Counselling,poblem solving or facilitate client to reach conclusions themselves?

Freiheit

Hi I'm doing a Foundation course and it seems to be that the emphasis is very much on getting information from clients and hopefuly they'l reach their own conclusions. We seem to be discouraged from making recommendations. I see the logic quite clearly in this but where would this change?.

Also vaguely looking at PCI College for next year. It's IACP recognised and it's a body I've always respected. Surely if they provide links to such a body it must be a good course?.

Wish all a good holiday
F

sambuka41

Freiheit wrote: »

Hi I'm doing a Foundation course and it seems to be that the emphasis is very much on getting information from clients and hopefuly they'l reach their own conclusions. We seem to be discouraged from making recommendations. I see the logic quite clearly in this but where would this change?

Do you mean where would it change in the therapy? Why would it need to change? From my own experience (and not any particular school of thought), things stick better if someone comes to it themselves, whether that be a decision to change circumstances or just gaining perspective on your life. There is nothing worse than a know-it-all telling you what you should do!!

I can't comment on the PCI, don't know much about them.

RatsInParadise

There's a lot of different schools of counselling, ranging from the very directive, to the non-directive type. I'd imagine you've studied some Carl Rogers, and person centred counselling? I think there's a lot of wisdom in the attitude that every person who comes to see you is the expert on themselves and their situation, not you. Your presence, willingness to listen, be non-judgmental and accepting of their person, just who they are, without telling what or how they should live their life is an immensely powerful thing. You'll find that through good reflections and open questions, the person will often come to their own conclusions, and make decisions that work with their life. Importantly, because through talking it out and examining their issues in a safe place, but not being told what to do, people will be able to cope with a future without a counsellor much better than if the 'solution' comes from the counsellor.

Outside of certain mental health and addiction issues, I tend to err on the side of person centred, non-directive counselling. I'd imagine you'll go on to learn more about the more directive styles, such as motivational interviewing or CBT, or integrated styles as you continue to study, but certainly non-directive is the most appropriate foundation, I feel.

krd

sambuka41 wrote: »

From my own experience (and not any particular school of thought), things stick better if someone comes to it themselves, whether that be a decision to change circumstances or just gaining perspective on your life.

But what if the subject needs, even asks for direct guidance and information?

The world is a complicated place. As time goes on, I feel less and less that I can get side the heads, of other people (that is people with a radically different perspectives on the world than myself). I'm not saying that I would be on some scale of autism. Just the motivations of some, or even many, other people, I can understand (if they're not too well hidden), but I may have no sense of them myself - as I would not share the same motivations, beliefs, prejudices, values.

Social insights can be tricky, especially if you're from a very different social background.

I would expect a trained counsellor to have a greater general insight into the minds of others than I would have myself. And what I would hope for would be direct information.

What I would personally find worse than useless, would be playing some kind of game, with the counsellor, where it's expected that I come to some realisation that all my problems relate to me "not being like everyone else" - without any further explanation, and the key to my wellness, is some kind of warm and fuzzy stoicism.

The idea that you can come to a resolution through introspection, is fine if it is assumed you have all the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle and it's just a case of assembling them, in the right order. What if some of the pieces are missing?

There is nothing worse than a know-it-all telling you what you should do!!

In my opinion there's nothing worse than a "know nothing". If I went to see a counsellor, the last person I'd like to speak to would be a slow, ill informed, moron.

JuliusCaesar

krd wrote: »

But what if the subject needs, even asks for direct guidance and information?

The "subject" in psychological research has long been replaced by the "participant"; in counselling - they are called the client or service user or patient or (by me) the person....

"JC, how do I find my way back out of the hospital?"
"Take the first left and go down the stairs"

is a very different kettle of fish to

"JC, why am I feeling so bad?"

krd

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

The "subject" in psychological research has long been replaced by the "participant"; in counselling - they are called the client or service user or patient or (by me) the person....

I get yah.

"JC, how do I find my way back out of the hospital?"
"Take the first left and go down the stairs"

is a very different kettle of fish to

"JC, why am I feeling so bad?"

I meant the specific.

My idea of a fruitless and frustrating session with a therapist would go something like:

KRD, describes a troubling experience they've had they can't understand.
"KRD, Why do you think that happened?"
"Why do you think it happened?"
"KRD. I don't know. That's why I'm asking you?"
"Why do you think it happened?"
"KRD. I don't know. That's why I'm asking you?"
"Why do you think it happened?"
"KRD. I don't know. That's why I'm asking you?"
...................f-o-r-e-v-e-r.

There is something I can say with certainty - there are instances where the suffering and confusion (which can be painful too) is not down to a lack of personal insight. That it is from a lack of insight, (or confusion) into the personality of others. I don't mean a universal "others". I mean a specific others. Without going into the details. Recently, I stumbled across some information - some concrete information - that has given me an insight in certain people that I could not have discovered through self-reflection (though I'd tried). And it is a relief - as now some things make sense that did not before.

The idea of the therapist leading the client annoys me for another reason - for two reasons, to be precise. Outside the world of therapy, and theory, in the everyday world. It's two things, and they lead to conflict and frustration, especially in combination.

One: The choice of indirect communication over direct and explicit communication. For whatever reasons, fear, anxiety, culture. A person chooses they can not communicate in a direct and explicit manner - but must drop hints. The other person must be nudged into coming to the right conclusion. Direct and explicit communication is resisted - everything has to be made unclear. And there's often a weird paradox to this - when the person making the indirect communication realises they're failing to communicate, instead of choosing to explicitly communicate, their indirect communication can become even more extreme - more encrypted - sabotage, violence etc.

Two: Fallacious asymmetric insight - and assuming difference to be lack of insight. People thinking "this person does not share my values, or has made a crucial but subtle social faux pas, because they lack personal insight". An assumption that if the other person had the same level of personal insight as themselves they would share the same values, etiquette, beliefs, the same material desires, same lifestyle. And if they don't, their either stupid, mad or bad.

So then, you can have a conflict. My personal experience is I've really been around the houses with some people.

So, what I would expect with the therapist, is open, direct, and crucially honest communication. If they want to go the other route - I would be very suspicious that what is really happening is "one" and "two". I would imagine the therapy would go nowhere. If the client becomes aware there is some misunderstanding, and they attempt to engage the therapist directly, the therapists misconceptions are more confirmed (the client is disagreeing because they have an even greater lack of personal insight than was apparent before). And then the therapist mystifies and encrypts their communication even more.

JuliusCaesar

krd wrote: »

There is something I can say with certainty - there are instances where the suffering and confusion (which can be painful too) is not down to a lack of personal insight. That it is from a lack of insight, (or confusion) into the personality of others. I don't mean a universal "others". I mean a specific others. Without going into the details. Recently, I stumbled across some information - some concrete information - that has given me an insight in certain people that I could not have discovered through self-reflection (though I'd tried). And it is a relief - as now some things make sense that did not before.

Well, yes, if there is a deficit of knowledge then we cannot expect the person to obtain it through 'insight'. We do a lot of psychoeducation in CBT, and give people necessary information. I do know more about psychology than my client.

krd wrote: »

The idea of the therapist leading the client annoys me for another reason - for two reasons, to be precise. Outside the world of therapy, and theory, in the everyday world. It's two things, and they lead to conflict and frustration, especially in combination.

However, some things are better taken on board if you arrive at a conclusion yourself, rather than when you are given the answer. And anyway, there may be several answers, but only one is YOURS.

krd wrote: »

then the therapist mystifies and encrypts their communication even more.

I'm in favour of clear communication and no mystique. But then that's what CBT therapists do - the end goal of therapy is to make the client their own therapist.

Kooli

I agree that there's a bit of a spectrum depending on which way you are trained. I

'd see CBT at one end - I see this as the type of counselling that most positions the counsellor in the role of 'expert', teaching skills and giving advice etc. Then at the other end I suppose would be person-centred counselling, which is rooted in the belief that if you can provide someone with a certain type of space and certain conditions, they will move towards positive change and greater self-acceptance.

Odysseus

My own position on it is in most cases I avoid The psychoeducation side of things; I tend to leave that to the nurses, supports workers etc. Within my own training there are four positions one can take up, the position of the master, or the university would cover the psych-ed side of things. That is not to say that this is unimportant work, just not my understanding of therapy.

My own role being one which allows the patient to speak their subjective history, the impact that has had on the position they take up in life, and allowing them to change if they desire.

One of the best methapors I heard for it is that of the patient coming with bagage or a suitcase. We ourselves has a bag, but it has no bottom, through speaking the patient puts their lifestory into our bag, but everything falls on to the ground. At the end of therapy, the patient picks up the pieces they want, leaving the rest on the floor in our consulting rooms.