Demonstrating
Interest and Demonstrating Understanding!
By
Mark Chidley, LMHC, Certified Rapid Resolution Therapist
Demonstrating
interest and demonstrating understanding are at the heart of creating
a connection and form the first two steps of an RRT session. Iʼll
start with some of the preliminary considerations and realities that
form a foundation for the two steps.
From
the first you want to watch your participant. From the moment they
sit across from you, be on the lookout for what is going on for them.
Are there tears forming behind their eyes, a stiffness or flatness in
their face or voice tone; how far away do they sit and how far back
into their chair do they recline? We are all trained to notice these
features, but unlike other therapies, in RRT we do not comment on
body language or anything that would increase self-consciousness and
hurt the connection. Just take in the information silently. I think
of this as my first baseline, to measure what effect Iʼm having as I
go along.
The
question that starts the session is some version of: “Iʼm
interested in what you would like our meeting to attend to or
accomplish?”
If
the participant has come in because itʼs somebodyʼs elseʼs idea or
has read or heard that they must have some kind of feeling, problem,
or issue, Jon will slow the session right here and probe for the
participantʼs actual experience, their own hopes, goals, etc. We
donʼt necessarily follow what other therapists might see as a next
treatment step and participants may come in with preconceived,
erroneous ideas about treatment. Or they may have no definite idea
whatsoever of why they are there or what they want to accomplish. In
any case, Jon conveys greater respect by giving room for the person
to see if there has been something that has been affecting mind and
allow room to try to articulate it for themselves. He is not
necessarily constrained to follow what the participant then says, but
the participant will surely get the message that Jon is interested in
his or her unique experience as a person. And them getting the
experience of being cared for like that right now in the session what
weʼre after.
In
the first few moments, combining what you see and notice with what
they say, you form a target
in
your mind for how you want them to leave the session. Forming a
target early matters because we donʼt want to swing wildly or
mindlessly in just any direction with our words any more than a
sculptor would swing at the rock with his hammer without first
forming an image of what he desired. Instead, we want all our words
to be causing the effect we have in mind and moving the person toward
a better state of health. We stand a lot better chance of getting
there with a target in mind. We keep our target open to refinement as
more information pours in. Our words are like a sculptorʼs choice of
type of hammer or chisel size. We should always be able to answer the
question, “Why did I just ask or say that--what was the effect I
had in mind?”
At
times the participant may not have to even speak very much or have
any clear notion of a goal for you to form your target. Jon has
reminded us anyone who grew up in this culture has likely been
affected by moralism. Almost everyone you see is still being affected
by past events that are still casting a shadow Others by some form of
stuckness--thinking from negation, disappearing present,
introspection, identity as pathology, etc. It is worth clearing any
of these. Jon will listen for forms of stuckness and/or unworkable
targets the participant has chosen (e.g., having more “self-esteem”
or chasing“self-confidence”) and usually steers them toward a
better target he has in mind. Targets may line up in a natural order.
For instance, you may focus on clearing drug cravings in one session
with a participant in recovery and attend to busting ghosts from
their past abuse in a subsequent session. Which target to choose? In
general, itʼs the one most salient or relevant to the participantʼs
immediate well-being, but, again, we donʼt have to assume they will
have it clearly in their mind. Thatʼs our responsibility.
As
the participant answers our opening question, we start to demonstrate
interest.
An appropriate response that does this is “I want to understand”,
said with a pause and as an invitation. This usually fits well
because almost no one can say in a sentence or two all of what has
been bothering them. It invites the person to go on and add what
could be crucial information. It also demonstrates your sincere
interest. Jon will even go so far as to state he doesnʼt want to try
to understand someone else through the lens of his own life
experience, but thinks a better place to start is to listen to how
they put it. I have always found participants appreciative of this.
Other “legal” questions such as “What have I missed?” and
“What else should I know to assist you with this?” serve this
purpose as well.
We
do not
ask
questions out of clinical curiosity or just to fill out a
biopsychosocial history. The participant experiences this as leaving
what they just told you and asking about stuff that is of more
interest to you. You may ask for a little background info youʼll
find relevant to getting an accurate picture of the personʼs
situation which will enhance your target, but this is usually kept to
a bare minimum--only that which further clarifies the target. A
couple well placed questions about work, school, or current endeavors
will round out your picture and tell you about their strengths. If
the participant tells of hard experiences already lived through,
these likewise provide a potential gold mine for feeding back
strengths or utilizing later in some of our interventions. For
instance, a time of accomplishment or productivity can be used as a
platform from which to have the participant stand and look back on a
younger, struggling self. It is a worse outcome to stumble ahead with
the wrong picture or with the client sitting in silent doubt about
our “getting them”, so if you need more info, go ahead and err on
the side of asking for it.
When
we go to demonstrate
understanding,
our words must do the following:
a.
avoid disagreement and, ideally, hit the heart of the matter b. must
not be poisonous or make the participant worse c. must speak directly
to the subconscious d. must match emotional tone appropriate to the
subject matter e. must provide uplift
f.
must move the participant along
This
is a tricky list and takes a lot of practice to pull off all at once
and makes our method different from almost every other form of
intervention. We are balancing accuracy (a) with all the rest (b-f).
For instance, (f) requires more than a simple reflection. An accurate
reflection, as most counselors would do it, will not cause
disagreement, but leaves the participant essentially in the same
place. But if we add “and youʼre looking to move forward with
this”, or something like it, the participant gets the sense of
optimism and momentum at hand, and that weʼre going to get something
done. Similarly, a brief, solution-focused therapist might hear a
participantʼs opening statement and ask, “How will you know or
what will it feel like when youʼve gotten (insert issue) working
better?”The participant could give a picture of improvement or
simply say “Iʼd be feeling better”, but inside be feeling let
down, like they are far from better or that the counselor just missed
the emotional pain and tone of their message (d).
Jon
has taught us many ways to execute a-f, like the wedge, the invisible
tense change, recognizing strengths, putting the positive last, etc.
Stepping back, we realize there were so many ways of talking about
problems that were drilled into us in our prior training that
actually locate identity with pathology. We strive to avoid saying
anything that puts responsibility for the problem onto the
participant or puts it into their idenity by making it about them.
Sometimes the negative effect of a commonly accepted phrase or word
(that seems innocuous) is very subtle, and like the Trojan Horse of
old, carries in the enemy--negative meanings we didnʼt intend, but
which the participantʼs subconscious picks up, nonetheless. We want
to do the opposite of what most of our colleagues do--we want to
protect identity and provide uplift. A table of these negative
phrases and alternatives to them is available in the basic manual.
The
connection is either being enhanced or being damaged from the very
first moments of the session. An RRT therapist is well aware of that
and keeps a keen, weather eye on it at all times. We use
demonstrating interest and demonstrating understanding as the first
two steps to get connection underway. Keep watching your participant.
At any hesitation, pause, downturn of features, holding of breath,
increase of silence or return to superficial responding, donʼt be
afraid to go back and clarify understandings or choose different
wording, It will salvage the connection. Invite them to tweak or tune
up of what you just said. Participants donʼt mind a few misses if
you keep showing your respect and desire to understand.
Whether
or not we step into this sacred space is actually not a choice.
Participants are good hypnotists and they present life predicaments
that can be as riveting as any movie in their drama and pathos. They
are there because they have lost their way. We donʼt want to be the
one being hypnotized, lost along with them. Get your target early and
keep it in mind as you go along and keep watching your participant
for the effect you are having.
At
a recent Level III, Jon used three separate sessions to give us
practice with this stage of the model. Everybody seems to struggle
with it. Iʼve noticed my own tendency is to sometimes jump forward
into the next stage of the method without first letting the
participant know Iʼve heard what they took the trouble to say to me,
even though I internally
registered it. Iʼm learning that in these first opening moments itʼs
crucial to stay very close to what the person conveyed, because the
alliance is fragile and the connection is still forming. Once it is
formed,
all the rest flows much more easily and works to the participantʼs
benefit. A strong connection is the magnet that we use to get them
into the light with their mind cleared.
I
finish by saying Iʼve distilled here what Iʼve heard Jon say
consistently over the course of several trainings and teleconferences
throughout 2011-2012. Iʼve drawn it together in the hopes it will
solidify some things for my fellow RRTʼers and accelerate the
learning of the newer folks as we all become more and more skilled at
using this amazing method.
Mark A. Chidley, LMHC, Certified Rapid Resolution Therapist, CAP, a fully licensed mental health counselor and certified addictions professional, offers counseling services at his office Kelly San Carlos Executive Center in Fort Myers, Florida.He has been in private practice since 1997. He holds certifications in Rapid Trauma Resolution(2010), Imago Relationship therapy (2001), and now specializes in the treatment of couples as well as individual trauma recovery and anxiety issues. He brings rich experience from a combined 26 years of hospital work and mental health counseling.
Gayle Skovron, LCSW-R, has been in practice for over 20 years working with all
ages including young children. A graduate of Fordham University, Gayle is trained and certified in several modalities of psychotherapy including Rapid
Resolution Therapy. RRT has had an
incredible impact on her life both professionally and personally. Gayle has offices in both New York and Connecticut and can be reached by email at 
