Saturday, February 8, 2014


Learner therapist (41)…… Creating a couples work agenda through shared needs and wants

Torrey Orton
Feb 8, 2014

 

Guidelines for partners (and therapists)

What follows is a self-administered exploration process for couples. The purpose of this paper is to guide them through the process. It may also be used by therapists in session where it is necessary that a therapist direct the process to provide the discipline for focussed work. It is the fifth in a set of couple technique papers under the “Learner therapist” header at www.diarybyamadman.blogspot.com.*

Rationale: couples work is notoriously difficult because the stakes are high and the aggregated injuries, flashpoints and communication incompetences are often close to immovable in the eyes and hearts of couples by the time they show up for therapy. Functionally, a lot of shared ground has been lost or forgotten or lies obscured in the smoking residue of repeated failures to have needs met. The creation of actually shared ground, including the ground of their unmet needs, is an essential anchor for any new efforts to relate more effectively.

Objective: to develop a detailed, specific assessment of the needs and wants the couple has of each other as a basis for starting negotiation of those needs/wants in a manner which models shared ownership and conduct of the exploration process and models a process for developing agendas between them. This technique is particularly useful when the couple cannot start anything without descending into uproar - noisy or silent; hot or cold war!

Principles: that all needs/wants of both persons are included in the initial stage of the process; that respective needs and wants reflect the individuals’ thinking style expressed in their natural language; that engagement of the needs/wants is put off until the most thorough lists possible for the couple are completed; that clarification of meaning only is allowed in the list creation stage; that the agenda has to be chunked down to a workable bit in a context which assures that other bits are kept in view; and, that two levels of management are required – managing the whole process (decisions about what they are doing, how, when, etc.) and doing the work agreed to – exploring understandings, feelings, needs, etc. The first level is the most important, because it is what is missing from their processes: joint management.

1 - Process steps: in rough language that could be used with patients

a) Create a list of your wants and needs of the other and what you imagine he/she needs and wants of you in a format like this – do not consult your partner’s list until you both have finished your own lists.

 
Mine
His/hers
Wants
 
 
 
Needs
 
 
 

 

b) Share your lists, clarifying items as necessary. Do not engage the items yet. Rewrite them if necessary to acknowledge any clarifications. Notice shared knowledge of each other’s needs/wants.

c) Create a shared list out of the two individual lists, without leaving anyone’s items out unless you both agree they are essentially the same. Resolve any dispute by keeping disputed items in the list. Where differences seem merely linguistic keep them in the list because language differences often reveal differences of perspective, value, intensity, etc.

d) Order the list from most important to least, with emphasis on the order of the first 4-5 items. These will provide the starting point for in-session work, preferably one item you both want to start with.

e) Send the joint list to the therapist before the next session.

f) If you cannot do steps b, c, d, or e tell the therapist so and the session will start from step a. In that case, send both lists separately to the therapist and bring copies of your own to the session.

2 - Process management steps in session one – therapist directions

a)      Set out the objectives, principles, and steps of the process and provide background papers (e.g. Needs and Wants here)

 

b)      Check clarity, appropriateness and, then, agreement to this process.

 

c)      Continue checking these aspects of the process as you work through the steps

 

d)     If doing the joint list from nothing live in session, set out the process as above and then take items one at a time from one person and then the other and back again, writing them up on a whiteboard or chart in the language the person uses themselves; do not summarise in your own words without agreement of the speaker.

 
Check that each item is clear to the other as you write them up and stringently do not allow any exploration of the items at this step; this usually requires stopping any counter-assertions or exploratory questions; allow only clarification at this time (Eg - Can you give me an example of…?).

This will often take a whole session. They take away the results for further additions, ordering and selection of the starting point issue for the next session.

 

e)      Before finishing this session point out that they have just experienced a way of handling their continuing development agendas and suggest they use it at home.

 

f)       The next session is the beginning of practicing approaches to managing the systemic communication dysfunction and developing increased communication effectiveness and problem solving by working on live issues of concern to the couple. The need to engage the issues provides the focussed motivation to try new skills and test new attitudes.





My experience is that these short posts are quite readable by patients, so I often offer them as part of their preparation.

Friday, February 7, 2014


Digital outrage with comic relief

Torrey Orton                                                                 

Feb. 7, 2014

Ozemail error…

… the drop down notification remarks every time I attempt (successfully) to download my emails from my Nokia Lumia 625, a recently arrived baby of just 3 weeks age which has had synching problems from birth despite guarantees that its genetic provenance was the same as my laptop – Windows 8! When the drop down first occurred two days ago I said almost loudly ”Oh shit”, as my recently found facility of emailing by phone seemed to go out  the window. Relief was just a restart away. The next time I tried to receive email the message “Outlook synchronising” loped across the top of the screen in 6 point print for a second or two and down came the email and then this drop down denial of access, viz :

We’re having a problem downloading messages. Make sure you have a connection and your account information is correct, then try again.

Last tried 2 seconds ago

Error code: 80070018

This has happened over and over for the days since (2), a system which threatens with one hand the service it has given with the other. My most secret fear – system failure mid-living – is prodded unrelievedly (so far) by an unintended (but therefore egregiously effective!) confirmation of the fear’s strong evidence-based foundations.

Outrage??

As I discussed this with a very experienced IT systems friend, I learned in passing the meaning of a word I have not till now really mastered – outrage. This is the rage which flails itself into hyperventilating laughter howls. We made quite a nice footpath display for the youngers munching burgers and such around us in Bridge Road. Two old guys falling around screaming, almost.

All of which prompted us to disclose inadvertently wells of techno-rage we knew were present but we had not given voice to in that way a fit of mutual story telling of technicians’ incompetence can do it…a sort of self-inflating sequence of despair, reduced only by realising that the system changes which assault us are assaulting the technicians faster than reports on them can reach the webpages of Microsoft and/or Apple specialists.

That’s not an excuse, so they still get the blame. But it makes the prospect of their getting blame again higher than their pay should warrant. Telstra techos had spent 5 hours in three chunks over three months trying to synch my Windows phones to Windows computers…finally giving up the ghost to my computer set-up techie a week ago who did it (granted with a lead from the last Telstra guy) in 40 minutes…time required to repackage the Outlook Calender in a new Outlook-only email address for my Outlook account…itself an unpublished requirement of Microsoft efforts to mimic (I‘m told) Apple’s success welding buyers to their whole suite of apps by requiring them to open an Apple account to set up their products.

Comic relief…

Having trouble finding the comic relief part here? It’s only outrage at best. When I set out to replace my old self-destructed phone, failed and then was forced to replace my computer by a hard drive failure … I could no longer avoid what has emerged above, plus a gaggle of other inconveniences which arise from systemic interaction glitches. What underlies the rage part of the above is that Microsoft’s new phone company Nokia‘s Windows should synch like the old (2011) Samsung Windows phones did via a downloadable three click app called My Synch.

It didn’t. They just forgot to tell me, or even us, that their Nokia purchase had nothing to do with customer service, increased or otherwise!! Monopoly capitalism where are you? Is there an equation here: that, once large enough, companies either do not or cannot ‘care’ about customers at the level of the individual even though they have the technologies (web, mobiles…..) to deliver person-level emerging information to customers, especially at the junctures of their systems?

Monday, February 3, 2014


What’s normal now (5)…Turning science into ignorance and “illegals” into offense

Torrey Orton
Feb.3, 2014

 
Blurring boundaries with intent

I’m reading for the first time a book called Agnotology – The making and unmaking of ignorance (2009) which is a collection of reflections on how ignorance is the boundary of knowledge. It includes some treatment of how the boundaries of ignorance are maintained by the satisfactions of current knowledges. Esoteric? Only until I read the chapter on how in the early 1950’s in the US Big Tobacco, with the active collusion of PR major Hill Knowlton, set about defeating good science and pursued it successfully for 60 years to this date. A recent stage in debasing the science of smoking-induced cancer is presenting the industry as “responsible manufacturers of a risky product”. A satisfactory knowledge is profit producing. There are some others like self-esteem enhancing and identity supporting ones.

The flow on from this PR learning process, driven by the need to protect pre-existing knowledge and interests from threatening truths, can be seen in the debasing of science in the climate wars. If the government can call victimising of refugees a “war” and struggles about class (income imbalance) and consciousness (history) wars, then climate war is a no brainer. “War” is a condition which removes the right to any other conditions, the condition which smooths all kinds of legal-ethical-conceptual tangles. ‘War’ has history as a promotional threat of preference in the US – see the 1960’s war on poverty and the 1980’s war on drugs (the latter lead by a “drug czar”) for historical instances. Only the war on poverty made some headway, while the war on drugs amplified the depth and spread of drugs into a multi-national crisis.

A low grade but high impact variation on this theme is the “illegal boat people” meme which has been imposed / plastered on the ignorant public with special energy since the Howard government’s SEIV-X campaign at the turn of the election in October, 2001.

Demonising sticks, mud clings and the past catches up with you

This piece of clearly intentional deception has created a mud which sticks to refugees these days, to the tune of 60% of our citizenry agreeing “illegals” are not dealt with harshly enough by the government of this day…as if they were some kind of bikie gang or alcohol-fuelled one-punch mongrels who should be punished into submission to normal behaviour routines…a policy unlikely to succeed as others have noted in those spheres. Repetition of “illegal” eventually produced an unquestioned label in the minds of the unaffected public – a label for something to be avoided, a reverse brand, so to speak as we can now see building up with the war on “illegal bikie gangs” (Campbell Newman at the borders of Queensland turning back the bikies??)!!

The “illegal” boat people meme may also give the offense-can-only- be-taken crowd (summarised in ON OFFENCE - THE POLITICS OF INDIGNATION by Richard King; Scribe, 2013) something to think about. If you give offense to the defenceless by berating, debasing, and denying their humanity and that adds to their defencelessness, have you given offense which they could just not take by choice? I suspect so. Work on anger and male rage / violence would suggest otherwise, too.

An observation about how long term vilification effects shared truth

It will take years to recover the moral ground that has been eroded by these years of inhumanity to the defenceless. Much the same can be expected for the recovery from years of deriding the only form of empirical knowledge we can have agreed confidence in – natural science. Of course, the recovery may not happen and the defenceless parts of the world which have been injured may slide slowly out of sight, their after images lingering on the wings of the latest political spins. Do I hear ‘responsible providers of end of life services’ for instance, which are offered by the privatised health and incarceration industries which manage our prisons and refugee holding pens now (Serco, etc.)?