may be needed to double the couple for some time. Longer work is indicated for them to get to the dialogue stage.

__________________________________________________

Later: Sunday, October 17, 2010

About 20 minutes into the audio they talk about research based on ideas of “Duncan & Miller” on outcome research. http://www.talkingcure.com.

They now have separate websites:

Scott D Miller
http://www.scottdmiller.com
http://www.centerforclinicalexcellence.com

Barry Duncan
http://www.heartandsoulofchange.com
http://www.whatsrightwithyou.com

I’ve made another post on Outcome research here.

Outcomes in Small Group Process

My recent post: Can we Survive? is a draft for an item in a psychodrama publication. In that post I link Wisdom Councils and – Creative Insight Councils to the Sociometric methods of J.L. Moreno. The main idea is that there is a lager community and the small group resonates with the larger group in isomoprhic harmony, and can thus give back compelling insights and wisdom.

In this post I want to add a related idea.

From Dynamic Facilitation and the Wisdom Council theory I have got it clear that a small group can achieve something in addition to personal therapy for its members, and assist an organisation or community in developing its life, and in its decision making.

Jim Rough calls it “option creating”, I am not yet sure exactly what he means by this but it is not just a list of possibilities or wild ideas from a brainstorming session. The breakthrough in a group happens when there is an insight into a real option – something the whole group would like to see happen.

Such breakthroughs are possible over the longer time frame of a group, of diverse members, meeting for several days and sharing at a deep level. Traditional meetings can’t achieve this depth.

For a group to be of use to a larger community there needs to be a thorough warm-up before the event as to the purpose and context. While in psychodrama we are aware of the importance of the frame, I have not experienced a group in that tradition that has the focus of leading to outcomes for the whole community. In our organisations we tend to make decision in meetings, and while there is plenty of interaction and depth work, it is not specifically an clearly focussed on future actions. There may be specialist sub-committees, or work groups, but they tend to be by the people with special positions an ongoing positions within the organisation.

Imagine randomly selected diverse small group – from an organisation or community – doing depth work groups with the task of one or two of the following topics:

What is our strategic plan?
What is our vision?
Principles for the Constitution.
Who should be a member?

The group would present its findings to all members of the community or larger organisation and its governing in one a4 document, and 20 minute audio file at a special hui for the occasion.

Love Maths – John Gottman on relationships

Edge: THE MATHEMATICS OF LOVE: A Talk with John Gottman:

We were able to derive a set of nonlinear difference equations for marital interaction as well as physiology and perception. These equations provided parameters, that allowed us to predict, with over 90 percent accuracy, what was going to happen to a relationship over a three-year period. The main advantage of the math modeling was that using these parameters, we are not only be able to predict, but now understand what people are doing when they affected one another. And through the equations we were now really able to build theory. That theory allows us to understand how to intervene and how to change things. And how to know what it is we’re affecting, and why the interventions are effective. This is the mathematics of love.

THE MATHEMATICS OF LOVE [4.14.04] A Talk with John Gottman

Gotman Videos follow:

Continue reading “Love Maths – John Gottman on relationships”

General semantics – Outline

GENERAL SEMANTICS: An Outline Survey
by Kenneth G. Johnson 3rd Edition Revised

A very interesting Outline! This is by the same guy who I quoted earlier.

11.4 “ ‘You’d be interested to know,’ he (the psychiatrist) said, ‘how many people come to me with troubles that are largely a matter of nomenclature. They suffer the tortures of the damned at the idea that a particular label may fit them or may not fit them. ‘Am I a man? Am I a coward? Am I a failure? Am I an invert? Sometimes, simply, am I a lunatic?’ If you could only get it through your head that it’s you, only you, who’s pinning the label on or taking it off, you’d have your problem half licked.’ ”
– Louis Auchincloss [14]