Interesting reflection to start the series, and I fully agree, but the article is missing some nuance present in the person-centred approach that I find both useful and important (especially when talking about non-directiveness): person-centred therapists or counsellors avoid being content-directive (e.g. choosing a topic for the session, or having their hypothesis of what something may mean and trying to convey that to the client) for a bunch of reasons, but are process-directive all the time (e.g. focusing on a specific feeling, asking for permission to introduce an emotional expression technique) and openly acknowledge that. I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with a very content-directive therapy (such as classic second-wave CBT). Still, I do see a lot of value in a way of working that's not content-directive, especially in the field of psychedelic research, and especially when conducting psychedelic integration.
Thanks Pablo, I totally agree with your point , and this is in fact is very much in line what I have been writing and leading up to in the concluding chapter (part 5) of this first series, where I bring much of the thoughts of these separate chapters together, and elaborate on different types of influencing / direction and their respective value and use cases .
This part 5 is on temporary pause, as I decided for other articles from the composition series to be published in between each week first, for the time being. But this will come out sooner than later.
Thanks again for reading and for sharing your reflections 🙏
Thank you! I should have realised that you would want to explore the further later in the series, and I very much look forward to reading that concluding chapter once it's available. There's much need for this kind of reflection on the effect of the therapist (including their worldview and unconscious influence) on the client, and on the downsides of our cultural emphasis on "doing" and "intervening" over "being", in my opinion. So it'll be great to read more about your work!
Was a very nice read. Sharing this video where Dr. Gabor Maté emphasizes that for a therapy to be effective: it's not about the techniques or qualifications, but the quality of the relationship between therapist and client. So I definitely agree that it’s influence on a relational basis is directive, so to speak. https://www.facebook.com/TheEmbodyLab/videos/360219673598191
Thank you for reading and your comment Maggie. As you will find in the subsequent chapters I will take this theme a bit further. Although I largely agree with Gabor Mates point in that video , I also came to believe it is an overstatement to say that “everything is about the relationship “. I increasingly see a need for an approach to psychotherapy that recognises and integrates both ends of the spectrum, technique vs relationship, rather than positioning ourselves in one of these camps only.
Interesting reflection to start the series, and I fully agree, but the article is missing some nuance present in the person-centred approach that I find both useful and important (especially when talking about non-directiveness): person-centred therapists or counsellors avoid being content-directive (e.g. choosing a topic for the session, or having their hypothesis of what something may mean and trying to convey that to the client) for a bunch of reasons, but are process-directive all the time (e.g. focusing on a specific feeling, asking for permission to introduce an emotional expression technique) and openly acknowledge that. I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with a very content-directive therapy (such as classic second-wave CBT). Still, I do see a lot of value in a way of working that's not content-directive, especially in the field of psychedelic research, and especially when conducting psychedelic integration.
Thanks Pablo, I totally agree with your point , and this is in fact is very much in line what I have been writing and leading up to in the concluding chapter (part 5) of this first series, where I bring much of the thoughts of these separate chapters together, and elaborate on different types of influencing / direction and their respective value and use cases .
This part 5 is on temporary pause, as I decided for other articles from the composition series to be published in between each week first, for the time being. But this will come out sooner than later.
Thanks again for reading and for sharing your reflections 🙏
Thank you! I should have realised that you would want to explore the further later in the series, and I very much look forward to reading that concluding chapter once it's available. There's much need for this kind of reflection on the effect of the therapist (including their worldview and unconscious influence) on the client, and on the downsides of our cultural emphasis on "doing" and "intervening" over "being", in my opinion. So it'll be great to read more about your work!
Excited for this substack
Was a very nice read. Sharing this video where Dr. Gabor Maté emphasizes that for a therapy to be effective: it's not about the techniques or qualifications, but the quality of the relationship between therapist and client. So I definitely agree that it’s influence on a relational basis is directive, so to speak. https://www.facebook.com/TheEmbodyLab/videos/360219673598191
Thank you for reading and your comment Maggie. As you will find in the subsequent chapters I will take this theme a bit further. Although I largely agree with Gabor Mates point in that video , I also came to believe it is an overstatement to say that “everything is about the relationship “. I increasingly see a need for an approach to psychotherapy that recognises and integrates both ends of the spectrum, technique vs relationship, rather than positioning ourselves in one of these camps only.