Philosophy of counseling adolescents (and adults I have learned)

[veritas]

Philosophy of Counseling

As with all philosophical discourses, the initial task is that of finding the foundation upon which to build. In laying a proper foundation, one must know what is to be built, and in this case, it is a theory of counseling. Further specification is needed as to what is meant by counseling, and for the sake of this paper, counseling simply means the method of producing positive change in an individual, and that is the dirt in which this foundation will reside. The tools of which will be used in the building of this philosophy are personal experience validated empirically by the words of those whom have come before, in other words, previous concepts that have been used personally with success.

Introduction aside, this philosophy of counseling believes rapport to be the fundamental principle, and looks to the Rogerian school of psychotherapy for guidance. Although this philosophy disagrees with Rogers’s notion that humanity was inherently good, it is noted that humanity is able to change, even towards a more positive inclination. What is assimilated into, and inherently assumed, in this philosophy is the need for rapport as the causality towards the catalyst. This means that the client will listen because they like the therapist, this means the client will participate in group because they like the therapist, this means that the client will keep a journal because they like the therapist, on and on. It must be herewith noted, that this philosophy assumes all relationships are not on this level from the outset, and thus need to be worked upon, especially with issues like trust, and confidence, and it is the Rogerian methods which do the best towards establishing this dynamic. It must be also noted that this philosophy does not believe rapport to be the end all in terms of catalysts towards progress, howbeit, very significant. Previous assumption noted, Rogers lays the theoretical foundation for enacting tactics aimed at the building of rapport, tactics such as congruence and empathy. This philosophy places heavy stresses upon the need for the therapist to be highly schooled through cognitive understanding and practical experience gained through the professional application in and of these tactics.

It is assumed that most clients (there exists exceptions to the rule) enter into the therapeutic relationship with a basic mistrust of the therapist, or at very least, the principles signified by the therapist, that of basically the fact that because the therapist is present, help is needed. The therapist must have empathy not only towards the clients presenting problems, but for the humbling experience counseling actually is. It is a hard thing indeed for a human to ask another human for help, and even greater for the previous to admit that what had been done up until that point was unsuccessful. This philosophy assumes that most therapists do not possess empathy initially, confuse it with sympathy, and need training in its art.

Rogers also spoke heavily on the need for the therapist to be congruent or more simply stated, to be real. This realness is achieved through honesty, and this philosophy assumes that most therapists do not actually present their inner mind upon their outward speak, and must be trained in this art as well. Rogers believed that when the therapist showed congruence and possessed empathy, this would provide an environment that would act as the above noted catalyst for therapeutic change. This philosophy embraces that statement fully.

This philosophy also leans upon the style of Rogers for one more aspect, that of the therapist to act more like a coach, and less like a judge. Experience testifies to the usefulness of this tactic. When the client feels judged, they will shut down, where as when they feel like they are receiving care filled suggestions, they respond positively. It is assumed that this occurs because the judging process inherently assumes that one is greater than the other, for how else would judgment occur? Experience testifies to the harsh response the feeling of being condescended to produces. When a therapist judges in the manner of giving advice, it can easily be taken to mean, “ I am better than you, and I know more then you.” Notice the difference between this previous statement and thus, “Hey, have you ever thought about trying this?” it is assumed that one may see the difference in these two approaches, and how the one will fail, while the other succeed, and this is the sort of banter that this philosophy endorses, essentially the rapport building style of Rogers.

This philosopher currently serves a population of adolescent males, age ranges 12-17, whom need treatment for alcohol and drug abuse, and or psychological disorders. Here is where the personal experience shapes the philosophy. It has been observed that the first principle towards getting any sort of progress to be made upon their behalf, requires the above mentioned rapport, simply put, this population must like you before they listen and or talk. This population is a perfect fit for this philosophy, although not to say that this philosophy would be ineffective in other populations, however no experience has of yet to be gained.

This philosophical theory has numerous limitations. The first limitation is that some may not have the cognitive ability to think of their own solutions to their own problems, even if empathetically coached. Another limitation, and perhaps the greatest, is that not every therapist is a competent one, and may be unable to understand that fact that they do not possess all of life’s answers for the clients they serve. Furthermore, these therapists may also be unable to comprehend the need for being real, and thus hide and judge secretly in the dark tributaries of their minds, while the client, although not sure exactly why, feels that they do not trust the therapist, and therefore, especially in the above mentioned population, shuts down.

Ethically this therapy appears to be sound, the only mishap would be where empathetic coaching would turn into a general acceptance of whatever the client proposes, an example may be framed such, “so I understand you wish to kill your neighbor, because they are too loud, ok how does that make you feel?” As laughable as this example may seem, theoretically it is not impossible, for this indifferent acceptance is the unbalanced opposite of the judgmentally condescending.

In conclusion I feel this philosophy to be excitingly ambitious and practically simple. I have seen the principle of rapport produce big changes and cognitive growth. What draws me the most to it, is its universality, for has it not been said by another far greater, “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. I feel that this is the essence of what is being described, and its effectiveness without question if properly utilized.

Finally, two areas of exploration is needed, since theoretical, a theoretical name will be given to this concept, that being the study of the existence of “rapport keys”. Rapport keys describe the one thing that instantly turns a person positively towards another, it may be humor, sports, empathy, for all it is different, but this theory postulates that all have one, and study as to the veracity of this claim is in order. Also the effectiveness of gently coaching an individual to learn the art of making life a series of win-win choices, not the usual win-lose. This concept would be more the style of Michenbaum, but unique in that the client learns to manipulate their own thoughts into perceiving choices in a manner that they win every time, coupled with the coaching counseling style described earlier, it is believed that the two would go hand in hand and ultimately form an unique alliance for the advancement of mankind.

[Destroyer]

sup V?

[veritas]

Who are you?

[Destroyer]

I'm Jude
who the fuck are u?

[veritas]

No no I know you are Jude....I meant in the existential sense:

Who are you?

[veritas]

And I am the portal guardian and key master

[Destroyer]

oh word existentially
I am the scribe

[veritas]

Of?

tldr but i felt a need to violate and say something....Veritas srs though, ur outlook on me i find disappointing...You think me to be some under educated white suburban twenty-something adult, who has the need to floss witt in attempts to either impress internet-folk and is with He whose name shall not be spoken on that level, or to boost his own self esteem because he challenges individuals that are schooled in that area; thereby making it their expertise. I feel this approximation to be a very flawed dx. Srs speaking obv.

[Strikta]

I did not read that opening post.

[Split]

I am the discrepancy between honesty and truisms

[Objective]

Originally Posted by c.d.m.

I meant in the existential sense:

Who are you?

Emanuel Kant is probably right and my guess is that I'm typing this while sitting inside some random object and ya'll are just some weird fucks my brain has created to make my so called existence bearable while I try to run from the the pain I was born in but can never escape. The metaphore and irony of my own life would probably reach the top if I'm writing this inside a closed five foot thick door in some psychiatric institution located in a different dimension that merged with ours.

Who I am? My existential state is just as real as I want it to be but my manipulative skills in rearranging my own thought patterns to cope with what I have isn't strong enough to make a significant difference in my own ''life''. All I can do is hope and keep diving into the abyss of my own mental state in order to find an answer I can live with. Alltho' a positive outlook on life and a huge circle of friends seems to be working and the belief that the butterfly effect will give my death a meaning, it still doesn't affect me enough to give that girl behind the counter a real smile and family+friends will forever be shadows of my own wicked imagination that they matter in a larger sense. Even when the butterfly effect is added to the math it doesn't change much in my personality, but it's worth to mention because it's a part of who I am and the reason I keep on fighting for what I have managed to believe is the greater good.

[namix]

what's awesome is that I fit every requirement for being drawn into a conversation about that post - from respecting you, to appreciating the subject matter, to being naive about modern-day 'discussion board' nuances.

i was saved by the thinnest of threads - having generated similar dissertations in response to product vendor emails in the past lol. A subtle similarity in the writers voice, as well as 1-2 other things, saved me from being sucked into a world wide web of psychological pontifications and philosophical tangents.

gold

[Strikta]

namix u are incredibly smart, sir.

Where did u go to school?

[namix]

Originally Posted by Strikta

namix u are incredibly smart, sir.

Where did u go to school?

thanks brother... it's crazy though man, anytime someone says that they ask where i went to school, when I attribute like 99.9% of it to learning how to develop a general knowledge in several subject matters (like we all do), but then having a "series of clicks" where everything was related (e.g. we know Math relates to Music; we know Music relates to History/Sociology; so you can literally, if you were so inclined tie aspects of Math to aspects of History).

It's kind of like, independent of any religious/spiritual or scientific beliefs --- there was some sort of "moment of creation", we all came from the same shit, and everything we know and experience came from us --- so everything is related in a single point.... The details are 'sub-points' within that single point, and any two points make a line, so you can cross-correlate subject matters and become exponentially more savvy at picking up a new subject matter or skill in the process... and by believing that methodology, you know you do not need to "remember" as much information, because you can reprocess/discern and come to the same conclusion whenever you want...


And here i go -- you asked a very simple question, one 99.9% of people would be able to answer directly - and I danced around it.

I went to St. Louis University bro... I just feel like school itself, at best, can teach us how to learn in most cases - so i attribute it more to a way of thinking and "connecting dots" than anything else!

[dead man]

veritas have you ever seen a video of one of fritz perls' gestalt therapy sessions?

they're pretty interesting and actually kind of contrast the theory of empathetic rapport that you propose here in a big way.




not to discredit anything you wrote if you wrote this.. but all the different approaches to effective therapy methods are pretty cool imo

[bleak]

This thread made my brain melt, almost.

[veritas]

Originally Posted by dead man

veritas have you ever seen a video of one of fritz perls' gestalt therapy sessions?

they're pretty interesting and actually kind of contrast the theory of empathetic rapport that you propose here in a big way.



not to discredit anything you wrote if you wrote this.. but all the different approaches to effective therapy methods are pretty cool imo

Yes perls is great! But he is hit an miss I have found. *YouTube the "Gloria tapes" perls, Ellis, and Rogers all interviewed the same woman. *It was dope.

[dead man]

I've seen the gloria session which is what i was actually referring to, but i haven't seen her sessions with either of the other 2

will do asap though. that is dope

[veritas]

Originally Posted by dead man

I've seen the gloria session which is what i was actually referring to, but i haven't seen her sessions with either of the other 2

will do asap though. that is dope

yeah man let me be 100 percent real with you....Gestalt is for the masters, everyone should start with Rogers. Also, I wrote this treatise about 7 years ago, so alot has changed....I am learning the art of confrontation, this paper is basically saying this is where a person should start, with Rapport, and thus Rogers.

Gloria chose perls the best out of the three, then rogers, then ellis.....she really like rogers though, I think she just needed Perls going off on her like that.

most people get very defensive when asked to live in the now, stop making excuses, and are confronted with their problems......the novice counselor needs to try to foster the "flow state" where the patient can hopefully heal themselves.


ALSO GUYS I PROMISE IT IS ONE THING TO READ BOOKS ABOUT IT, AND PHILOSOPHIZE ABOUT IT, IT IS ANOTHER THING TO ACTUALLY DO IT....CRAZY PEOPLE AINT DUMB AND THEY ARE VERY VERY RESISTANT.