Therapeutic Focus

Once upon a time, I was speaking to a counselor. He uncovered that I would not take medication for cyclothymia, anxiety or anything else because I classed them as mind altering. As I pointed out to him, this is my issue, and it is a phobia. He seemed to have some significant issues accepting that I had this phobia since it was unusual. I suspect, although I am quite willing to be wrong, that he believed I was just being difficult. After all, the perfect solution for him was probably for me to take medication rather than work through the issues of discomfort that I was experiencing.


I asked him if he had any phobias and he said that his experiences were irrelevant to this conversation and that we should just focus on me. Strangely enough, I really didn't like him. The reason that I asked him was to point out to him, through his example, that phobia doesn't make sense. It just is and is something you either work through or around, but you don't just say "my goodness, this phobia makes no sense so now it is gone". He really didn't understand that.


Two issues were raised for me in this. The first is that the therapist didn't want to work on my discomforts in a way that was compatible to my beliefs. The other was to do with his cold inhuman clinical detachment.


This first issue is fairly common in the therapeutic industry, but it is not universal. Professionals need to remember that people are not universally the same, but are unique and different to each other. If we humans were all the same, then we would not need professionals, we would only need technicians, ticking a box as we progress, working on all of us in the same way as we all respond exactly the same. Clearly we don't, so it is up to the professional to demonstrate the artistry behind their profession and adjust to the situation in front of them. Those who use professionals who will not budge should find those who are willing to compromise their rigidity and work with you instead of on you.


As for the second, it is important to be human when interacting with another person. Why on Earth would I trust a person who is clinically detached and perfect? How can they possibly understand or empathise with my life if they have only ever lived a book perfect life? Of course, very few have lived such a life, and even fewer choose to go into a professional health career. Or simply put, most people who go into health careers have lived interesting lives. By refusing to professionally and responsibly share your own experiences, you deny your humanness and the necessarily real element in a dialogue.


To accomplish this well, one must consider where the focus of the conversation is. It must be more towards the client than the professional, but it must not be divorced from the professional. Real interactions require genuine content. Another important consideration is why are you, the professional, telling the client this part of your life? If it is to frame an idea, to give context to a method of health, or to give an example that promotes empathy, then you are using your own stories well. If you find that you are processing your story for your own gain, or your story is becoming a one up man ship kind of contest, then this is definitely straying into inappropriate use of your experiences. Of course it is important to not out friends, family, phone numbers and addresses in your stories. I will usually tell my stories and refer to people indirectly, since the who is not as important as the what of the story.

You can lead a horse to water...

You know the old saw about the horse?


"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink"


It is a good saying when thinking about aiding someone else in their personal evolution.


We often think we know the best water, the best source and the best way to drink. That may be true for us, and it may even be true for someone else, but if you push them to do it your way, then they don't own that process and have a fair chance of rebelling against your rules, your system and your truth. So instead, consider this new variant of the saw:


"You can lead a horse to water, but trying to make it drink is a foolish waste of energy"


This reminds you to let the horse drink if it is thirsty, in it's way, at it's time. It also reminds you not to be foolish or waste your strength trying to make the horse do it your way.


Now consider this variant:


"You can't make the horse drink, but you can lead it to water"


This variant takes out your own powerlessness, which decreases your frustration in the circumstance where the horse doesn't want to drink. You don't have to make it drink, but you can lead it to the water.


"The horse can drink when it wants to, and you can point out where there is water"


The power in this variant is two fold. You acknowledge that the horse has choice to do or not, as it sees fit. It also demonstrates that you are only showing a way, but acknowledging there are other sources, and thus different ways.


See what works for you.

Dynamic Focus

When facilitating a person towards recovery, the dynamic created between yourself and the person you are assisting has some important components. It is well known that the quality of the dynamic between people is incredibly important in building trust. With trust, one can be a support, a source of worth while information and someone to confide in. If this dynamic is not built well, there is no point in having any answers, methods, skills or knowledge about health. Without trust, it counts for naught.


It is also important to note that once you have trust, you have to have the rest of the skills too, otherwise you are like someone selling the front of the microwave, without the oven part.


To begin building trust, you must prove your ability to listen to another.


Basic listening skills are well documented, and it is redundant for me to go into this here (unless people request it of course - and you can request things for me to explore in the comment section below).


So here is a more advanced concept. The focus of where you listen shifts as the relationship develops. If you imagine yourself and the person you are facilitating facing each other. If the focus is only on the other person, way over there, then you are much like an impartial scientist, observing their experiment. There is no warmth, no care, not you. If the focus is all on you, then who are you there for?


To begin with, the focus should be closer to the other person than yourself. This shows that you have great interest in the other person, and you recognise their higher level of need. However the focus is not just on them, else the other person will only feel scrutinised and you will seem cold.


To build a level of warmth and humanity into your discussion, include some aspects of your life in the conversation. There are somethings that are not appropriate to discuss, and some things you may not want to discuss. Know these boundaries before you begin the conversation, and go by feel as your conversations become more complex. For example, I often tell people I have a child, a partner, have difficulties with my life and so on. Ensure your focus does not shift to being on you. You are telling the person you are facilitating towards recovery this information for a reason. You must develop the meta mind such that you can observe the conversation and ensure you keep that focus more over there than here.


As the relationship develops and the other person needs less help, the focus can shift closer to the mid-point between you. As the focus approaches the middle, it is now important to recognise that your role as facilitator is nearing an end. What you do next depends on if you are in a paid position, a peer or a friend.