Rewriting the Drinking Story: Four Pillars for Empowered Sobriety

“You really need to drink less.”

That’s what people kept telling me toward the end of my drinking career. The truth was I completely agreed but just didn’t know how. At age 26, I was diagnosed with Alcohol Use Disorder. Intuitively, I knew drinking was only the surface. The deeper questions—what’s underneath, and how do I address it?—eventually drove me to graduate training in Clinical Psychology.

Through both my own journey and my ongoing clinical work with clients, I began to notice a hidden loop and four forces that fueled drinking cycle:

  • Universal Needs: Alcohol often serves a purpose—to relax, connect, or have fun.
  • Learned Beliefs: People come to see alcohol as a shortcut to those needs.
  • Habit Loops: When alcohol ‘works,’ the brain reaches for it again.
  • Fixed Mindset: Stories like “I can’t have fun/relax/connect with others without drinking” keep clients stuck.

If the drinking cycle is fueled by more than drinking alone, breaking it requires more than “drink less.” Over time, I identified four pillars to help clients interrupt this loop and build an empowered alcohol-free life.

The Four Pillars

Pillar 1: Value Alignment

The first pillar is value alignment. I use value exploration to help a client tap into their intrinsic motivations, and replace behavior-based goals with emotion-based goals that allow them to bridge values and behaviors.

For example, working with a 67-year-old retiree and former lawyer, we uncovered that her core value was intellect. She noticed she drank more on evenings when she felt intellectually understimulated. We explored ways for her to feel more engaged and challenged. Instead of setting a goal around reducing her drinking time at night, we set an emotional goal: increasing the time she spent reading subjects that stimulated her mind.

Within weeks, she was 200 pages into The Satanic Verses and had rediscovered her passion for reading. As a side effect, she sometimes skipped her evening drink to stay sharp for her book.

Of course, not every client’s struggle is solved by picking up a good book, which leads us to the second pillar: Belief Reconstruction.   

Pillar 2: Belief Reconstruction

This pillar focuses on identifying, deconstructing, and reconstructing alcohol-related beliefs that fuel desire. At its core, this work helps clients become informed consumers through psychoeducation. In a culture that glorifies alcohol, many people have been sold on its exaggerated benefits while the harms remain obscured. One of my favorite “myth busters” is that while one drink creates a desirable buzz, additional drinks don’t actually make the experience better.

A successful entrepreneur in his early 30s shared that he enjoyed nights out on weekends, but struggled to keep his drinking within limits. Together, we uncovered the hidden beliefs: alcohol makes things more fun and if one beer feels good, five must feel better.

After guiding him to reflect on his own experience after the third drink, I introduced the science of alcohol’s biphasic effect: the first drink gives a brief buzz, but subsequent drinks bring diminishing returns as depressant effects take over. The result is an exhausting cycle of chasing the buzz, but never catching it.

He was struck by this realization. In the weeks that followed, he reported less urge for a third or fourth drink, becoming more mindful of how each one actually affected him—and recognizing that his experience confirmed the science.

While psychoeducation can shift expectations quickly, it alone is rarely enough for clients who rely on alcohol to cope. This leads to the third pillar: Skill Expansion.  

Pillar 3: Skill Expansion

The third pillar moves into behavior change. Informed by habit science and Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT) principles, I help clients see that breaking a well-worn drinking loop isn’t about simply removing alcohol, but about replacing it with empowering skills.

This work is highly individualized, based on the purpose alcohol serves in a client’s life. For example, I worked with a young woman in her 20s who used alcohol as “liquid courage” when confronting family members who treated her poorly. Together, we recognized alcohol was numbing her fear so she could set boundaries. What she truly needed wasn’t another drink, but stronger communication and assertiveness skills.

Skill expansion reframes alcohol as a signpost pointing to the abilities a client most needs to strengthen. Because mastering new skills takes time, this naturally leads to the final pillar: Mindset Upgrading.  

Pillar 4 Mindset Upgrading

The final pillar, mindset upgrading, is often overlooked. Many clients believe they should be able to quit overnight if their willpower is strong enough. When they struggle with cravings or slips, they quickly feel ashamed, assuming something is wrong with them. Subconsciously, they get stuck in self-defeating questions like, Why can’t I…?

One client in her late 20s, after quitting drinking, struggled to enjoy socializing without alcohol’s boost of confidence. She asked me, “What’s wrong with me? Why can’t I just make conversation like everyone else?”

What she didn’t realize was that thriving alcohol-free isn’t just not drinking, it’s about building new skills, which takes time and practice. To illustrate this, I shared the analogy of learning to ride a bicycle: falling after removing the training wheels is expected, not proof of failure. Similarly, slipping after removing alcohol is part of growth.

I encouraged her to shift from Why can’t I…? to How can I…? Instead of dwelling on limits, she began asking, How can I start conversations more easily? This reframing opened space for problem-solving and creativity. She even began experimenting with small talk tips as healthier ways to build her confidence.  

Sobriety as an Empowered Choice

Now, nearly six years into my own sobriety, I see it not as recovery but as discovery: a journey to reconnect with what truly matters, to become an informed consumer, to build confidence without alcohol’s crutch, and to embrace setbacks as growth opportunities.

My hope is that by mapping out these Four Pillars, I can continue to offer my clients a more concrete roadmap to outgrow drinking routines that no longer serve them, and to rediscover an empowered, alcohol-free life.

Redefining Strength: A Black Woman’s Journey to Healing

Redefining Strength: A Black Woman’s Journey to Healing

Kayla sat in my office with her arms crossed against her chest—a familiar shield against the world. At 23, she had grown accustomed to protecting herself, whether necessary or not. She avoided eye contact with me like the plague, guarding herself as hard as possible. “I don’t even know what I’m doing here,” she said, her eyes fixed on the floor. “This is so awkward.”

“That’s normal,” I said.

As a therapist, I have heard many clients share that they are unsure of what has led them to therapy. What was always different for me was tonality. I have heard people voice uncertainty about therapy with anger and even sadness. Kayla’s voice was filled with exhaustion.

“I feel so out of control as of late. I feel like I’m in a loop of the worst days of my life. I go to sleep thinking about my mistakes. I always wake up feeling worse than I did the day before. I’m eating and spending like crazy. I’m so tired.”

Kayla’s specific wording and my clinical judgment led me to believe there was more behind what she shared. So, I asked her, “What is weighing on you?”

Kayla burst into tears, and for the first time, she looked into my eyes, hers filled with anger and sorrow. “My mom died! I finally tell her how much I hate her, and she dies!” Kayla sobbed as her words lingered in the air. It had been a year since her mother passed, but as we know, there is no time limit on grief. Grief moves at its own pace and intensity. For Kayla, grief was feeding off her deep-rooted trauma.

“I keep replaying that argument with her over and over. Maybe what I said caused her too much heartbreak. Maybe she’d still be here if I had kept things unspoken.”

I leaned forward slightly.

“Kayla, your mother’s passing is not your fault.”

Kayla shook her head as tears continued to roll.

“Then why does it feel like it is?”

A Childhood Built on Survival

Kayla’s childhood was a lesson in what love wasn’t. She realized early on that her mother was not like the mothers she saw on television who supported their children and told them they loved them at the very least.

“My mom wasn’t like Clair Huxtable or anything. I didn’t get hugs or life lessons. She just wasn’t that kind of woman,” Kayla said. “I can’t recall her ever saying she was proud of me. When I would make good grades or clean my room, she would say,‘That’s what you supposed to do.’”

For Kayla, affection was nonexistent, validation was rare, and she never felt safe displaying anything other than strength. Kayla felt sympathy for her mother as she knew her mother faced hardships as a child herself. Kayla’s grandmother shaped her mother into the woman who raised her—distant and emotionally unavailable.

Over time, Kayla began to convince herself that she was the one who needed to change.

“I just stopped asking for things that she couldn’t give me. I consoled myself. I taught myself. I protected myself. I didn’t want to rock the boat with her because she was always extremely irritable. It annoyed her whenever I was in need, so I stopped needing her.”

By age ten, Kayla had perfected the art of being invisible. She didn’t ask her mom for love. She didn’t ask for affection. She didn’t ask for help. In turn, she saved herself from disappointment.

The “Strong Black Woman”

Kayla’s experience growing up was a complex one due to the emotional neglect and also the unwritten rules of what it takes to be a Black woman (1). She grew up being told to be strong and keep going no matter what. There was not enough room for anything else. Kayla comes from a family of Black women who embodied these qualities as armor against the world. Growing up in a space that offered little empathy to Black women, Kayla’s mother taught her how to survive, and that was her act of love.

“She used to tell me that if I think anyone cares about me crying, then I have a lot to learn,” Kayla stated angrily. “Like crying made you weak or something. In a way, she was right. I had to make sure people knew I was nothing to mess with!”Even after Kayla’s mother died, she felt like she had no space to grieve. “My aunt told me everything happens for a reason, and we can’t spend time crying. So, you mean to tell me I can’t have time to be sad about my mom’s passing? Even in death, do I have to push on? That’s a lot for anyone. If my family knew I was here, they would wonder why. After everything I have endured, they would still wonder why. Because we don’t do this.”

In addition to her trauma and grief, Kayla was struggling with knowing that she needed help but feeling uncomfortable while seeking it. There has been an undeniable stigma in the Black community when it comes to mental health. As a Black woman myself, I resonated deeply with her.

“My aunt would probably be like girl, you need to talk to God, and not no therapist! Talk to God, and you will be all right. Like I haven’t been talking to God. Talking to you is my last hope at this point.”

Kayla was plagued by wondering if she should even be here as a Black woman and also hoping that therapy would “work” for her.

“You know you can do both, right?” I asked. “You can talk to God and spend time in therapy.” Kayla arched her eyebrows as if she were in deep thought. I continued, “James 2:14 says, ‘Faith without works is dead.’ Kayla, you are doing the work right now.”

“Wow, I’ve never thought about it like that,” she smirked. “I like that!”

Naming the Wounds and Breaking the Cycle

Kayala learned to survive from an early age, and her defensive tactics served her well. Now, it was time for her to thrive. I discussed clinical diagnoses with her, and her mood instantly changed. I could tell she was not fond of labels.

“What is Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Borderline Personality Disorder? Are you saying I’m crazy?” she asked, irritated.

“Absolutely not!” I said sternly. I swiftly disputed Kayla’s thoughts so she didn’t disengage with me. “A diagnosis is not about calling you crazy; it’s about creating a roadmap. Knowing your diagnosis helps us understand what’s wrong and how we can fix it.” I continued while I still had her attention, “Right now, your mind still seems to think that you are in danger, and it is responding accordingly. Kayla, you are safe now, but your experiences in life have wired your brain into a constant state of fear. When this happens to us, it is hard to regulate our emotions or trust new people because that is not a priority; safety is. That is why we are looking at Post Traumatic Stress Disorder or PTSD. We need to look at the research for what has been proven to work with your symptoms.” (2)

Kayla’s jaw tightened, but I saw a flicker of understanding.

I continued. “Now, some traits of Borderline Personality Disorder or BPD concern me. Again, this does not mean that there is something wrong with you. It simply means that something happened to you that is causing patterns similar to BPD to arise in your personality.”

Kayla previously reported mood swings, fear of abandonment, and impulsive choices that she wished to cease. I wanted her to understand that these symptoms made sense when one has endured the trauma that she has. Giving it a name only serves as a guide to addressing her symptoms.

“But here is the most important thing,” I said. “None of these things mean you’re crazy. They mean your brain did what it had to do to survive. And now, we’ll teach it a new way of looking at life.”

She nodded slowly. This time, she was really hearing me.

The Work: Using DBT to Rebuild Control

Kayla discussed feeling out of control when she first sat on my couch. She said she was tired and had exhausted all options. She wanted to feel different. Therefore, we had to try something different. Kayla was stuck in a cycle of emotional dysregulation, intrusive thoughts, and impulsive behaviors—trying to numb a pain that never seemed to dull. As a result of her trauma and grief, she had become avoidant. She had cut off her family in an attempt to forget her past and her unfavorable memories of her mother. She had also distanced herself from friends, convincing herself that being alone was the safest way to be. However, the isolation only compounded her sadness.

“I like to be alone. I don’t have to worry about anything…or anyone,” she said.

It was clear that avoidance had become a comforting survival mechanism for her, blocking her pathway to healing by dismissing the very things she needed to address. That is why Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT) was the chosen approach for Kayla—she didn’t just need to talk about her pain; she required structure. She was new to managing her emotions and grasping concepts of healthy communication. As someone who always “just dealt with it,” Kayla needed practical tools to help her regulate her emotions, tolerate distress, and rebuild her broken relationships with family and friends (3). DBT would allow Kayla to accept her past and present circumstances while learning tangible ways to help her approach her overwhelming emotions less detrimentally.

Kayla’s case and the use of DBT demonstrate its flexibility beyond its original purpose for borderline personality disorder for managing trauma and grief as well. Unlike traditional talk therapy, DBT provides tangible solutions to change. It was designed for people like Kayla—individuals who felt emotions so intensely that they often became destructive. With some culturally adapted tweaks, I knew DBT would be life-changing for her.

DBT Treatment Sessions: A Step-by-Step Process

Reframing Emotional Regulation Through Radical Acceptance

“So, what? I just breathe through my feelings? That’s not gonna do anything,” she snapped when I introduced emotional regulation techniques. Kayla came to therapy with the belief that any emotions outside of anger made her weak. She had been taught to be a strong Black woman. For her, that, unfortunately, meant suppressing pain and keeping her composure no matter what she faced—crying, asking for help, or expressing vulnerability felt like weakness. Regulating emotions meant giving in and giving up. We needed to reframe that thinking. I knew I had to introduce something concrete that would challenge this belief in a way that made sense to her lived experience.

That’s when I introduced Radical Acceptance.

“To radically accept something means acknowledging our reality no matter how much it hurts. It doesn’t mean you like it. It doesn’t mean it was fair. It simply means it happened and is out of our control.”

She narrowed her eyes.

“So, I just roll over and accept what happened to me? That sounds like letting people run over me.”

“It’s the opposite,” I assured her. “It means you stop wasting energy on what has happened and can’t be changed, then you can focus on healing and moving forward.”

We practiced this with a powerful exercise. I asked Kayla to create two different lists. On the first, I asked her to list everything she wished had been different. On the second, I asked her to write down the reality of what happened. Kayla hesitated, as if putting the truth into words would finally make things real for her. But eventually, she did it.

When she finished, I asked, “Which one is true?” She looked at them for a long time before responding.

“The second one.”

“And which one are you living in?”

She tearfully stated, “the first one.”

“That’s why it hurts so much.”

There was silence. I saw Kayla arch her brows again, as she always does when thinking.

“I guess I can’t change the past, huh? Being angry about it isn’t going to change it for me, either. I need to focus on what I want to be different now and make a plan to change my now.”

Managing Impulsivity Through Distress Tolerance

In our next session. I wanted to focus on Kayla’s binge eating and spending. These weren’t random actions. They were her mind’s way of coping with her trauma and grief. These behaviors were a quick way for Kayla to feel something other than discomfort, if only for a brief time.

“I don’t think—I just do it,” she admitted when we explored her excessive spending and binge eating.

I introduced distress tolerance skills to teach Kayla to sit with her uncomfortable feelings. One of the most valuable techniques for this was the STOP Method:

  • Stop – Pause before you react.
  • Take a step back – Create space to think before deciding.
  • Observe – Notice your emotions without judgment.
  • Proceed mindfully – Act with awareness.

At first, she was skeptical about being able to control her urges. But then, one evening, I received a text from her: “I almost spent $500 online on something silly, but I stepped away from my phone and did that STOP thing instead. So… yay, I guess.”

It was a small victory for Kayla but a critically important one. Over time, she began to master interrupting her impulsive urges. We were replacing her self-destructive behaviors with healthy coping skills.

Processing Trauma Through Mindfulness & Exposure Our next session was challenging as we addressed Kayla’s most potent and longest-held form of self-protection; we addressed her avoidance. I felt that Kayla had enough coping skills at this point to start to touch on some of her trauma that impacts her today. She shut down and cut off anyone who was a reminder of her trauma, further isolating herself and feeding her negative behaviors.

“I just don’t have time to think about any of that stuff. It feels bad,” she told me once.

But avoidance doesn’t erase trauma—it only buries it deeper.

I introduced mindfulness-based exposure therapy, where she slowly confronted the memories she had been running from. We spent half of one session just looking at a picture of her mother and addressing the emotions that rose from that. Eventually, we reached a point where Kayla was listening to an old voicemail her mother had left her shortly before her passing. Her mother called to check on her as she had not seen her since their argument. Kayla’s hands began to tremble; her breathing became shallow.

“This hurts me so much,” she whispered.

I nodded.

“I know. Just go with it.”

As she let the tears roll, she didn’t dissociate. She sat in how she felt. That was a breakthrough!

Breakthrough Session: Onward to Healing

Months into therapy, Kayla no longer felt like she was spinning out of control.

“I still have my bad days,” she sighed. “But I don’t feel like I can’t do anything about it anymore.”

Her progress was never about curing her pain. It was about living with it more healthily. She was still grieving, still processing, only this time around, she had the tools to cope. As she stood up to leave our session today, she paused. “You know,” she said, “I think my mom would’ve liked you.”

I smiled, and said, “I think she would’ve liked you too.”

Kayla walked out of my office that day, not healed, but healing. For now, that was enough.

Reflections from the Therapist’s Perspective

My experience with Kayla has grown me in ways no training or manual could. After some time sitting across from her, I realized that I was doing much more than simply applying interventions to an issue. What I was providing Kayla was a safe space. As big as the world is, many people do not have the space to be truly vulnerable and seen in their pain. In that space, it was not about how much I knew academically, but how deeply I could listen, be present, and make it safe for her to unravel.

Therapy is often misunderstood as something people do to “fix” an issue. However, healing does not come from quick fixes. Healing comes from connection when I can help carry the weight someone shouldered alone for far too long. Kayla reminded me that everything I do matters. My patience, validation, and commitment to her healing mattered so much. These small and consistent actions are the most powerful tools a therapist can implement during therapy. Most importantly, I learned I cannot validate what I do not acknowledge.

Kayla’s life experiences, beliefs, and values all stemmed from her upbringing. They stemmed from her identity as a Black woman in her home and the world. As a Black woman myself, I resonated deeply with the themes around mental health that Kayla had come to know as truth. As a Black therapist, I am even more grounded in my belief that therapy must make space for cultural humility and the intersectionality of the people we sit across from. Their identity, history, and experiences make them unique. That said, we must see our clients for all that they are.

References

(1) Carter, L., & Rossi, A. (2021). Embodying strength: The origin, representations, and socialization of the strong Black woman ideal and its effect on Black women’s mental health. In WE matter! (pp. 43–54). Routledge.

(2) Bremner, J. D., & Wittbrodt, M. T. (2020). Stress, the brain, and trauma spectrum disorders. International review of neurobiology, 152, 1-22.

(3) Prillinger, K., Goreis, A., Macura, S., Hajek Gross, C., Lozar, A., Fanninger, S., … Kothgassner, O. D. (2024). A systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy of dialectical behavior therapy variants for the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 15(1), 2406662.

Getting Started as a Therapist: 50+ Tips for Clinical Effectiveness

New therapists are eager to help, which can be a strength and a deficit. To gauge the mindsets of supervisees or students, I ask, “What do you do in psychotherapy?” A common response is some form of, “People come in with problems. I need to have the solutions to make their problems go away.” It’s as if therapy is perceived as a special forces operation, picking off the bad guys.

It has been my experience that students and new therapists, when asked about their theoretical preference, express wanting to develop a cognitive-behavioral (CBT) skill set. This is likely, at least in part, because it’s what they are primarily exposed to in today’s graduate programs. Further, I’m told, “It gets right to fixing the problem.”

Upon further examination, their expanded definition is sometimes nothing more than identifying symptoms and providing coping skills. Psychotherapy is thus reduced to the fastest possible symptom reduction, as if it were a paint-by-number procedure. While seemingly efficient, there are inherent and fatal flaws in this approach, perhaps most thoroughly examined by Enrico Gnaulati in his, Saving Talk Therapy (1).

Over the years I’ve noticed an increasing assumption that therapy is not, or should not be, an exploratory process. Rather, there is an idea it should be neatly packaged solutions ostensibly remedying problems in short order. This is no doubt further fueled by the uptick in manualized, short-term (8-12 sessions) interventions, implying therapy is supposed to be short.

Despite the implication of these popular tools, psychotherapy is not a race. What’s more, it does not take long in the field to realize that it’s not unusual for any level of meaningful, lasting change to takes six months to a year, regardless of theoretical approach (2).

Sure, therapists wish to relieve patients’ symptoms as soon as possible, but it’s important to realize that ground must be broken to accomplish this. While therapists can offer immediate objective interventions, like diaphragmatic breathing to combat panic, or grounding techniques to interrupt dissociations, it is still necessary to examine the uniqueness of each person’s experience. Do we not need to get to know the person, and allow the person to get to know themselves?

Getting to understand the meaning behind people’s experiences can help unveil the foundational complication for ultimate resolution. This is not a Victorian relic. Modern psychoanalysts and existentialists operate as such, and traditional cognitive-behavioral therapists explore thought processes behind behaviors on the principle that thoughts drive feelings, which drive behaviors.

From its inception, psychotherapy was an activity in exploration and allowing the patient to unfold. By helping a patient explore their being, we help them come to realizations, make painful or shameful confessions, and share intimate details that almost certainly have a bearing on the problematic feelings and symptoms that led to seeking therapy. It is then that the more substantial work may begin of pulling up the anchor of deeply seated dilemmas, and allowing the person to work towards sailing freely once again.

While symptom reduction is relieving, symptoms are just the fruit of a deeper-rooted conflict. I’ve yet to meet, for instance, someone with illness anxiety (hypochondriasis) who simply developed the symptoms, which in turn can simply be given replacement behaviors, and life goes on happily.

While working with patients on reducing their preoccupation with perhaps having a serious illness, I’ve many times discovered they have an unusually pervasive fear of death. This tends to be correlated with a feeling they are not living authentically and fear dying because they have not truly lived. In effect, the hypervigilance for serious illness serves as a check to catch any illness that may prematurely terminate their chance to live authentically. Clearly, helping this type of patient recover from illness anxiety also involves resolving the driving conflict.

Even in this age of increasingly popular, ultra-brief CBT protocols, icons in the CBT field have illustrated that deeper exploration provides a foundation for more substantial work to begin. For example, Jeffrey Young created the “Young Schema Questionnaire” to help such exploration. This is a standardized tool created to help patients with deep-seated maladaptive beliefs explore the troubling way they conceptualize their world and how that leads to their struggle (3). Thus, this insight becomes a springboard for patients to identify and accept what needs changing, and bolsters a collaborative intervention environment.

While people come to therapy for symptom relief, it’s not always as easy as categorical symptom reduction with intensive exposure therapy or teaching them to be responsive and not reactive through a Dialectical Behavioral Therapy (DBT) skills manual. Even DBT, considered a relatively quick and effective approach to borderline personality disorder, involves some deeper exploration for sustained success, and averages six months to one year of treatment.

While successful ultra-brief and single-session therapy does occur, it’s usually a very specific issue with a very motivated person that makes it successful. Most patients are going to need to unfold.

Perhaps the fastest way to psychotherapeutic success is taking the required time, which will vary amongst patients. Before deep work can begin, a therapeutic alliance must be forged, where patients come to trust that the therapist is interested and cares. It is necessary to establish a dynamic where patients may be vulnerable and reveal themselves to expose the conflicts to resolve that will ensure long-term symptom relief.

People in therapy are seeking lasting change. What is the point of quick symptom reduction if the therapist does not work with the person to make sure improvement is sustained, and this newfound way of being has not been woven into the fabric of their lives?

Find Value in Silence

The poet Thomas Carlyle wrote, “Silence is the element in which great things fashion themselves together; that at length they may emerge, full-formed and majestic, into the daylight of Life, which they are thenceforth to rule.” It is no different in psychotherapy, but many therapists squirm in silence, and opportunities for things to emerge can get lost.

When I was new in the field, the most anxiety-provoking encounters in a session were periods of silence. I felt I must have something to say, lest I wasn’t being helpful. Even worse, perhaps it painted me as inept in the eyes of the patient. In time, I learned this was mostly projection, or the assumption others perceived me the way I was viewing myself, as an insecure new therapist.

Today, I’m often reminded of how disquieting silences can be at the outset, as practicum students confess or demonstrate a similar fear. While reviewing student’s practicum videos, palpable discomfort may follow the briefest silence, and there’s a desperate attempt to fill the void. The follow-up supervisory meetings are always rich as the student digests their experience, only to be surprised to discover that filling the void can threaten the therapeutic process.

Once meeting their “silence threshold” a therapist might tell themselves, as an excuse to break the silence, that the patient’s momentary quiet means they no longer want to discuss the topic. Panicked, the therapist offers impulsive commentary or abruptly changes the topic to have something to say. After all, who wants to see a therapist with nothing to offer?

Upon inspection, however, silence is not always indicative of, “It’s your turn to talk.” The patient could be contemplating something the therapist said. Perhaps, while silent, they are mustering the guts, or finding the words for, something that requires attention. Can you think of a time, perhaps in a meeting, when you had something to say but weren’t sure if you should, or how to say it? Now imagine having something critical to share, such as disclosure of abuse, or revealing something one feels ashamed about, and the space that could require to confess or articulate.

With that space in mind, when it seems like the right moment for clients to bring to light an uncomfortable item, any excuse to not have to might be capitalized on. If the therapist becomes talkative during such a pregnant pause, the patient might not try to bring up the topic again, at least not that session, Clearly, providing patients with an ample silence berth is a valuable gesture. With enough silence, they are more likely to crack and use the moment. Like a buried seed, once the shell breaks, new growth begins to emerge.

Indeed, try giving the silence an opportunity to resolve on its own. This will be less of a task with some patients than others, and will become easier as you get to know them.

I frequently sat in silence for up to five minutes with Corrine, a patient I knew well. She would trail off and become contemplative, sometimes spontaneously. At the same time, she began to rhythmically draw her fingertips of one hand down her fingers of the other hand and across her palms in a self-soothing activity. I learned to let Corrine be and focused on watching her hand motions for their hypnotic relaxing effect, which broke any of the silence discomfort I may have experienced as minutes ticked away. More often than not, she would start to reflect on something poignant we touched on immediately prior.

If she did not speak after some time, Corrine would look up and produce a pained smile. This was my cue to coax her. “If I know anything about you,” I’d begin, “when you get quiet and play with your fingers this long, something is brewing inside, and you’re either not sure how to say it or are a little afraid to.” Merely getting her to acknowledge this was usually enough to spur her on. It was as if my reminder of how well we knew each other assured her it was safe to broach any concern.

Being someone ashamed of her body and who generally didn’t think highly of herself, the material sometimes related to intimacy with her boyfriend. Other times, Corrine, afraid to disappoint me, struggled to let me know she had re-engaged in self-destructive activity like drinking benders. Both items were important grist for the therapy mill, which would have been lost if Corrine was not allowed to engage in her process.

When a therapist is just getting to know a patient, it can be helpful to be especially careful not to force away silence. This might occur with an observation like, “What are you thinking about?” It could seem you want to know too much, too fast. It is less confrontational to offer an observation, like, “It’s been my experience that when someone sits quietly in here, there’s something knocking that wants out.” If affirmed, helping the patient partner with their silence can help the state of arrested expression. Posing the paradoxical question, “If that silence was words, what would it be telling me?” has been notably productive over the years.

Other scenarios that can generate patients’ silence as if they are unused to talking about themselves, or are fearful of exposing themselves and appearing weak. This could be related to cultural matters, machismo, or fear of vulnerability. They might answer your questions as briefly as possible, and offer no spontaneous dialogue. Not surprisingly, this terse presentation is a common scenario in males, who are often socialized to feel negatively about help-seeking (4, 5). Autistic people, given the inherent social deficits, can present similarly. It’s important to know your audience, for, in these cases, prolonged silences that were beneficial for others could be very difficult to endure. A therapist would do well to seize these opportunities to teach a patient to interact and communicate.

In situations like this, the patient honestly may not know what to say, awaiting the therapist’s prompts. To promote a forum of focused sharing, the therapist can be productive by blowing on the embers that have begun glowing with simple persuasion, like asking for clarification or other details. Simply being curious and using the most open-ended questioning style is invaluable. “What more can you tell me about that?” “How has that affected you?” or “What’s been helpful to deal with that?” can gain discussion traction.

Showing those prone to this behavior that we’re interested in what they have to say, or gradually exposing them to self-revelation and having them see that it is not disastrous, can work wonders.

Clearly, if someone is not good at sharing themselves, a goal of therapy may have to be improving their ability to be more articulate and willing to share, so we can better understand and address the chief complaint.

Lastly, surely there will be purely oppositional silence, like with rebellious teenagers who see therapy as “stupid,” and they feel they’re forced to be there. No amount of cajoling is likely to make them participate, and it has nothing to do with being an unworthy therapist. Patients like this take significant rapport building, and supervision is often invaluable.

Ask About Meaning

“How does that make you feel?” has its place in the psychotherapist’s arsenal, but it’s not the sharpest tool. If therapists want to cut deeper, asking “What does that mean to you?” or “What’s that like for you?” can engender more robust revelations and therapeutic exchanges.

It’s been my experience that asking about feeling can be a perfunctory activity leading to a dead-end answer. Great, the therapist knows the patient is anxious, depressed or feeling betrayed, but then what? There might be a great leap from “how does that make you feel?” to offering depression or anxiety management skills. Perhaps the therapist attempts to reason with the patient that they have a right to feel betrayed. There is then a comment that the patient doesn’t deserve that, rendering the therapist a cheerleader. Then what?

Although well-meaning, these responses miss a major point of therapy. That is, the necessity to explore the patient’s experience. Whether analytic, cognitive, or person-centered-based approaches, patients must get to know themselves if they are going to change. Thus, feelings are not always the most lucrative query.

Therapists need to be able to mine for, and work with, substantive data for clinical gains. Thankfully, a little curiosity can go a long way. For instance, talking to someone grieving a close relative or friend, their feelings of sorrow and emptiness are often palpable. Asking what the loss means to them, however, can open new therapeutic doors. The emotional turmoil is not only the effect of the deceased’s absence, but the death causes reflections that instigate anxieties about their own mortality or unresolved conflicts.

One patient with this experience offered that since her parents died, it was as if there was nothing between her and the grave now and there is so much more she wanted to do. This revelation made it clear that the loss, though more than a year prior, stirred her own existential angst. Exploration of her life satisfaction and how to achieve goals to feel she had “lived more” followed. Another individual, in therapy after losing a long-term, close friend, lamented that the friend’s absence meant they could never better resolve a conflict that lurked in the shadows. Clinical focus turned towards self-redemption for his role in the conflict.

In another example, Jackson, a 16-year-old teen, while working through his parents’ divorce, discovered his girlfriend cheated on him.

“She said she was only sticking around because she felt bad for me,” lamented Jackson, tearing up.

“What’s it been like for you the past week since it happened?” I asked.

“So angry my head spun. I’m drained. I’ve got no energy to be angry anymore. I want to scream, but I don’t have the energy.”

“Sounds like insult to injury,” I offered. “You were already dealing with so much.” He nodded.

“Jackson,” I continued, “what does all this mean to you?”

“It means I’m on my own. I can’t trust anyone. My parents are too wrapped up in their mess to care about the mess they made for me, and, I guess, I just suck. I give my heart to someone for the first time, and without warning, it doesn’t matter.”

Asking Jackson about the meaning of his experience led him to put words to his internal landscape. This inside-out synopsis provided more than focusing on feelings could provide. His description created an opportunity to examine the maladaptive beliefs that germinated from the problematic experiences, which only served to compound his bad moods. Navigating these beliefs became part of the plan to relieve Jackson of depression.

Therapists working with trauma may also find it a therapy-accelerating question to help understand how trauma affected someone. Therapists can ask about symptoms and provide coping skills and guidance for achieving goals, but wouldn’t it also be helpful to know how a patient is shaped by the meaning they assigned to their experience? Having a patient share that their traumatic experience made them feel “forever broken,” for example, is more fertile ground than an inventory of symptoms to assign coping skills to for a treatment plan.

Asking this “forever broken” patient, “What exactly do you mean by ‘forever broken?’” was crucial to our work. They described an overidentification with the role of victim, perpetuating the other symptoms. Hypervigilance soared, nightmares involved reaching for goals, only to be sabotaged. Understanding this schema helped treatment in that the focus centered on empowerment; cultivating and magnifying other components of her life that negated the role of victim.

Often the juveniles I interview for court are enmeshed in daily marijuana use, binge drinking or vaping nicotine. Problems follow like infractions for marijuana possession in school, perhaps public drunkenness, or getting caught stealing vaping paraphernalia. During the assessments I ask not only about their use history and how it affects them, but what sort of meaning do they assign to the substance use?

I’ve been given answers that it is how they identify with their family, or that they can control how they feel and when. In the cases involving drug dealing, while the money is a motivator, drug culture guarantees excitement in an otherwise dull existence.

In each instance, asking about meaning yielded more potent information than “why” or “how” was likely to. Inquiring about meaning encourages an answer that captures more of the experience. This includes revealing deeper causal factors than self-medication or boredom, or at least factors that encourage the substance use under the circumstances.

Be Attentive to Your Intuition

My colleague, Joseph Shannon, a psychologist specializing in personality, once told me that “listening with the third ear” is a top skill to hone as a therapist. According to author Lee Wallas, the term was first used by the existentialist Friedrich Nietzsche in his 1886 book, Beyond Good and Evil. Given my lack of familiarity with the term I was intrigued, but quickly discovered it’s simply an elaboration of something most people are familiar with: intuition.

While this clinical skill might sound unusual, if you have ever sensed there is more than meets the eye to what the patient is relaying, you’ve experienced it. Clinically, the third ear quietly deciphers indirect communication, helping the therapist read between lines. Just as Spiderman heeds his tingling “Spidey sense” that something is askew and someone needs help, it’s important for clinicians to heed their “Spidey sense.”

Sometimes supervisees confess to encountering situations where it seems their patient is indirectly trying to say something. However, they wonder if it’s too speculative or confrontational to heed the tingling and “go there.” Usually, they fear they may be off the mark, deeming them incompetent and pushing the patient away. Some have justified their defensive unwillingness to consider their intuition by noting, “When the patient is ready, they’ll tell me.”

Or not. Not regarding the intuition could inadvertently prolong misery and unnecessarily perpetuate treatment.

Is it not part of therapist’s duty, part of the therapeutic process, to explore and help patients learn about themselves so they may advance? Is it not poor practice to potentially be encouraging internalization of things that need saying; to not help patients discover and deal with, emerging elephants in the room?

It’s not unusual that patients are on the couch due to some such ineffectual coping strategy as internalization or denial. Thus, the very thing the therapist might be apprehensive of doing is just what they need, and perhaps are even carefully, consciously, asking for. Would you be surprised to learn that sometimes patients (consciously or unconsciously) guide us to make the observation so they don’t have to say it? Something that requires purging may be too painful or embarrassing to mouth, and it’s easier to acknowledge than to explain in order to get it out there. Consider the case of Rob, a successful 34-year-old, who entered therapy for “feeling emptier with age.”

As we explored his life, Rob disclosed an early history of social anxiety that he overcame with therapy. He confessed he was a late bloomer for dating given his teenage angst, but had managed a few, year-long relationships as he emerged from his shell in his 20’s. “As a kid, all I wanted was a nice girlfriend, but I didn’t get that young adult dating experience. The older I get, the harder it is meeting eligible ladies,” Rob lamented. Not about to let it sink him, he accepted singlehood as best he could, travelling abroad and exploring locally on his own.

Rob occasionally traveled with friends, but the ones he had traveled with began having children and were no longer available for adventures. “My friends had to go have kids,” he’d joke, “They don’t know what they’re missing!” Despite this, he regularly spoke of being “Uncle Rob” and beamed when talking about his friends’ toddlers. Other times Rob said, “I do love kids, I just like to give them back. Kids aren’t for me,” noting they’d be hang-ups for his ostensible free spirit.

Soon, my Spidey sense tickled that Rob’s emptiness may well stem from being childless, and I had enough evidence to justify exploration. In a subsequent session, I said, “Rob, we’ve met a few times now, and I’d like to review a bit deeper. Given your history of social anxiety, it’s impressive you’ve become so social and had some successful romantic relationships. It’s got to be disappointing to have progressed exponentially with social comfort, just to encounter the frustration of not securing the relationship you always wanted. While talking about your frustrations with the romantic void, though, you’ve also made some curious comments about kids that I feel deserve exploration. On the one hand, you depict how kids cramp your style. On the other, your happiness is palpable when you bring up kids that are in your life. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I can’t help wondering if there’s an internal conflict regarding kids of your own contributing to that complaint of increasing emptiness.”

Rob eventually confessed, “It’s much easier to say you don’t want kids than to admit you can’t pull it together enough to make it happen.” What followed was an unfolding of Rob’s fear he’d be like his father, plus he feared his own children could be tormented with anxiety as he was. Being in denial allowed him to save face about imperfections. As Rob reflected, he realized that while he enjoyed the women he was with, when talk of longevity and family surfaced, he invariably sabotaged the relationship. He was capable of getting what he wanted, but subconscious security guards only let romance go so far.

Rob isn’t unusual in that patients may be avoiding the truth as ego damage control when they aren’t procuring what they want. As we explored over time, it came to light that the more Rob could not find someone, the more he traveled solo to prove he did not need anyone and to convince himself of his rationalization defense that kids just complicate things. He needed an excuse not only for himself, but as deflection for appearing defective to others.

Imagine if I had not shared what was on my mind about Rob’s material? Clearly, selective hearing for the third ear could have grave consequences to patients. Further, it is important to note that, unlike therapists we might see on the screen, it’s not about trying to shake sense into someone by saying, “Listen to yourself! You’re not finding a relationship because you’re in denial about wanting kids.”

Framed in a disarming way that makes patients see it’s to their benefit, your hunch can be explored and will likely make them interested in examining the idea and weighing its merit. Even if it’s off the mark, that’s not synonymous with therapist incompetence. It demonstrates the need for curiosity about the self, urges willingness to explore, and shows the therapist wants to get to know and understand them, which only strengthens the therapeutic foundation.

***

This content is excerpted and adapted from Smith, A. (2024). Getting Started as a Therapist: 50+ Tips for Clinical Effectiveness. Routledge., with explicit permission from the publisher.  

(1) Gnaulati, E. (2018). Saving talk therapy: How health insurers, big pharma, and slanted science are ruining good mental health practice. Beacon Press.

(2) Shedler, J. & Gnaulati, E. (2020, March/April). The tyranny of time. Psychotherapy Networker. https://www.psychotherapynetworker.org/article/tyranny-time

(3) Yalcin, O., Marais. I., Lee C.W., & Correia, H. (2023). The YSQ-R: Predictive validity and comparison to the short and long form Young Schema Questionnaire. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(3).

(4) Cole, B.P., Petronzi, G.J. Singley, D.B., & Baglieri, M. (2018). Predictors of men’s psychotherapy preferences. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 19(1), 45-56.

(5) Wendt, D. & Shafer, K., (2016). Gender and attitudes about mental health help seeking: Results from national data. Health & Social Work, 41(1), 20-28.

(6) Wallas, L. (1985). Stories for the third ear: Using hypnotic fables in psychotherapy. Norton.

Josh Coleman on the Roadmap to Healing Family Estrangement

Lawrence Rubin: I’m here today with Joshua Coleman, a psychologist in private practice in the San Francisco Bay area, and a senior fellow with the Council on Contemporary Families. He’s the author of numerous articles and book chapters, and has written four books, the most recent of which is The Rules of Estrangement. Welcome, Josh.
Joshua Coleman: Thank you for having me. Pleasure to be here.

The Face of Family Estrangement

LR: I’ll just jump out of the gate by asking you, why do you describe estrangement within families as an epidemic?
JC: Well, there’s a variety of reasons for that. One is, and I don’t know about you in your practice, but in the past few years, my practice, as well as those of my colleagues, has become flooded by clients dealing with this estrangement. Another reason comes from a recent survey by Rin Reszek at Ohio State, who found that 27% of fathers are currently estranged from a child. That’s a new statistic. While we haven’t really been tracking these statistics, non-marital childbirth is also a big cause of estrangement, which is 40% currently compared to 5% in 1960.Divorce is also a very big pathway to estrangement, especially in the wake of more liberalized divorce laws. When you look at the effect of divorce on families once there’s been a divorce, the likelihood of a later estrangement goes way up. This is especially so when you add social media as an amplifier, our cultural emphasis on individualism, influencers talking about the value of going ‘no contact’ after the divorce, and family conflict around politics, especially in the recent election. All these point to a rise in family estrangement, particularly parental.
LR: in the past few years, my practice, as well as those of my colleagues, has become flooded by clients dealing with this estrangementI know the there is a historical rise in divorce. Is there a parallel rise in estrangement with the rising divorce rate?
JC: I don’t think it’s a 1 to 1 relationship, but I think both occur in the culture of individualism, which prioritizes personal happiness, personal growth, protection and mental health. Prior to the 1960s, people would get married to be happy, but more often for financial security, particularly for women as a place to have children. But today, people get married or divorced based on whether that relationship is in line with their ideals for happiness and mental health and the like.The relationships between parents and adult children are constituted in a very similar way, people don’t stay in touch or close to their parents unless it’s in line with their ideals for happiness and mental health. It’s what the British sociologist Anthony Giddens calls pure relationships. Those are relationships that became purely constituted on the basis of whether or not they were inline with that person’s ambitions for happiness and identity. So, it’s a parallel process. I don’t think it’s completely dependent on divorce because there’s many pathways to estrangement.
LR: if the adult child cuts off the parents, they also cut off access to the grandchildren which can cause marital tensions for couples that are still marriedWhy is estrangement so different from other problematic family dynamics?
JC: Because of how disruptive it is to the adult parent and because of the cataclysmic nature of event and its consequences for the rest of the family. Once there’s an estrangement, it isn’t just between that adult child and that parent. It also can cause one set of siblings, or one sibling, to ally with the parent, another with the adult child. Typically, if the adult child cuts off the parents, they also cut off access to the grandchildren which can cause marital tensions for couples that are still married. So, it’s really a cataclysmic event in the whole family system.
LR: In your clinical experience, are there identifiable risk patterns for the eventuality of estrangement?
JC: Divorce is a huge risk, especially when it is accompanied by parental alienation, where one parent poisons a child against the other parent. Untrained or poorly trained therapists sort of assume that every problem in adulthood that can be traced back to a traumatic childhood experience. There seems to be no shortage of those therapists who think everything that is problematic in adulthood is due to some kind of family dysfunction or trauma.Another pathway to estrangement is when the adult child married somebody who’s troubled and says, “choose them or me.” Mental illness in the adult child is also potentially destructive. And last, when parents have been doing something much more psychologically destructive over the years, certain adult children just don’t know any other way to feel separate from the parent beyond cutting them off.
LR: Before we move forward, can you give us a clear definition of estrangement?
JC:  It’s when there is little to no contact. If we’re just thinking of the parent-adult child relationship where there’s little to no contact, and underlying is some kind of, complaint or disruption in the relationship, the adult child is typically the one initiating the estrangement. They determine that it’s better for them not to be in contact with the parent or to grossly limit the contact. Maybe they send a holiday card or something, otherwise they have no contact with their parent.
LR: t’s a complete cut off.
JC: Complete cut off, or a nearly complete cut off. Exactly.
LR: the adult child may not be as motivated to solve the problem as the parent isAnd is the focus of your clinical work mostly on estrangement between adult children and their parents?
JC: Typically, because they’re the ones who are reaching out to me. Occasionally, I’ll have siblings reach out to me, but more typically it’s the parents who are estranged. From their perspective, they’re the ones who are in much more pain. The adult child may have cut off the parent because of their pain, but by the time the parent reaches me, the adult child has concluded that it is in their best interest to estrange their parent. So, the adult child may not be as motivated to solve the problem as the parent is.
LR: Do you have estranged grandparents reaching out to you?
JC: Yeah, and a lot of grandparents say, ‘look, I could probably tolerate estrangement from my child, but not from my grandchildren.’ This feels intolerable, particularly for those who have been actively involved with their grandchildren, as many of these grandparents have been.
LR: This “grandparent alienation syndrome” must be particularly tormenting for them. Have you experienced different cultural manifestations of estrangement?
JC: The data from the largest study, which was by Rin Reczek at Ohio State, found that, for example, Black mothers were the least likely to be estranged. White fathers are the most likely to be estranged. Latino mothers are also less likely to be estranged than White mothers. Fathers in general are very much at risk for estrangement regardless of race.There’s relatively low estrangement in Latin American families as well as Asian American families. And similarly, within Asia, we assume that there’s not a lot of estrangement because the culture of filial obligation is still quite active. So, estrangement tends to predominate in those countries and cultures, like ours, that have high rates of individualism and preoccupation with one’s own happiness and mental health.

Detachment Brokers

LR: That’s interesting. So, there’s a parallel between estrangement and the value particular cultures place on either individualism or commutarianism.
JC: Exactly. Some are much more communitarian, emphasizing the well-being of the family and the group, while others are much more individualistic, like we are here. The sociologist Amy Charlotte calls American individualism ‘adversarial individualism,’ which is the idea that you become an individual through an adversarial relationship with your parent, or you rebel against that. But not all cultures have that kind of adversarial positioning as the way that you become an adult.
LR: You had mentioned earlier that some therapists can actually make things worse.
JC: I think that all therapists want to do good, but some simply don’t think through all of the factors. We have to not only think about the person in the room, but also the related people, because estrangement is a cataclysmic event that affects many beyond the person sitting in front of you. Grandchildren are involved and get cut out from their grandparents’ lives. Siblings typically get divided into those who support the estrangements and those who don’t. It’s also very hard on marriages. It’s easy to get sidetracked into focusing on the mental health of the adult child who is cutting off their parent(s) in the name of self-care and self-protection. We have a rich language in our culture around individualism, but a poverty of language that’s oriented around interconnectedness, interdependence, and care.It’s easy to pathologize someone’s feelings of guilt or responsibility for a parent that may just be a part of their own humanity. By giving them the language and moral permission to cut off a parent without doing due diligence on whether or not that parent really is as hopeless as their client is making them to be, contributes to this kind of atomization.Therapists can contribute to the tearing apart of the fabric of the American family, acting as accelerants to that process. We become what the sociologist Allison Pugh calls detachment brokers in her book, Tumbleweed Society. When we support clients’ absolute need or desire to estrange their parents due to their need for happiness and personal growth, we help them detach from the feelings of obligation, duty, responsibility that prior generations just assumed one should have.

LR: Do you ever encourage or facilitate estrangement as a solution?
JC: The same way that I would never lead the charge into divorce with a couple with minor children because of the long-term consequences, I wouldn’t charge ahead with estrangement either. But I do try to help the person to do their due diligence on the parent. Let’s say the parent who is completely unrepentant and constantly shames the adult child about their sexuality, their identity, who they’ve married, or what their career is every time that adult child is around the parent. It’s sort of hard for me to ethically say, “give them a chance!”But I do think it’s our responsibility to ask them: what other relationships will be impacted if you decide to go no contact, is there some way to sort of have some kind of a relationship where you are protected from their influence, or why don’t we think about why is it so hard on you? A newly reconciled adult child recently suggested to me that, ‘if the adult child is insisting that your parents are the ones that need to change to have a relationship, maybe you’re the one that needs to change.’ I liked that because I don’t think everybody has to stay involved with their parents.I do think parents have a moral obligation to address their children’s complaints and empathize with them and take responsibility. Just like the adult children have a moral obligation to give their parents a chance. I work with parents every day who are suicidal or sobbing in my office, and that really gives you a different view of this.
LR: I imagine the most deeply wounded adult children are the most difficult ones to work with around reconciliation. Can countertransference enter the clinical frame at that juncture?
JC: There have been a few occasions where the adult child was so self-righteous and contemptuous of the parent, despite the parent’s willingness to make amends for their so-called crimes––which were more on the misdemeanor side than the felony side––they remained unforgiving. Even when the parent showed empathy and took responsibility in the ways that I insist that parents do, the adult child remained in this very censorious, self-righteous, lecturing place.There haven’t been very many times when I felt provoked on the parent’s behalf, but there have been a couple times where the adult child was earnest, open and vulnerable, and the parent was not willing to do some basic things at the request of the adult child, like accepting basic limits. The parent was insistent. I just felt like you can’t have it both ways. I remember thinking, ‘You can want to have your child to be in contact with you, but you’re going to have to accept the limits that your child is setting, otherwise, I can’t really encourage your child to stay in contact with you in the way that you want me to.’ The transference is worked on both sides of the equation.

A Roadmap for Change

LR: Is there a roadmap for healing estrangement as you suggest in your book?
JC: Typically, if the parent has reached out to me for the reasons I was just saying, the roadmap begins with taking responsibility and the willingness to make amends. I ask that they try to find the kernel, if not the bushel of truth in their child’s complaints. They can’t use guilt or influence or pressure in the way that maybe their own parents might have used with them, and they can’t explain away their behavior. They have to show some dedication to reconciling. It must come with some sincerity. The challenging part for parents is often that they can’t really identify with what they’re being accused of, particularly since emotional abuse is the most common reason for these estrangements.A lot of parents say, ‘wow, emotional abuse, I would have killed for your childhood.’ The threshold for what gets labeled as emotional abuse is much lower for the adult child than it is for the parents. So, a lot of the roadmap for the parent is just accepting that difference and learning how to understand why the adult child is labeling it as such and not really debating it with them or complaining about it. Instead, that roadmap includes a way to empathize with that and understand that those are the most key aspects.
LR: What about when the road to reconciliation has been damaged by physical/sexual abuse?
JC: You have to go there if you have any chance of healing the relationship. If a parent is lucky enough to get an adult child in the room after that child being a victim of more serious traumas on the parents part, the parent has to be willing to sit there and face all the ways that they have failed their child and how much they hurt and wounded them.And it’s not an easy thing to do, typically, because hurt people hurt people. There is high likelihood that the parent who did the traumatizing was traumatized themselves, but if anything is going to happen, it’s going to be because the parent can take responsibility and do a deeper dive and not sweep it under the rug. And that’s very hard work, especially for the adult child who must expose themselves.
LR: Would you work with the adult child separately from the parent and then together by collaborating with all the players in the same room?
JC: Typically, I will meet with each side separately because I want to see what the obstacles are, what each person’s narrative is, assuming that I think everybody’s ready to go forward, I’ll bring everyone together. I usually don’t keep them separate for more than one session, but not everybody is ready to go forward at the same time. If I think that people are sort of ready to engage, then I’ll do a session separately and then everybody together. I tell parents that this is not marriage therapy. The therapy is around helping the adult child feel like their parent is willing to respect their boundaries and accept versions of their narrative sufficiently that they feel more cared about and understood. It’s not going to be as much about the parent getting to explain their reasons or decisions, at least not early into the therapy. If therapy goes on long enough, and people are healthy enough to have that conversation, then it can happen. But it doesn’t always.
LR: What do you consider to be a successful outcome, and at what point do you say that’s enough for now?
JC: I think when they’ve all had enough time outside of therapy, and they were able, to debrief if there was conflict, and if I feel confident that they have the tools to walk them themselves through the conflict and resolve it. I try to help each person set realistic goals and let them know that they are going to make mistakes going forward. The goal isn’t to be perfect, but instead to communicate around feelings and taking each other’s perspectives so all members feel safe and skilled enough to overcome whatever conflict arises. I don’t want anyone feeling discouraged and helpless.
LR: What protective factors do you look for when working with estrangement? The glimmers of hope that you search for with your therapeutic flashlight?
JC: The biggest one is a capacity for self-reflection on the part of both the parents and the adult children. In the parent, I look for a willingness to take responsibility, the capacity for non-defensiveness, vulnerability, and tolerance for hearing their child(ren)’s complaints without being completely undone. For the adult child, I look for acknowledgment that what they’ve done is difficult for the parent, and that their own issues might have contributed to their decision to estrange them.I look for an adult child to say things like, ‘I acknowledge that I was a really tough kid to raise,’ ‘I’ve been a tough as an adult,’ ‘I can give as well as I get,’ or ‘I know that I have an anger issue.’ Those help me, as the therapist, to feel like, ‘okay, you’re not just here to blame and shame the others.’ It’s about a willingness and ability to come to a shared reality, which is important for these dynamics.
LR: At what point might you suggest stopping with a client?
JC: I’ll keep working with people as long as they want to get somewhere. I don’t usually fire clients. But, for example, if I have an adult child who is just insisting that their parent has to change, and it’s clear to me that the parent has changed as much as they’re going to, my goal would be helping them shift towards radical acceptance, rather than to keep beating their head against the wall. And similarly with a parent, if their adult child is just not willing to reconcile, then it isn’t useful for the parent just to keep trying and banging their head against the reconciliation wall either.
LR: Recognizing not only your own limitations, but those that the family system brings to you.
JC: Exactly! I think an important part of our work is to help people to radically accept what they can’t change and influence. As painful as that is to reckon with.
LR: What does radical acceptance mean in this context?
JC: The term came from Marsha Linehan who developed Dialectical Behavior Therapy. It’s not sort of a soft acceptance, but instead a deep dive that you have to do. She has a great quote that says, ‘the pathway out of hell is your misery.’ It’s a great quote because you must first acknowledge that you’re miserable and accept it and maybe not even hope for change. But it does mean you have to acknowledge that you’re currently in hell. And unless you can really accept that reality, nothing good is going to come of it. The other saying that I like that comes from mindfulness or Buddhism is that pain plus struggle equals suffering. That the more you fight against the pain, the more you’re going to suffer. So, I think those are useful concepts.
LR: In this context, at what point does grief and loss work enter the clinical frame?
JC: Grief work is really part of it. Even if I can’t facilitate a reconciliation, it is important helping parents to feel like, ‘yeah, I think you’ve turned over every stone here.’ At that point, it is important to help them accept it and focus more on their own happiness and well-being, and on other relationships. This would include working on self-compassion while mourning the loss of the relationship that may never be.
LR: In closing, Josh, can someone who’s trained in individual therapy do this kind of work?
JC: If you are an individual therapist, you can’t just sort of suddenly start doing couples therapy. You have to have some facility at keeping two subjectivities in your mind at the same time. You know, being able to, to speak to both people in a way that shows that you’re neutral, even when you’re temporarily siding with one person over the other. I think it’s important to have a sociological framework for this part. You also need to set your own limits and boundaries. Doing family work is a very different sort of orientation and requires a unique skill set.
LR: On that note, I’ll say thanks. Josh, I appreciate the time.
JC: It was my pleasure, Lawrence.
*******
Joshua Coleman, PhD, is a psychologist in private practice in the San Francisco Bay Area and a Senior Fellow with the Council on Contemporary Families, a non-partisan organization of leading sociologists, historians, psychologists and demographers dedicated to providing the press and public with the latest research and best practice findings about American families. He is the author of numerous articles and chapters and has written four books: The Rules of Estrangement (Random House); The Marriage Makeover: Finding Happiness in Imperfect Harmony (St. Martin’s Press); The Lazy Husband: How to Get Men to Do More Parenting and Housework (St. Martin’s Press); When Parents Hurt: Compassionate Strategies When You and Your Grown Child Don’t Get Along (HarperCollins). His website is www.drjoshuacoleman.com/.

Becoming an Accidental DBT Therapist

A Curious Professional Journey

I did not set out to become a therapist who utilized Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT). When I was in graduate school, I had hoped to become a therapist who worked mainly with married couples and families, which is where I put much of the focus of my training. I had taken a class that referenced DBT and had also heard what a nightmare clients with borderline personality disorder (BPD) were to work with. But since that was never going to be me (ha!), what did I have to worry about?

Turns out, quite a bit.

For my predoctoral internship I was matched with a clinic that specialized in working with families going through oversea adoptions. Often families who had successful adoptions would later discover that the children had attachment disorder. While at this clinic, I worked with various licensed therapists and families in a variety of modalities, including: individual work, EMDR, support groups, skills groups for the children and developmental assessments.

Attachment disorder is difficult to treat and the burnout rate among therapists who do this important work is high. The clinicians I worked with, and under, were passionate and gifted. I still bear a scar on my left arm from where a child who had become dysregulated bit me. In a conversation with my supervisor, he explained to me that many of these children with attachment disorder will grow up to be clients with BPD. This is not a population for the faint of heart, and while the success rate is not exactly through the roof, it was an important part of my development.

Fast forwarding to the end of my internship, I was out pounding the pavement, trying to find a job in the field without much success. A former classmate and friend of mine had recently interviewed for a job at a community mental health center. They were looking for an already-licensed therapist to train in DBT who was willing to work with BDP clients. My friend told me, “this job doesn’t pay for shit, so I’m taking a pass. Thought that you might be interested instead.” Funny right?

Despite the glowing recommendation from my friend, I applied. During the interview, the interviewer (correctly) noted my lack of experience with BPD. I remembered what my supervisor told me and responded that I had experience, I just worked with them earlier in the process when it was still seen as Attachment Disorder.

I never received feedback to know for certain if that’s what sealed the deal, but I had gotten the job. My friend had been right when he said it didn’t pay very much, but what it did offer me was training in DBT and that changed my life forever.

My Challenging Work with Sarah

For those not familiar with DBT, it is a skills-based modality with regularly assigned homework that incorporates concepts and practices drawn from mindfulness, Buddhism, Hegel, and basic methods of therapeutic validation. Many of these concepts are abstract, and often difficult for clients to fully grasp and embrace. It can be especially tough for those with developmental challenges typically associated with attachment and personality disorders.

For me to be able to explain them to these clients in ways that they could understand and implement in their daily lives, as well as during times of crisis, I really had to learn these concepts backwards and forwards, breaking each down to its essence.

One of my earliest clients, whom I shall call “Sarah,” was very hesitant to embrace these concepts. Partly, because they were difficult to understand, but Sarah had also been through a LOT of therapy before arriving at DBT. (DBT is rarely the first stop on a client’s therapy journey and as we say, “nobody gets to DBT by accident.”)

Therapy had yet to help her in any way she could appreciate. Her arms were covered in scars from many attempts at suicide and self-injury. Estranged from most of her family, she lived with her grandparents because no group home or assisted living facility wanted the liability risk. At the time, she proved unable to hold down a job of any kind. As such, Sarah’s world was small, and her human contact was limited to intermittent conversations with her grandparents, therapists, medical personnel, and DBT Group members during her frequent hospital stays.

During one session, we were talking about suicide and self-harm when Sarah stated that she was likely to die from suicide at some point, because what was the point of living if this was all there was to life? What would happen to her after her grandparents passed away? I replied that those were excellent questions. Her life as it was currently constructed was about survival and little more. Why would any therapist expect her to embrace such a life? For Sarah, being told that “things could always be worse,” was of little consolation. What was the point of staying alive when things could get worse?

One of DBT’s core concepts is referred to as “A Life Worth Living.” In essence, it asks the client what would have to change about their life so ideations like self-harm or trying to commit suicide would organically come off the table? Of course, we must survive before we can thrive, but what did thriving look like to Sarah?

Sarah said she wanted to be able to live on her own (or with occasional assistance that would come when needed), to have a job and her own money, and MAYBE (some pie in the sky stuff here) even have some friends! To her, that would be “A Life Worth Living.” I told her it was possible to have those things, but it is going to take work. DBT, like life, is like playing a sport. It requires clients to consider making choices that someone who could live on their own, hold down a job, and had friends would make. I challenged Sarah by asking, “are you making any of those choices right now?”

She reluctantly conceded that she was not. She could not fault her grandparents for not having faith she could live on her own; the paramedics were at their house at least once a month, if not weekly due to Sarah’s self-harm and suicide attempts. Her time in and out of the hospital and subsequent therapy appointments throughout the week, made it hard for her to hold a job.

I asked Sarah what she saw as the biggest obstacle to getting to her “Life Worth Living?”

“The cutting,” she said.

I agreed. If we could find other more skillful and adaptive ways to tolerate distress, the idea of her living on her own and being able to stay out of the hospital (and therefore able to work), seemed more plausible. That session was when Sarah committed to taking self-harm off the table.

This was no small commitment. Sarah used self-harm weekly for over ten years. Neither she nor I had any illusions that it would be easy for her. In a paradoxical way, self-injury had kept her alive as a coping skill on more than one occasion. She had a concept of how to resolve physical pain, while emotional pain seemed too overwhelming. In order for her to make this work, it was a matter of buying into DBT and its skills. Would the skills be as effective as a coping mechanism for her while keeping her safe? It was a leap of faith I was asking her to make – to put her trust in DBT and our therapeutic relationship. We were off.

Sarah’s Rocky Progress Forward

Gradually the ambulances stopped coming to Sarah’s grandparents’ house and while she never went to the hospital again, it was not a smooth, upward trajectory. There were setbacks, but one day without self-harm became a week which became a month, and then we were at her quarterly review. With her grandparents present, they attended many of Sarah’s appointments and reviews, Sarah proudly told them she had gone three months without hurting herself. She had been practicing her DBT skills (Distract, Self Soothe, Opposite to Emotion, Pros and Cons) and she had plans to share!

Sarah told them about wanting to live on her own and have a job. Her grandparents were pleased, surprised, and anxious all at the same time. These were big steps to take. While they praised Sarah for her efforts and progress it didn’t stop them from worrying. Sarah wasn’t derailed and instead offered to negotiate with them: if she could keep up this progress for nine more months and graduate from Stage 1 of DBT, would they support her? First in getting a job and second in finding a place to live?

As her therapist, I jumped in explaining that this seemed like a good Wise Mind (middle path between reason and emotions) compromise. Assuming she succeeded it would be a new experience with new kinds of stress and new opportunities for her to use her skills. If she could navigate holding down a job while using what she had been practicing, it would stand to reason she could do the same living on her own.

Her grandparents agreed to the plan – the smile it brought to Sarah’s face was one I hadn’t seen before. I wasn’t sure who was more excited at that moment, me or her! Being able to observe her having faith in herself and her future remains one of the most powerful experiences I have shared with a client. I did not know then what the future held, but I knew that DBT worked, and I could not turn my back on something that worked. From that moment on, I was a DBT therapist.

***

It’s been almost 25 years, throughout which I have worked with thousands of clients on achieving their “lives worth living.” I have seen clients who went from thinking about suicide almost every day to taking it completely off the table. Many were clients who now have healthy relationships and rewarding careers, just like Sarah. The work is challenging, and I am thankful for the support of a great team. The pride I take in seeing how hard these clients work on themselves is impossible to describe. They continue to make me a better therapist and I would not have it any other way.

Questions for Thought and Discussion

  • What serendipitous experiences have you had over the years that have opened interesting clinical doors for you?
  • In what ways are the core premises of Dialectical Behavior Therapy consistent with your orientation to therapy?
  • What are some of the limitations you have experienced or anticipate in the application of DBT principles and techniques?

Stephen Schueller on the Power and Promise of Mental Health Apps

Mental Health Apps 101

Lawrence Rubin: Thanks for joining me today, Stephen. I first became familiar with your work when I took a deeper dive into mental health apps and came across your work with One Mind PsyberGuide, a system for evaluating these tools. For those of our readers who may not yet be familiar with or worked with them personally or professionally, can you define a mental health app?
Stephen Schueller: A mental health app is essentially a software program that can support people in their mental health journeys. There are various kinds of mental health apps, with estimates suggesting that there are somewhere between 10,000 to 20,000 of them out there. Some of them are intended to be used on their own, so a consumer might use a product to self-manage facets of their own condition, like anxiety, depression, or trauma. And others are really meant to be used in conjunction with standard therapy.
So, for example, the Veterans Administration and the Department of Defense have developed a suite of different apps that are designed as adjuncts to standard evidence-based treatment. For example, CPT Coach for cognitive processing therapy. PTSD Coach for PTSD treatment. PE Coach for prolonged exposure. These are meant to be tools that help support a therapist and a client who are engaged in a specific type of treatment, like prolonged exposure or cognitive processing therapy.
LR:  Are the apps themselves subjected to the same type of empirical validation standards as the therapies they are adjunctive to?
SS: I think it is an appropriate question to ask. To consider what level of evaluation is needed depends on the type of product, the type of app. Those apps that are meant to be therapy adjuncts for example, are designed to replace worksheets or other supplemental content that would go along with an established evidenced-based treatments. Cognitive Processing Therapy Coach, developed by the VA and DOD, is meant to support cognitive processing therapy. Its various homework assignments, tracking components, and capacity to record the actual sessions so that clients can listen to them later and do some of the exposure exercises, all get done in the context of the app. And so, to the same degree that you probably don’t need to evaluate every new version of a worksheet associated with an established treatment protocol, you don’t need to undergo the same types of rigorous evaluations as you would do to the treatment itself.As opposed to apps that are therapeutic adjuncts, there are those that are meant to be more treatments unto themselves. And if they’re not some type of formal treatment like the ones I mentioned, they might be like self-help or self-management products, which opens some interesting questions. Like if these are replacing the self-help books of the past, do we need an evaluation of every single self-help book out there? Or is it sufficient that a self-help book aligns with evidence-based treatments and evidence-based principles if it does not have a formal evaluation?

And so, I think for these adjunctive apps, it’s important to distinguish between direct and indirect evidence. Direct evidence would entail an evaluation of the app itself that explores whether it has been subjected to clinical research studies that show effectiveness for the target condition or goal that that app is trying to change. Indirect research would be based off a pre-existing evidence-based practice, where we would be looking for fidelity of the app to that evidence-based practice.

In this latter case, the app would be evidence-informed rather than evidence-based. An app like that might be a digital CBT tool, that has some fidelity to Cognitive Behavioral Therapy principles. And I would argue that there are various levels of evidence that we should be looking at for with these apps. Obviously, I would love it if every app out there had a clinical trial showing its benefit, but I will tell you that’s not the case. Research suggests that about only 1 to 3 percent of mental health apps have any direct scientific evidence behind them. But I think if it doesn’t, an app that is evidence-informed is probably better than an app that is not based on evidence-based treatment. I think, again, it’s degrees of evidence, and that’s one of the things that we explore at One Mind PsyberGuide, is trying to look at the various degrees of evidence that are supporting various products.

LR: So, what you’re saying is that just as there is a hierarchy of what are considered highest levels of empirically backed treatment research, from randomized control trials down to anecdotal evidence, there are different levels of scientific evaluation that apps can be subjected to.
SS: That’s right. And I think I would add one other point, which is that in a lot of places we see that when treatments are adapted to new mediums, they often maintain their effectiveness. So, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for depression has evidence that it works in person. It also works via teletherapy, in a group therapy format, as well as through self-help books. And so, to some degree, to continue to conduct the same level of studies as we move to new mediums may not be the most efficient use of our resources.When we’re taking something to new mediums and apps, is this really a new treatment, or a new practice that’s being developed through this technology? Or is it taking something that’s worked before and packaging it in a new way? And so, I think that’s the thinking around the evaluation of indirect evidence. That an established intervention already works in various realities and formats gives a lot of confidence that it would likely work in this digital delivery format, as long as it shows fidelity to those evidence-based principles that that treatment involves.

LR: We briefly mentioned self-help books. John Norcross, as an example, has done treatment outcome research at the highest empirical levels, but he has also written self-help books based on the same principles that drive his research. So that’s what you mean when you say if a therapeutic modality is robust and valid, we shouldn’t be that concerned with the transition into a different medium, such as digital technologies and apps.
SS: That’s right. Or at least we should be less concerned. The situations I worry most about are where new, innovative treatments are made possible using technology. I think those do need to meet really high standards of evidence to support their benefits.
LR: What would be an example of this?
SS: I think there’s a lot of work to do around chatbot apps, where you would interact with the app as if you’re chatting with a person, or potentially a therapist. Although they’re often based on evidence-based principles, I have some questions about the benefit of chatting with a computer program

And similarly, I’m also curious about some of these virtual care platforms using text message-based interactions with a therapist. Does that work? And what is the benefit someone gets from text-messaging back and forth with someone, even if they don’t have credentials? How do we distill evidence-based psychotherapy practices into these very brief back-and-forth interchanges?

So, I think there’s a lot of places where we do need new evidence to suggest that these things are beneficial. And I think that there is some promising evidence supporting both chatbots and text message-based interactions as potentially being clinically efficacious. But I do think these are places where we need more research to support these practices.

LR: Are these chatbot apps like virtual assistants, driven by artificial intelligence programs designed to provide human-type responses?
SS: There definitely are products like that. Three examples would be Woebot, Youper, and Wysa. All of these are apps where a user who downloads the app would be able to message back and forth with this virtual agent that is going to provide back full-text answers. Again, they’re often based on therapeutic principles. But I think that these are types of things that were not possible just a brief time ago. This is not like taking a self-help book and digitizing it. This is a very new type of thing that is possible because we have computer programs and software that can do these types of interactions.
LR: Would these types of virtual assistants be programmed with keywords that might be sent off to a therapist if the person is simultaneously working with a “live” therapist, or are they completely asynchronous standalone surrogates for therapy?
SS: It’s a little of both. You couldn’t take this program and bring it to your therapist and say, “Okay, I’m going to use this on the side, and it’s going to reach out to you if these certain words come up.” Some of the programs are designed to communicate directly with a therapist. Or they are a gateway. One way to think about these is as a low-intensity first step that can then introduce or connect someone to a therapist if necessary. And some of these programs do have that model, where if there is need for a therapist, they can step up to that higher level of care. But these aren’t the types of things where you as a client would say, “Okay, I’m going to use this in conjunction with a therapist I’m seeing.”
LR: I know that there are apps for medical care. For instance, those that monitor cardiovascular activity and then send that data to a physician or a physician’s assistant. Are there ways for some of these apps to communicate directly with a therapist, who then would respond to the client?
SS: There definitely are some apps that try to digitize measurement-based care, to allow some communication or transmission of data based on symptom tracking or logging, or other types of things that people would be doing or as part of the treatment that they’re receiving and feeding that information back to their therapist.

The Wild Frontier

LR: In the “old days,” people crowded the self-help aisles at Barnes & Noble or other bookstores. Today, in contrast, e-consumers routinely scroll through platforms like Amazon. How do folks who may not be ready or interested in taking the step into therapy find their way through this labyrinth of 10,000 to 20,000 apps? Is there some sort of roadmap, or a central directory?
SS: I think it’s hard. And I’ll say that there’s no one centralized hub. But I think most consumers go to the app stores and they put in keywords like depression, anxiety, or stress, or whatever they’re struggling with. But I think that the app stores do a very poor job differentiating these products, because most of the search results bring up apps that have four-and-a-half to five stars. That doesn’t really provide a lot of information about the difference between these apps, or which are the evidence-based ones. Relatedly, a lot of people hope or think that the FDA is going to solve this problem. I will say that the FDA has cleared some mental and behavioral health apps, starting with Reset back in 2017, which was an app focused on substance use disorders. But since then, there’s only about a handful of mental health apps, about 10, that have been cleared by the FDA. But that’s 10 out of 10,000 to 20,000 over a period of about five years, which is about two products per year that are being evaluated and cleared.

There is a class of products about which the FDA has said that “they are exercising enforcement discretion,” which means, “We probably could regulate these, but given our assessment of the risk-benefit ratio, we’ve decided not to.” Examples of apps in that category are those that allow consumers with diagnosed mental health conditions to self-manage their own symptoms, such as by providing a tool of the day or different behavioral coping skills. A lot of people think that the FDA regulation shows that something is efficacious or effective, but in actuality the FDA is mostly concerned about safety. They’re looking at the risk profile of these products, and then clearing it based on that. This is all to say that FDA is not really doing much or has not done much in this space. At the beginning of the pandemic, they paused their review of products in this space given the potential need for digital services to help support mental health problems in the pandemic. So, this is a space that’s been traditionally messy and has gotten even more so over the past couple of years.

I think a couple of places that I would point to as being better able to provide more information for consumers are the Veterans Administration and the Department of Defense. While they are mostly focused on veterans, their apps and evaluation procedures are also useful to diverse consumers, especially for therapists who are providing some of these evidence-based practices. And my project, One Mind PsyberGuide, which really tries to collect and provide some of this information for consumers to help them make informed decisions.

LR: So, with the exception of the small handful of apps the FDA and the VA and DOD have approved, publishers of mental health apps do not have to post any black box warnings.
SS: That’s exactly right. There’s little regulation of this space outside of the area that the FDA decided that they’re going to regulate, which, as you mentioned, is quite small.
LR: What are some of the criteria that a consumer should be looking at when they go to the app store?
SS: I think there are three main buckets of elements that are important to consider when searching for a mental health app. Credibility or evidence base, user experience, and then safety, especially related to privacy and data security.Credibility or evidence base goes back to the conversation we were having earlier around the evaluation of the evidence behind these products. Is there either direct (evidence-based) or indirect (evidence informed) support of the app’s effectiveness?

User experience, which is subjective, is about whether the app is easy to use, easy to learn, aesthetically pleasing, free of technical glitches, engaging, something you would come back to? Based upon this criterion, users can narrow down a set of apps to a selection of three to four and then try each of them out to see which works better for their needs.

Lastly, safety and security issues are related to data security and privacy. What is their privacy policy? What do they do with your data? Who is it accessible to? A few years back, we did a review of security policies on 120 depression apps and found that about half didn’t have any policy whatsoever, so they told you nothing about what they did with your data, which was a major red flag to us. And of the half that did have data security and privacy policies, using our scale that we developed at One Mind PsyberGuide, half of these were deemed unacceptable. These apps didn’t provide their data security and privacy policies until after you already put in information about yourself. So, for example, you would create a user profile by putting in your personal information, only after which the app would tell you, “Okay, now we’ll tell you what we do with our data.” That would be a pretty easy red flag for a consumer.

LR: In this Wild West of the internet, what entities might data be shared with?
SS: Often, it’s back to some of the big tech companies—the Googles and the Facebooks, where one’s data might be used for advertising or other marketing purposes. That would make me a little uncomfortable with mental health apps, although, honestly, I do use products that are associated with those worlds. With some of these apps, consumers just won’t know.I talk a lot about the importance of transactional value for data in this space. So, what do I get back, and does that align with what I’m using the data for? With Google Maps, for example, I’m sharing my location information, but in return, it’s helping me navigate to somewhere based on my location. That’s the transactional value, but it feels a little bit different when it comes to mental health apps. Why do they need to know my location?

LR: And since the FDA has only regulated a very small percentage of the apps, I imagine the potential for consumer deception is very great.
SS: That’s right. I think another thing is that sometimes there is a misconception where some people assume that if there’s data present, these apps must be regulated under HIPAA. But it’s important to realize that HIPAA is related to data that’s coming from covered entities, which in our case would be traditional health care providers. If an app is sharing information with a health care provider like your therapist, it should be, and hopefully is, following HIPAA regulations. But if there’s not a covered entity, then a lot of these apps are not regulated by HIPAA regulations, and they can change their terms of services or privacy policies without having to get approval from you. I’m much more comfortable with apps that are not collecting or sharing data, like a lot of the VA and DOD ones that don’t collect or share your information.

LR: I would also imagine that if a therapist assigns or recommends a particular app to a client, there’s the issue of potential vicarious liability. It would therefore behoove the clinician to become aware of all these different elements of the apps, particularly their privacy policies.
SS: That’s exactly right.
LR: Have you found that there are particular mental health conditions or client types that are more amenable to the use of mental health apps?
SS: There’s a lot of evidence to support the use of these tools for depression and anxiety. That doesn’t necessarily mean that these conditions are more amenable to apps. It’s more a reflection of where the research started and what information has accumulated. What I often say is that everything that has been treated with a psychosocial intervention has a digital tool or app that might be useful.

LR: And relatedly, some of the most effective treatments for anxiety and depression are cognitive behavioral. Have you also found some useful trans-theoretical mental health apps or those that capitalize on other types of interventions like Gestalt, or Psychoanalytic, or Existential?
SS: A lot of the apps out there are based on Cognitive Behavioral Therapy principles, but I do think there are some that could be amenable to some of the other treatments like you mentioned. Especially if we think about some of the general aspects of some of these apps. For example, you might be interested in tracking your mood or your symptoms, or different goals or values you have over time. You could imagine an app like that could be useful in a variety of different treatments.It has more to do with the theoretically aligned goals that you’re trying to achieve in those treatments and what products might support those goals that you’re trying to accomplish. But you’re right in suggesting that a lot of the tools out there are CBT-based. We recently did a study in which we reviewed apps with different features of thought records for Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. Traditionally, a therapist using CBT would give their client paper thought records to keep between sessions.

Since there are now all these digital tools that are promising or promoting that they can do this, we went back to see how faithful they were to traditional paper-and-pencil thought records. What we found is that although the set of apps we reviewed all had some elements of thought records, very few had all the elements. So, I think this is an important call for, if you’re a therapist or if you’re a consumer, to look under the hood of the app and to see what’s present in it. Pilot it, so you know what’s there. Just because it says it’s a cognitive behavioral therapy app doesn’t mean it has all the elements that you would want to be using, either as a provider or as a consumer.

LR: Have you found that to be an “optimal consumer” profile for users of mental health apps, defined by a certain set of characteristics?
SS: I think we see that people who are young, tech-savvy, and motivated tend to do better with these apps, especially on their own. In my own experience, older clients or those with less digital literacy might be a little bit more challenging to onboard. If you can train them and work with them, essentially providing a little bit of digital literacy training, these particular clients become most excited and engaged in using one of these tools. And for some of these clients, some basic digital literacy training or support can be useful in other areas of their life. I often tell clinicians to do some sort of assessment of their clients regarding their digital literacy skills, their interests, their previous experiences using apps, and health apps specifically. That information would help clinicians guide clients to the most appropriate and useful digital tool.

If they’re interested and willing to learn and excited to do so, that person might become a client who would be a good fit for a mental health app. I don’t think these tools are for everyone, and I would never, nor should a clinician ever force them on anyone. These should simply be a tool in the toolbox. It’s not the only thing we have available. But don’t assume if someone doesn’t fit the perfect profile, that there might not be some other ways to support them in using these tools. They might eventually end up being a very great fit and a very great client for it.

Challenges

LR: So, young, motivated, tech-savvy—got it! What about marginalized clients? Those that have been and/or continue to be disenfranchised, whether due to SES, education, race, culture, age?
SS: Yeah, well, I’ll say this is a place that I think the field has really failed so far. There’s a lot of promise, and a lot of dialogue like, “Oh, we’ll build these technologies, and we’ll reach people who haven’t been reached otherwise. And we’ll expand access.” The reality of the situation currently is that a lot of these products are made for White majority individuals, in terms of the language (English), the imagery, and the style of the dialogue that’s present.I think that’s shifting a little bit. I think there definitely are developers and entrepreneurs who are creating products that are tailored for traditionally marginalized and underserved groups. And I think that’s important. It’s something we’ve seen in both research studies and in our experience talking to consumers. Products that are tailored to specific populations are more effective and engaging, and those consumers see them as more appealing. But I think the reality of the situation is if you try to find a Spanish-language app or one tailored to another underserved group, there are far fewer out there. So, I think it’s a place where it’s an unfulfilled promise right now in this space, and more work needs to be done.

LR: Sort of the digital equivalent of the finding that specialized populations need specialized services by professionals who are most familiar with their needs?
SS: I think that’s exactly right, despite there being a lot of rhetoric of like, “Oh, we’ll have these products, and it gets around this problem, because we don’t have to rely on the provider. We’ve got technologies. But you still have to design it. It’s not technology—the apps must be able to meet the needs of these distinct groups. It’s not just going to be a one-size-fits-all and we can create a product without consideration of racial, ethnic, and cultural diversity.
LR: And availability is a self-limiting issue, because not everybody has an iPhone. Not everybody who has an iPhone knows what to do with it. And not everybody has a computer. If they do, it may just be for simple functioning. I don’t know if I’m overstating it when I suggest that mental health apps and digital technology like this really favors the educated, the employed, the informed, the digitally familiar.
SS:  I don’t think it’s overstated. Even if we look at research studies, the most common participants are middle-aged White women. So, I think that’s the group we know a lot about who these tools work for.
LR: What role do you see mental health apps playing in working with suicidal clients or those in crisis?
SS: I think there’s a couple places where these tools can be useful. I think one is having these apps be collections of crisis resources. I know, for example, in the case of PTSD Coach that there was a safety planning tool and crisis support services tool directly in that app. And it was such a popular feature that they developed a standalone version of that containing provider resources. So, I think some of it is putting the resources in the pockets of people at the places and time that they need them the most and that they can save lives. I’ve been part of a team that has done a little bit of work in using these tools while a person is undergoing acute treatment. We were working with people who were on an inpatient unit, learning Dialectical Behavior Therapy skills, who used this app or got the app after leaving the setting as a reminder to use the tools.We often talk about these tools as being on-ramps and off-ramps to mental health care. On-ramps to introduce people to what is this whole therapy thing about, and what are some of the things I’m going to be learning in therapy? So, not replacing treatment, but getting someone ready so that they might be more willing to go and have started learning some of those skills. And then off-ramps being the booster sessions, or the reinforcement of the skills. And I think the same thing applies to individuals who are dealing with suicidal ideation or who have been through a suicide attempt, in that these tools might be ways to provide them reinforcement of some of the skills that might be able to help support some of the things that they learned.

LR: So, mental health apps can have a wide range of usages for suicidal clients and other clients in crisis, but not as standalone resources.
SS: I think that’s exactly right. And a great point, and I think that’s something I should really emphasize and just say directly. I don’t think that these apps are replacements for therapists. But I also don’t think this is an either/or. This is a yes/and. I think that these tools can be useful in the toolboxes of therapists, as well as in toolboxes to provide mental health services broadly. And that we must think about ways in which technologies can really augment and support therapists to give them skills. Or give them resources to do things that they weren’t able to do before. But in all, I think that putting resources in the hands of clients at the times they need them is one of the biggest potentials of these tools.
LR: There’s a wide body of research that examines the impact of therapeutic relational variables on treatment outcome. When it comes to apps, that relational connection is absent. How might mental health apps, especially those that are asynchronous or not connected to a therapist, take the place of relationship? Or is it, again, not an either/or, but a yes/and?
SS:Yeah, I think it is a yes/and. We’ve done a little bit of research, as have others, looking at relational variables or therapeutic alliance to these products specifically. And we find that people do form relationships to products—in this case, apps. I think that people have attachments to their phones. It’s something I do often during in-person talks. I might say, “Everyone, hold up your phone,” and everyone whips their phone out of their pockets and shows like, hey, everyone has one of these. And I’m like, “Okay, now pass it to the person on your left.” And everyone looks at me like, “Why would I do that? I’m not giving up my phone. I’m not letting someone else touch it.” We can form attachments or feelings… I mean, not the same that we would to a therapist, but there are relational aspects that occur. I think sometimes with these apps, it’s to the authority or the sense of who developed this, and do we trust them? There are various aspects that come up. So, I think that’s one aspect.

I think another aspect, and this applies more to the products that do have some sort of human support or human component to it, is that having the smaller interactions sometimes can actually create a sense of connection or relationship. There was a study that a colleague of mine did where they had someone reach out to people. And they referred to this as mobile hovering. It was a daily text message from a person—not a therapist, not their therapist, but just someone who checked in—and would start out with three questions. Did you take your medication today? Have you had any side effects? And how are things going for you? And those were the three messages they got every day, and they got a response back. This was what was called mobile hovering. They had their therapist and their psychiatrist as well. And at the end of the study, they asked about relational variables, and the person felt most connected to the person sending them those three text messages every day, because they felt like they were really invested in them, and they were checking up on them. We’ve also done some work with automated text messaging — just pushing notifications to people every day. And clients will respond to them. And they’ll say, “Thank you.” We’ll tell them, “Hey, no one’s monitoring this. This is automatic.” Like, “Yeah, I just felt like I had to respond.” So, I do think it’s not the same. But there are relational things that come up, even with automated programs.

LR: What about mental health apps for children and teens?
SS: Some research suggests that a lot of teens have used these types of tools. There was a nationally representative survey of folks 14 to 22, and about two-thirds had used a health app. And a lot of those were focused on mental health conditions, stress, anxiety, substance use, or were apps that used interventions that related to mental health, like mindfulness. Interestingly, if you looked at those with elevated levels of depression, those who met clinical cutoffs on standard measures, three-fourths of those teens had used a help app.So, we find that they’re using these types of tools. I think one thing that is disappointing to me is that there aren’t a lot of apps that are really tailored for teens. And this goes back to some of the conversation we had earlier around traditionally underserved or marginalized populations. And I think the same thing occurs for teens, which is that a lot of the products that have been developed were developed for adults. And we typically youthify it by adding different images without really designing it with teens in mind.

we need to develop more products that are specifically designed for teens, with teens

So, I think it’s a place where there’s a lot of promise, and there’s a lot of potential. You mentioned some of them. Teens are on their phones often. They’re digital natives. They’re comfortable using technology. But we need to develop more products that are specifically designed for teens, with teens, in ways to make them better fits for that population.

Evaluation

LR: Circling back to the early part of this discussion when we addressed the evaluation of mental health apps, can you describe what One Mind PsyberGuide does?
SS: I can refer to One Mind PsyberGuide like a Consumer Reports or Wirecutter of digital mental health products. We identify, evaluate, and disseminate information about these products to help consumers make informed decisions. And we operate a website that posts all the reviews that we’ve done on them. We evaluate them on three dimensions related to the categories I mentioned earlier. We look at their credibility, user experience, and transparency around data security and privacy. And we say “transparency,” not “data security and privacy,” because we don’t do a technical audit of the app. We review their privacy policies. So, for example, if an app says that their data is safe and it’s encrypted, we don’t try to hack into their system so we can say, “Is it really encrypted?” We say, “Okay, we’ll take that at face value.” Our guide is designed to be mostly consumer-focused, geared toward people looking to use those products themselves. But we also know that a lot of clinicians turn to our product to be able to better understand what the evidence is base behind these tools.We also provide professional reviews for some of the products that we review, by which I mean we have a professional in the field use the product, review the product, and write up a short narrative review about what are some of the pros and cons, and how might you use this tool in your practice or your life. That’s like a user guide or a user manual for these tools, because a lot of these apps don’t come with instructions like, “Well, this is how you might be able to use it to help benefit clients or yourselves.” So, we provide some of that information. And that’s one of the more popular sections of our website — those professional reviews around specific products.

LR: Like what the Buros Mental Measurement Yearbook provides for psychological instruments.
SS: That’s right.
LR: I know the APA, the American Psychiatric Association, has its App Advisor. Is that similar or equivalent to One Mind PsyberGuide’s system?
SS: Yeah, I think it’s similar. The difference between the App Advisor at APA and what we do at One Mind PsyberGuide is the App Advisor is a framework that talks about the different areas you should be considering when you are evaluating an app. At One Mind PsyberGuide, we’re doing some of the evaluation and providing scores. The two systems can be quite complementary. What I often recommend for clinicians and providers is that you might use One Mind PsyberGuide as a narrowing tool, to be able to go from those 10,000 to 20,000 to a smaller subset that might be reasonable for you to look at. And then you could use the APA’s framework, to pilot and evaluate them yourselves.

As I mentioned, or as we’ve talked about, there’s a lot of ways these are like self-help books. And I wouldn’t recommend a clinician to give out a self-help book if they hadn’t read it or at least looked at it. So, I think the American Psychiatric Association’s framework is a good way to think about when you’re evaluating and looking at these apps, to identify the different features that you should be considering in your own review and evaluation of it.

LR: As we close, Stephen, I recall your saying that you were working on and had just submitted a grant to SAMSHA. Are you at liberty to share what the grant was about?
SS: It’s loosely related to mental health apps, although it will be more exciting if we get the grant. SAMSHA is starting a Center of Excellence on social media and mental well-being. So, effectively, developing a clearinghouse to help summarize the research and the evidence-based practices that might help protect children and youth who are using social media and support them in being empowered and resilient in using those tools effectively. And providing technical assistance to youth and parents and caregivers and mental health professionals around what they might be able to do around children and youth and social media.I think that it will be a great resource to help better understand what risks that social media plays, and how we might better help kids navigate that space. Because I do think that it’s an interesting challenge that was not present in my youth, in terms of the dangers, but also the opportunities that social media presents.

LR: What are you most excited about now in this whole area of mental health apps? What really gets your blood flowing?
SS:One thing I’m really interested in is how we can better use these tools to empower people who are not professionals to be able to support people in evidence-based ways. Or to embed them with extra skills that they don’t have. So, something that I’m really interested in is, as we’ve seen a lot of peer certifications programs develop across the country, how we might be able to better empower peers to connect or use mental health apps or digital products in their support of other people to bring evidence-based practices into the work that they’re doing.

So, how do we really scale with technology? Because I think that the current technologies we have, the most effective ones are those that have some form of human support. Although there’s a promise of scalability in technology, it’s not currently actual. That’s one aspect that I think is really exciting.

And another aspect that just kind of touches on the place that we’ve talked about a couple times is, how do we develop better products for different populations? For ethnic and racial minorities, for youth, for LGBTQ individuals? And I think that there are a lot of really exciting groups that are supporting that. The Upswing Fund, Headstream, different funding, and innovation platforms that are really trying to empower people from these groups to develop and evaluate products to show their benefit. Hopefully in a couple of years, I won’t have to say this is an unmet promise of this field.

LR: In a related vein, is venture capitalism something that might really boost mental health apps to the whole next level? Or is it something that might undermine the quality of mental health apps?
SS: That’s a great question. Venture capital funding in this space has grown exponentially over the past decade. So, I am excited to see people excited. And excited to see people investing money in this space. But I think ultimately it will be determined whether this is going to lead to more effective resources for those in need.
LR: Stephen, I appreciate your time. But even more, your incredible breadth of knowledge and passion in this burgeoning field. I’m going to close by thanking you.
SS: I appreciate your interest in the area.

Successful Intervention with a Family Impacted by Treatment-Resistant BPD

Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) is one of the most difficult psychiatric disorders to treat, the main reason being that it affects the entire family. Thus, effective treatment requires working with as much of the family as possible in a coordinated effort. Multiple professionals are also often involved, which adds to the need for coordination of resources. Further adding to the complexity of intervening with families impacted by this disorder is the fact that there is usually significant resistance to the treatment by one or more parties.

Treating families impacted by BPD also requires specialized therapeutic skills. I have found that many techniques that are effective with other diagnostic groups are not only ineffective with BPD, but may actually make the disorder worse. This is why most of the families who present themselves to me have already been exposed to numerous therapists and treatment modalities by the time we meet, leaving them exhausted and disappointed. In many cases, large amounts of money and other resources have already been spent, also leaving them jaded and skeptical. These families are very often on the brink of their breaking point.

Am I expected to produce a Hail Mary, or am I just another soon-to-be-discarded and/or disappointing clinician in their minds? This is a very high-pressure situation for a clinician, and for this reason I suggest that colleagues only take on such situations if they have specialized skill in treating this disorder or other debilitating personality disorders. A full illustration of all of the specialized skills needed to work with these families is beyond the scope of this paper. For expediency, I will focus first on four tools that I have crafted and found to be highly useful in treating families impacted by this disorder. These tools are described below and will be illustrated in a case study that follows.

Useful Tools

Manage Expectations

This applies to the patient, the family, the other professionals, and yourself. Healing and growth are processes and not singular, disconnected events. All participants in the intervention should be told overtly that this process will take months, if not years, to reach an optimal outcome. I generally tell patients and their families, “Things will most likely get worse before they get better.” This prepares everyone for the inevitable resistance while creating a future milestone measured by increased cooperation.

Protect, Protect, Protect

You must protect the patient, the family, the process, and yourself. A key, and possibly the most disruptive, feature of BPD is the client’s lashing out at others when frustrated. Many families allow this behavior to provoke them into participating in disruptive behavior by shouting back or threatening. The therapist must provide some basic level of safety to the process and all who are involved in order to avoid disruption of the therapeutic work, often manifested by one or more parties’ walking out.

As a therapist in this situation, you are at very high risk for being triangulated into the family dysfunction, in which case this lashing out may be directed at you. Your chair should be the closest to the door, and you need to prepare to split up the group if you cannot deescalate conflicts with all present.

Modeling

You have to teach the family how to cope with disruptive behaviors such as lashing out, triangulation, codependency, and self-mutilation that are common with BPD and rare in other disorders. This is where the specialized skills come in. Each of these disruptive behaviors requires its own set of coping mechanisms. This is where conventional methods can backfire. For example, healthier families can share diverse opinions without the divisive effects of triangulation. In families with BPD, encouraging sharing of diverse opinions is likely to lead to further polarization and increased conflict, thereby worsening rather than improving the situation.

Starve, Do Not Feed, the Monster

The monster is the disorder, the BPD, not the sufferer. The family must bond together with the sufferer and the professional team to fight it. While traditional therapeutic methods encourage compromise and flexibility as solutions to conflict, these methods may feed the monster or make the disruptive and disturbing nature of the disorder worse in families with BPD. The emotional dysregulation caused by the BPD often escalates into rapid, impulsive acting out towards self and others. Introducing compromise, flexibility, or, worse, compliance, reinforces that lashing out will get at least some of what you want. This will increase the frequency and intensity of the lashing out. Conversely, withholding all possibility of acquiescence because of the lashing out starves the monster and sets the stage for the introduction of more socialized, and hence more successful, strategies. This is consistent with basic behavioral principles.

Case Study

The following is based on a real case, but with many details changed in order to protect identity.

Mary Zohn called me about her 19-year-old daughter, Rosa. She had been referred to me by her therapist because although her daughter was in treatment with a therapist, things were getting much worse at home and the family was in crisis. I agreed to meet with her and her husband Charlie for an intake.

The Zohns showed up at my office with two thick files that documented difficulties with Rosa since the beginning of high school. Since that time, Rosa had experienced steady deterioration despite multiple treatments with several different professionals. They explained that although she was intelligent, she had ongoing difficulty functioning in a school environment. She often missed classes and rarely completed assignments on time, if at all.

In her frustration with school, Rosa began engaging in other less productive and more self-damaging activities such as sexual promiscuity, substance abuse, and excessive computer video gaming. She began staying out late, and then overnight. Her room was dirty and her hygiene was regressing.

The Zohns began confronting her about her poor school performance and unhealthy habits. They tried to set limits. This was associated with screaming conflicts that ended up with her sometimes leaving for days at a time, and often included self-destructive behavior such as cutting and going days without food and water in protest. Her parents were becoming increasingly concerned about her health.

They were also becoming increasingly concerned about her influence on her younger sister. Rosa was the middle child of three girls. Her older sister, Wilma, did very well in school and had a good job. She was self-supporting and lived in her own apartment about an hour away from the family residence. The younger sister, Bertha, was in middle school and struggling with a learning disability and social issues at school. The Zohns were very concerned about how Rosa’s behavior would affect Bertha’s struggles.

Initial Interview

What precipitated their reaching out to me was that Rosa had been arrested with her boyfriend for possession and distribution of narcotics. Following are some excerpts from my initial interview with the Zohn’s:

Dr. Lobel: What is Rosa’s current legal status?

Mary: She is out on bail.

Dr. Lobel: What is she doing with her days?

Charlie: Supposedly she is in school.

Mary: She is enrolled in college but we think that she does not attend classes.

Charlie: She leaves every night pretending to go to school but she goes to see her boyfriend instead.

Dr. Lobel: How do you know that?

Charlie: Because she is getting incompletes in all of her classes and she doesn’t come home until 4 AM.

Dr. Lobel: How does she get to school?

Mary: She drives herself.

Dr. Lobel: She has a car?

Charlie: We got her a car so that she can go to school.

Dr. Lobel: But she is not going to school, right?

Mary: We don’t know for sure.

Charlie: Yes, we do. This is the 3rd semester I am paying for, and she hasn’t even earned two credits.

Dr. Lobel: So, you pay her tuition and buy her a car to go to school. She doesn’t go to school and you continue to pay her bills?

Mary: Are you suggesting that we should cut her off?

Charlie: I can’t do that to my daughter.

Dr. Lobel: You mean stop enabling her?

Charlie: What do you mean?

Dr. Lobel: Under the guise of paying for school you are enabling her to engage in unhealthy and illegal activities with her boyfriend.

Mary: We have discussed this before, but her therapist has recommended that we try not to stress her out; that we should give in to the small stuff so that she does not get dysregulated.

Dr. Lobel: How is that working for you?

Charlie: Not good.

The Zohns left the initial consultation a bit shaken by my recommendations. Up until this point, therapists had recommended walking on eggshells around their daughter by reasoning with her, trying to be flexible and forgiving, and overlooking Rosa’s outbursts and acting out.

Second Consultation

Three months later, the Zohns contacted me again. Rosa had been arrested. This time she had been driving while intoxicated and crashed. The car was totaled, and she was charged with driving under the influence (DUI). Fortunately, she was not significantly injured.

They came in for another consultation. They explained that they had come to realize that they were indeed enabling her, feeding her monster, and that they needed guidance. They didn’t know how to say no to her and follow through consistently. We agreed that we would meet with her together in order to help them to set up some healthier boundaries. Most notably, this included the plan that resources such as money and transportation would only be available for the pursuit of healthy activities.

I asked the Zohns whether they were on the same page regarding what was right for Rosa. They shared that they often argued about whether or not to be “strict” with her and how strict to be. I told them that they must be united in the setting and reinforcement of boundaries and that I would help them with this. They agreed. I suggested that I see Rosa individually before we again met as a family so that she would not feel ganged up on. They agreed, but she did not.

First Family Meeting

When the three arrived for our first session together, I asked Rosa to come in by herself for a few minutes, and she agreed. Here is an excerpt of our meeting.

Dr. Lobel: Do you know why your parents asked you to meet with me?

Rosa: They just want to control me. They irritate me constantly.

Dr. Lobel: How do they do this?

Rosa: They are constantly on my case. I don’t do anything right. They want me to be like Wilma. They have always favored her. I can’t be Wilma so I am a disappointment to them.

Dr. Lobel: In what way do they want you to be like Wilma?

Rosa: Smart, beautiful, and successful. That is not me.

Dr. Lobel: What do you think prevents you from being successful?

Rosa: Them. They nag me all the time and then I can’t concentrate on my studies.

Dr. Lobel: That’s why you don’t go to class?

Rosa: Yes. I get so upset I just want to get high. I would rather be with my boyfriend.

Dr. Lobel: What does your therapist suggest?

Rosa: She has tried to get them to back off, but they can’t stop themselves.

Dr. Lobel: What would you do if they were not bothering you?

Rosa: I would get a job.

Dr. Lobel: Have you ever had a job?

Rosa: Yes. Several.

Dr. Lobel: How did that go?

Rosa: I usually work for a while and then they start hassling me.

Dr. Lobel: At work?

Rosa: Yes.

Dr. Lobel: Out of the blue.

Rosa: They get all upset if I am late once or twice or if I call in sick.

Dr. Lobel: And then you get fired.

Rosa: Yes. But the reason I am late or sick is because of my parents!!

We brought the parents in. We all agreed that Rosa needed to take a leave from college while she resolved her legal issues and living situation and began to more directly address her mental health challenges. We then introduced the idea that Rosa’s access to resources, such as a car and money, would be contingent on her manifesting healthy behaviors. Her parents agreed to support healthy behaviors rather than unhealthy ones. Rosa began yelling at her parents and at me, stating that this was little more than additional control and would make things worse. She stormed out of the meeting. As she came in the car with her parents, we were confident that she would not be able to go far, so we finished the hour by offering suggestions as to how to respond to her agitation. We reviewed the “form before content” tool. This basically required that Rosa speak in civil tones, or the conversation would stop.

Dealing with Resistance from Rosa’s Therapist

The following Monday morning, I received a call from Rosa’s therapist, Ms. Hartman, who wanted to know what was going on in our meetings that was so upsetting to her patient. She expressed that Rosa was “triggered” by the meeting and it was making her sicker. I was expecting this call. Here is an excerpt of our conversation:

Dr. Lobel: What about our meeting did Rosa find triggering?

Ms. Hartman: She felt ganged up on.

Dr. Lobel: Which part made her feel ganged up on.

Ms. Hartman: You and her parents trying to control her.

Dr. Lobel: Did she give you any specifics?

Ms. Hartman: No. She just said that she was so triggered she had to leave.

Dr. Lobel: She appeared to get agitated as soon as I said that her parents would support healthy activities and not support unhealthy ones. Does this contradict what she told you?

Ms. Hartman: No.

Dr. Lobel: I imagine you must be working with Rosa on increasing her tolerance for frustration and difficult situations.

Ms. Hartman: Yes. I specialize in Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT). I think she also takes medication.

Dr. Lobel: We are trying to help Rosa take responsibility for her choices and behaviors and she is having difficulty tolerating it. Can you help her accept that she has to accept responsibility for herself while giving her the confidence that she can do so in a healthy way and grow from the experience?

Therapy Begins

Several meetings with the Zohns followed, in which we created a contract through which Rosa could benefit from all of the resources her parents had to offer if she used them for healthy pursuits. She got a job and prepared to resume her studies. She agreed to maintain sobriety. The sticking point was the parents not wanting her to be alone with her boyfriend, as they felt his influence corrupted her. We agreed that he could visit her at the family residence but that the Zohns refused to have their vehicle or their financial support to be used to spend time with him. She very reluctantly agreed.

I also inquired as to the status of her pharmacotherapy. She apparently had a psychiatrist who prescribed a combination of medications that included psychostimulants for attentional difficulties, a mood stabilizer, and an antidepressant. She refused to take the mood stabilizer and antidepressant but wanted to continue with the psychostimulants. The psychiatrist refused to treat her under these circumstances, so she was getting Vyvanse prescriptions from her pediatrician. I suggested that she consult with another psychiatrist, as I thought that the stimulant alone was adding to her emotional dysregulation. She saw a psychiatrist and agreed to work with her on a more therapeutic regimen.

Rosa seemed to stabilize for a few months and was moving forward on our plan, until, that is, when the testing began. Her parents noticed that she was not always at work when she said that she was at work. They suspected that she was seeing her boyfriend. They also found evidence in her bedroom that she was vaping marijuana again.

Mary and Charlie met with me to discuss their fear, apprehension, and guilt at holding to their boundaries. They feared confronting Rosa, which they knew they needed to do, and they feared for Rosa as well. They did confront Rosa, who denied everything. Then Rosa disappeared.

She went to work one day and did not return. The Zohns contacted her employer the next day, who confirmed that she had not shown up for work. They tried to contact her via cell phone, but she “ghosted” them (refused to answer). They were pretty sure that she was with her boyfriend, most likely using drugs and engaging in other unhealthy and risky behaviors.

I met with the parents a few times over the next few days. They were very frightened and questioned our plan. They contemplated texting her and allowing her to do whatever she wanted if she just returned home. I discouraged this and explained that this would be a major setback. I told them that she and her boyfriend did not have the resources to survive on their own and that she would have to return home eventually. She had nowhere else to go.

We began preparing for her return with the understanding that the Zohns’ home was not viable as a therapeutic environment for Rosa and that she was in need of inpatient treatment. I encouraged the Zohns to research options and prepare to have her admitted promptly when she returned.

It took about a month. Rosa missed one of her court appearances and was again arrested. She called from the police station. The Zohn were prepared and let her know her options. She had no choice but to agree.

She was admitted to an inpatient facility that specialized in BPD and substance abuse. She stayed for three months and then transitioned to a sober living residence near her parents. She stayed there for six months, during which time she got a job, resolved her legal issues and embraced sobriety with the help of a Twelve-Step Program and a good sponsor. She went from sober living to the university.

Conclusions

In this case, BPD had not only metastasized throughout the family, but also infected the professionals involved. Approaching Rosa’s treatment from an individual perspective was not successful, because her disorder caused her to manipulate her environment into a codependent mess that enabled her to stay sick and get sicker. The only way for her to recover was to assemble a team that included her entire family and all providers working together and consistently.

Intervening in a system impacted by BPD, as in this case, required specialized skills and the willingness to confront all aspects of the patient’s treatment, including enabling providers. This was often like stirring up a bee’s nest. Great care had to be taken to protect these providers by not making them feel negligent or naïve while at the same time engaging them in a consistent therapeutic process. It was critical to anticipate resistance, even by the professionals who attacked me for challenging them. I didn’t take it personally and haven’t, which has proven to be an effective tactic. I explained to them my process and expectations in non-accusatory terms and showed them their value in the coordinated healing process.

In looking back over the case, I knew I was going to be seen as a snake-oil salesman, met with skepticism and doubt. I had to effect a paradigm shift. I also expected things to get worse before they get better. And they did. I reminded myself that as a clinician. I had to stick with what I knew: with the treatment plan, with the best techniques at my disposal.

I also knew that if this approach failed, there would probably not be another chance. Rosa would lose her only lifeline, and the family would all suffer. I reached the point of no return. I was fully committed and I had to see this case through, no matter what. I have treated families like this countless times over the years, but each case is different and each path its own.

If you are going to venture into this challenging treatment domain, conviction is critical, and still there will be no guarantees.

Long-Term Psychotherapy and BPD, Part 2: A Dialogue on Trust


Question: What do you call a homeless horse with a Borderline Personality Disorder?

Answer: Unstable.
 

Introduction: What We Did

In this, the second of a two-part essay, we (Anne, the client, and Trish, the therapist) seek to share multiple perspectives of our co-writing collaboration, a process that we developed to inform our long-term therapeutic relationship’s new focus on Anne’s diagnosis of borderline personality disorder (BPD). Following on from Part 1, in which we detail the ways in which long-term therapy with Trish has had a powerfully positive impact on Anne’s (treatment for) BPD, this second part—begun 5-6 months after the first—moves into the “how” of our co-authoring experience. Through collaborating, Anne is able to practice better interpersonal relationships, which we identified in Part 1 of this essay as crucial to “building a life worth living.” The epistolary dialogue format (as in Part 1) models the importance of trust in the therapist/client relationship, especially for those with BPD, which for us has been built in a range of ways through creative collaboration. In Part 2, we explore the risks and benefits of this dialogic trust-building collaboration, and recognise the investments of all parties involved in the treatment of those with BPD.

In mid-2020, in the midst of Australia’s COVID lockdown, Anne was asked by a friend who edits a psychotherapy journal to contribute an article on their recent diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD). That process is detailed in Part 1 of this essay. In Part 2, we unpack how collaborative writing is impacting our therapeutic relationship, and how humour has played a powerful role in building trust. Our creative collaboration has also raised a number of questions and negotiations, including: What risks were identified? How were these processed and resolved? How has maintaining our dual roles improved our therapeutic relationship?

We explore not only what has changed in our therapeutic relationship due to our creative collaboration, but also what has happened underneath the changes and how co-authoring (or other creative collaboration) might be useful to both therapist and client. We consider why we came to write together, the power of attuning and attending, and shifts in the therapeutic atmosphere that can result in increased trust—most powerfully, a more expansive view of each other that seems to enhance our work “in the room.” For us, humour is a “way in,” a way for us to extend the safe space of the therapeutic exchange into different kinds of relating, a movement that leads to increased trust.

We share memes and jokes about therapy, BPD, and any other topics that need to be decompressed, which establishes a common irreverent sense of humour that solidifies the trust built over time. Common factors theory suggests that the most important influence on therapeutic change is the strength of the alliance between therapist and client. Looking beyond technique and intervention, how does what happens in the room affect our co-authoring, and how does our co-authoring affect what happens for both of us in the room? As before, we use a dialogic approach to give voice to both perspectives.

Trish (she/her): I remember several months back, you had had a bad couple of days, and you were feeling particularly isolated. I wanted to reach out in some way, so I sent you a video clip showing Pepper (my therapy dog, who has been a part of our work together) magically being able to speak through a phone app, asking how you were feeling. I hesitated several times before I sent it but did it in the end. Ultimately I think it achieved what I hoped—a moment of connection through humour, extended by you, when you sent me a video of your dog replying. This happened before the idea of writing of our first article was even on the table, but there we were, extending our therapeutic alliance beyond the counselling room and into a creative/visual space.

Anne (they/them): Our psychotherapeutic relationship is predominantly a one-way listener relationship, framed by your professional training and the terms of our engagement. Is the incessant talking of the therapy client and the never-ending listening of the therapist a false centring of the client in a way the world doesn’t uphold? Like you said the other day, the few times your own selfness comes out in sessions, the client often overlooks it and is like, “Yeah, so anyway, back to me”—which, sadly, I can totally see myself doing! What if you were to say to me, in a session where I might do that, “Hey Anne! I just said something about myself, and you totally ignored it.” It might be hard for me to hear, but that is exactly what happens in real life. And what would that mean for you as a “therapist-ever-becoming” who considers what might be possible when a client is so caught up in their own woes that they miss the you-ness? A you-ness that might be able to push them further toward better interpersonal relationships?

Trish: You came in with your American swagger, already a devotee to New York style of psychotherapy, where not everyone there might have their very own barista (it’s a Melbourne thing), but they certainly have a therapist. You seemed to be willing to take a chance on me, despite some differences that might have gotten in the way. We seemed to click, conversation flowed and continued to flow in subsequent sessions. We discovered things that connected us in shared experiences in our lives apart from the mutual age bracket we found ourselves inhabiting, both having been high school teachers, both loving dogs in the same devotional kind of way. But maybe it was mostly that I really liked you as a person—your inquiring mind, your desire to make sense of things, your wry humour, your ability to narrate your life from the couch in such a way that I was drawn into the story and cared deeply about the author. Your paid work took you away on a regular basis, often for weeks or months at a time, but you would appear again at my office and we would resume. Before I knew it, we had been doing this for a couple of years and entering the realm of long-term therapy—not new to you, but not guaranteed for me, for two reasons: Australians are not so familiar with this way of receiving (long-term) psychological support, and for me as a therapist sitting outside of the Medicare system, there were no financial structures in place to subsidize the work, at times a disincentive for prospective clients. But it has always been my preferred way of working, as one who has found a fit with the relational emphasis of therapeutic work.

When therapists get together and wax lyrical about unconditional positive regard, they rarely see this as a reciprocal idea. It is considered as something bestowed on the client, flowing from a compassionate therapist. But when it is present in the therapeutic space in its fullest capacity, it emerges out of a mutual desire for the therapist and client to see each other as the best that they can be. I want to help you and I want to be seen as someone capable of that. You want help from me and need to believe that I will not let you down. I keep getting to show up again; I can say I won’t give up on you, and you give me the chance to do that through your own acceptance and trust of me. So is this shared unconditional positive regard?

Anne: I was not surprised to find out that you were a teacher—you remind me of the best teachers I knew during my 11 years teaching in high schools. I can see why the kids would be drawn to you: your sense of humor and down-to-earth vibe instantly put me at ease. Yet one thing I’m seeing in myself through the BPD diagnosis and range of treatments is how transactional I can be: i.e., you are my therapist, and because I pay you, you should be like x. Today when we were talking about you, it occurred to me that if we are talking about mutuality, it has to include a kind of benevolence in me for you, too. It doesn’t mean you have to disclose personal details as I do, but I think the interpersonal, relational mode I was talking about does mean our therapy sessions could be a space where I try out caring more about the other.

You are not just my therapist because you were there and I said yes. You also said yes. I have not just stayed—you have stayed. You have said that you feel you can help people and maybe there’s a question in there that goes beyond me just “feeling better.” I don’t literally affirm to you that you DO help me. You do. And I don’t think I affirm you or acknowledge that in the way that you do for me. What does that mean or look like coming from client to therapist? I think I would like to try some kind of “attending to” you in our next session, as a kind of practice of my learning better how to attend to others, in a non-transactional way. It feels freeing to think of improving my interpersonal skills through getting out of my own needs and trying to live more in others’ experiences or needs. I’m not sure exactly what that looks like in our therapy sessions, but I do think this is evolving in a direction in which I can practice caring for someone without it being based on my own needs, even in therapy. Which is still part of my growth in response to my BPD diagnosis.

But why did we keep writing together, and how has it increased each person’s feeling of “being seen” in a more fulsome manner? Initially, it made sense for Anne to ask Trish to co-write the article for the psychotherapy journal, given she is Anne’s therapist and had played such a profound role in Anne’s diagnostic journey. But what we found was something more than a narration of how long-term psychotherapy might help those with BPD.

Trish and Anne started co-writing online while maintaining fortnightly therapy sessions, as face-to-face sessions had been prohibited by home isolation. During this time Anne was also completing their Dialectical Behaviour Therapy (DBT) program remotely, which had life-changing effects. We also acknowledge that we are producing writing that is going to have a public audience, and that now that shapes our creative collaboration in important ways.

We have tried writing separately and then sharing what we had written at a later point, as Irvin Yalom and his client “Ginny” did in Every Day Gets a Little Closer (1), but ultimately returned to co-authoring in a shared Google doc that has a satisfying interactivity and vibrancy. One aspect of the collaboration that emerged from the beginning is the humorous banter that we both enjoy. It is present in our therapy sessions, too, but not to the extent that it has bloomed in our tracked comments while writing together. So alive was that back-and-forth that we tried to include the tracked comments in the final draft of that first article, but it didn’t feel right; the spontaneity was lost once the time stamps and overlaps in the marginalia were formalised into the body of the essay.

The fluidity of being able to write into the same document, and comment on each others’ and our own writing, seemed to form a big part of the energy of the shared work. Trish identified “rooftop moments” and other important insights that emerged in the writing. We both flagged passages that brought tears.

________________________
(1) Every Day Gets a Little Closer

Trish: Anne, you pose such interesting questions about this creative process and why it works. It takes me back to our earlier discussions as we explored the issue of the power dynamic in the client-therapist relationship. It is a strange beast because it seems like it is both needed and rebelled against simultaneously. Sometimes, as a client, you want me to firmly take the reins and show you the way, and at other times you are aware that as you bare your life to me, I keep mine under wraps. You step into a vulnerable space and I have a boundary that keeps me safe. And I want to offer support and guidance but reject labels like “expert” and get cosy with terms like Yalom’s “fellow travellers.” “Do you think our writing together altered an established power dynamic?” For in that space I saw you as the authority and looked to you to have the answers on how the work would come together. I completely trusted that you would take us to where we needed to be with our first article. How does it feel for us to exchange leadership roles as we move from one space to the other? I encourage you and affirm your resolute commitment to wellness, as you face the parts of you that still flare up at times and remind you of the hell that is other people. (2) Then you encourage me and applaud certain passages that I write. You take note of my hesitancy and respond with patience and curiosity, perhaps in a similar way to how you do with your own students. So we redefine the terms of engagement. We allow the spaces of therapy and writing to co-inform one another, as this most human of relationships draws on all of its strengths to bring out the best in each of us. As Yalom (3)  reminds us:
 

This encounter, the very heart of psychotherapy, is a caring, deeply human meeting between two people, one (generally, but not always, the patient) more troubled than the other. Therapists have a dual role: they must both observe and participate in the lives of their patients. As observer, one must be sufficiently objective to provide necessary rudimentary guidance to the patient. As participant, one enters into the life of the patient and is affected and sometimes changed by the encounter. In choosing to enter fully into each patient’s life, I, the therapist, not only am exposed to the same existential issues as are my patients, I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing, and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.


________________________
(2) No Exit and Three Other Plays
(3) Love’s Executioner and Other Tales of Psychotherapy


Trish: In a recent supervision session with my supervisee James, who works at an in-patient setting, we were reflecting on how patients there form a trusting alliance with the staff. James happens to be blessed with a benevolent warmth, and his presence is therapeutic before he even opens his mouth. He shared his thoughts about the negative impact on patients if they experience the mental health professionals as taking a position that is “above” them—whether that be in the way they dress or speak, or in the attitude that they convey—“I could never be in your shoes.” For James, what is important is the recognition that we can all find ourselves pushed beyond our capacity to cope and experience being unwell. That we need to have a willingness to “also see myself in their story.” Anne, it got me thinking about what you wrote in our first article—that BPD is a disorder of separation. And I wonder how it is possible to trust anyone if you feel so distant from them? As we grapple with understanding how our writing together built trust, it dawned on me that this process has been highlighting the ways in which we are similar rather than different.

Psychiatrist to his nurse: “Just say we’re very busy. Don’t keep saying, ‘It’s a madhouse.’”


When psychotherapy has an interpersonal focus, it can be described as paying attention to the interactions between client and therapist, as well as providing an opportunity for practising a more satisfying relationship that then gets taken into the real world of the client. So what is going on in our writing process, including in the comments? We agree it’s an alternative form of “the real world,” organically appearing out of the mutuality of the co-creative work. Through the collaboration, Anne starts to see Trish as a “fuller human being” with her own wants, needs, ideas, resulting in more trust of Trish. Trish reports seeing Anne also as a fuller person, in their element, strength and power, a kind of agency. We both express how the increased interactions are not necessarily about more stories of our personal lives, but rather an experience of “a different me.” For us both, we have an increased sense of how the other is with other people.

Anne asks Trish questions like, “How does it feel to be a subject with a client? To take up space?”

We both ask, “How much is too much?”

Trish has been thinking a lot about this in the last couple of days, about self disclosure as the therapist, and bringing more of the “real self” into therapy. She says,

 

I thought about your saying that you saw me as a ‘fuller human being’ through the writing process and it made us wonder what that would look like, i.e. to have Trish the fuller human being in the therapy sessions. There is always a risk that something may not work out the way you want it to. Including this collaboration.


For Trish there is tension about whether Anne could still trust her to help them in the therapy space if they see her vulnerable and feeling out of her depth in the writing space. This feels risky but also highly challenging to how she sees herself as a therapist. Trish’s previous self-image as being authentic and honest is tempering with the recognition that there are parts still held back. This important self-examination leads Trish to grapple with the boundary of what becomes known, foregrounding always that whatever she offers of herself still needs to be of therapeutic value. The added role of “collaborator” has both personal and therapeutic benefits for Anne. A healthy intimate relationship means both can safely be vulnerable with the other and know it can be held and ultimately strengthen the relationship, not damage it. The therapeutic potential is that if this happens with Trish, it can strengthen with others in Anne’s life.


Anne: I find it challenging to trust people who remain “distant,” as a therapist may appear, because it feels like rejection and elicits feelings of vulnerability. Navigating these secondary co-creative roles is tricky but feels reassuring to me, and the trust between us seems to increase. In therapy sessions, I am the one with issues, difficult feelings, vulnerability, who looks for support and understanding. You are the one who listens and focuses on how best to meet the needs that I express. So how is it that despite us writing about the therapy, our roles still shift? I often take the lead in the co-authoring, which is not surprising given my professional expertise. I am able to share information with you, Trish, around the process of writing together and send you co-written autoethnographic articles as examples—a classic example of table-turning, you tell me, when we reflect on the times you have sent me articles of a psychological nature in relation to our therapeutic work.

Psychotherapy is often described in the person-centred school as a respectful, collaborative, teamwork-like approach. In this way, the client-therapist team builds their alliance and works together, but—and this is a major distinction—it is all in the service of the growth of the client. And fair enough, given there is a fee attached. But it would be a deception to suggest that the therapist does not grow as well, or, as Yalom says, is not changed or affected by the work, or doesn’t think about the client beyond the therapy hour. How much of this knowledge is—or should be—available to the client? Do they even want to know?

Trish: Anne, you made a comment about not realising how much was going on “behind the scenes” in our sessions. This was probably in response to my talking about a certain approach I might take with a certain goal in mind. Do you think it is helpful for a client to know that what their therapist is doing is reparenting them, or providing empathic attunement, or providing a secure base that was lacking in childhood? I just can’t imagine a client caring about the what, as long as it works, but when I think about talking with other therapists about this work and leaving my clients out of the conversation, it seems ridiculous! I find myself imagining a conversation with fellow therapists:

Me: “Hey therapist colleagues, let me tell you about this great intervention I did the other day in a session…”

Therapist colleagues: “Oh cool…but how do you know it was great? Did you ask the client?”

Me: “Well… no… but, it’s in this book I read.”

Therapist colleagues: ‘“Yeah but how do you know it actually helped the client?”

Me: “Um… well, they probably don’t know it helped them… but… oh, shut up.”


Anne: I wonder at the disjunct between therapists’ acknowledgement that clients need to feel that you are not “above” us, are not inherently different from us, versus how infrequently clients seem to feel this sense of equality, accessibility, or sameness. As in James’ commentary above, I recognise the commitment in you, Trish, and others, to convey a sense of solidarity with clients; I also recognise what you have suggested many times, that clients do need that sense of being held, that the therapist is “holding things together” so that we can be vulnerable. Where is the balance between feeling this as hierarchical, and feeling in it together?

Trish: Anne, you are right that the balance is hard to find, particularly if there isn’t a dialogue between client and therapist about what is actually happening in the space together. As Yalom and others have often noted, it can be hard to know what helps in therapy, and I think quite often a therapist will have a different idea to the client about what was helpful, useful, or powerful in any given session. Sometimes a client will say to me, “When you said that thing last week, I found that really helpful.” And often I think, “Well actually, I didn’t quite say it like that, and it’s not what I meant, but OK. But didn’t you like it when I said this bit? You don’t remember that? Damn, I thought that was the good part…”


Cracking Ourselves Up: Enhancing Trust with Humour

Question: How many psychotherapists does it take to change a light bulb?

Answer: Probably just one, as long as it takes responsibility for its own change. This could be called having “a light bulb moment.”


Laughter has always been part of our therapeutic relationship, and we wonder as we go along what doorway this has opened to increasing trust. Our joking in the document is more frequent, but also a bit different in nature: more feeding off of one another, whereas in the room it’s a bit more measured. We are curious about the many roles humour seems to play between us in our dual roles. We discuss how—in the room—humour can also be a mechanism for deflecting, or keeping things on a more superficial level, and in this way is not always welcome. Nevertheless, once we begin our online interaction, the spontaneous humour grows. Trish writes of a time when she took a holiday and arranged for another staff member at the agency where she worked to see her clients if needed. The audacity of counsellors leaving clients in order to have some leisure time doesn’t go unnoticed by Anne in our track comments in the first article:

[Anne: how dare you LOL]

[Trish: How very BPD of you :)]

[Anne: LOL GUFFAW I think we may have a stand up routine by the end of this.]

[Trish: I know right? The side comments are almost as interesting as the article!!]


In this exchange, our shared humour strikes at the heart of the very condition that has caused Anne such anguish, and yet creates a moment of freedom as the heaviness of the label is discarded, all the while noticing that humour and pathos are indeed good friends. We agree that one reason both our irreverent humour and the creative collaboration work well is because it has emerged out of our pre-existing therapeutic relationship of almost six years. The trust and foundations were there before we altered our relationship, and Anne notes that widespread perceptions of BPD make it likely that such humour about the disorder would be hard to share with a therapist in a less established relationship.

One wall we have mutually hit together is a feeling of “too much”ness after the first essay, when we decided to continue writing together as well as still maintaining therapy sessions. The dual roles and time commitments of both soon felt too demanding, and we were able to talk about that openly and put some boundaries around it.



Trish: Anne, I recall that experience of “too much”ness was precipitated by your writing into our shared document about a dream you had had about me. I commented on how much was in the dream to be examined, but it seemed to be therapeutically, not creatively, relevant. Back then I wondered whether the writing together was blurring the therapeutic line in a confusing way. But now I think we see the line and we choose to walk along it courageously. I see an image of a tightrope walker, holding a long pole for balance. I wonder what the pole is representative of in our work together?

This experience caused us to recognise that we needed careful negotiation around how much and when we enact both roles: for example, do we collaborate while Anne is still a client? Do we have writing sessions and therapy sessions in the same week/month? After a time, we started to realise that they were folding back into one another in an iterative process that was becoming productive for both the writing and therapy, but we continue to monitor the efficacy of maintaining both roles simultaneously.


“Being Seen” through Creative Collaboration

Through humour especially, we both express a powerful feeling of being seen by the other, in deeper if not new ways. The feeling of “being seen” is, of course, a major part of the value of psychotherapy to a client, and was a strong part of Anne’s experience of therapy with Trish before the co-writing started. We decide to explore bringing some of this “whole person” or more interactive dynamic back into our therapy sessions, admitting that neither of us are quite sure what this will look like. We discuss how we might chip away at the “one-wayness,” the illusion of the therapist having no needs, feelings, investment. We consider questions like:

Is Trish always therapist Trish, even when we are co-writing?

What in that therapy space is different or the same?


It is confusing for us both at times, often in different ways.


Trish: I wonder, “Well what IS bringing more into the room?” I believe that my emotional responses are already an act of bringing myself. It is my standard practice to share things like “I’m aware that I’m feeling quite sad as you tell me this.”

We wonder together: what if we were writing a novel instead, or painting a picture? We are writing about our therapy, not something else, so it reinforces the therapeutic relationship. We reflect on the fact that Trish is also a teacher and practice supervisor, and in those roles she encourages her students to be prepared to walk the talk, to consider the ethics of asking clients to go further than they’ll go themselves. We begin to acknowledge our investment in each other.

Of course, our creative collaboration presents challenges as well as benefits. What if it dissolves, runs out of steam, or there is a creative rupture? We discuss the value of this changed way of working, despite the risks. We discuss whether writing about this will be of benefit to other client/therapist teams, and, if this multi-directionality in our sessions doesn’t work for all clients, whether it is still a worthy experiment to share publicly.


Anne: One reason why I have this trust of you is because you have hung in there, not rejecting me, through so many difficult times. And why wasn’t my treatment of you as challenging as so many others in my life? My hard behaviour, I think, is triggered by feeling rejected or judged. But rejection and judging is part of life. So how does unconditional acceptance (“unconditional positive regard”) by you help me handle rejection in the real world? One of the ways I’m suggesting is to regard you with care as a whole person, not just a “therapist.” That is, not just “there for me.” In thinking about this over the last little while, I believe the improvement in much of my behaviour comes from my starting to regard others as whole human beings with their own needs and validity, whether they reject me or not, meet my needs or not. How can I increase my ability to put myself aside and regard others in a less transactional way? If I were to do this with you in our sessions, what does that look like? Certainly not your therapy, or therapy about you. But maybe it’s more like, “How does it feel to you when I just talk the whole session?” or “Do I hurt your feelings?” or “Am I boring you right now?” Maybe attending to you (and others) is holding the dialectic of “My feelings are hurt right now, but I can also attend to your hurt feelings at the same time, or even first.” Part of improving my interpersonal relationships, I think, is being able to perceive my impact on people.

Trish: The process of writing the article with you has provoked me to re-examine the firmly boundaried position of this understood one-way process. No person-centred therapist wants to be a blank screen, and I have always believed I bring my genuine self to the therapy process with clients. Being willing to be more explicit about my internal responses to things you might say to me, rather than hold some therapeutic high ground as I bracket them off, seems like an important way forward.

We agree that it should be as intentional as setting some ground rules for the experiment. Trish suggests regular check-ins, like asking “How is this going right now?” Anne wonders how productive setting ground rules or negotiating terms of relationships might have been in other relationships or friendships, too; maybe with such agreements those relationships would have gone better. Trish suggests to Anne, “See? You are now connecting what we are doing in therapy to your life in the real world, i.e. negotiating with people around the types of interactions you have—what works for both. So here is therapy on the page.”


Mutually Revealing

One day after a co-writing session, Trish scribbles some notes, including:

Explore in what ways (even without Anne knowing) the relationship between us has been therapeutic:

  • Corrective emotional experience
  • Being there
  • Not abandoning
  • Staying with

…and that these things build trust.

Trish: I believe that so much of what a therapist does with clients is to provide a corrective emotional experience. When there is abuse or neglect or misattunement early in life, the therapy of care and unconditional positive regard gives the client the feeling of what it is like to be held. So for you, Anne, maybe some of that was to not have to listen to someone else and validate them (in the way you did for your adoptive mother) in order to feel worthy. That you get to have the experience of this for yourself. In some ways, it is not so important that it isn’t the “real world” but the world of the therapy room. The emotions are real. That I attend to you is real. And you don’t have to be “good” (thanks, Mary Oliver) in order to feel this. And feeling this with me might then motivate you to know that it is possible, and that maybe you can also feel it in your “real” life.


I have been thinking about this quite a bit over the last few days, and I have formed the belief that we needed to do this work (i.e. corrective emotional experience) before we could move into a space of being more overtly interpersonal. Trust is needed for that. I have often wanted to challenge some of my other clients with Borderline features to have a look at certain aspects of themselves and their behaviour that might impact other people, or even me, negatively, but I have found that there is a risk of their fragmenting. If someone already has a fragile sense of self, a suggestion that they could do something differently can be experienced as “I am a bad person.” So it is interesting that we are contemplating this experiment of giving the space between us more attention. Perhaps you feel secure enough in our relationship now to let me challenge you. If I let you see that I have reactions to what you do or say, that it actually affects me, I believe that you can hold this information and stay intact.

Anne: I have been thinking a lot for the past five days about my saying to you to “get over it.” One thing I’ve noticed with myself (is it the BPD?) is that sometimes I don’t intend to, but I am still quite harsh. I have always laughed this off as my New Yorker brusqueness. But is that an excuse for rudeness and not wanting to change? I’m sorry, Trish, that I spoke to you in that way. This is my being accountable interpersonally, even in a therapy session. I meant to encourage you. And I do think you are fearless in going to these places that are not the norm in the Australian context, and I love that and was trying to encourage you, but it came out in a rude and insulting way.

Trish: Twice now you have thought you might have offended me or been rude to me, and twice I have not felt offended or hurt. I wonder what you saw to think that you hurt me? An expression on my face, perhaps? Something in my response? Actually, I feel that on both occasions you were suggesting that maybe I could be more—an invitation to think big. And yet you think you were being dismissive or hurtful. I remember your saying recently that sometimes you find it hard to tell whether some communication between you and others is rude/aggressive or not. And then you might have to backtrack and check it out. I promise if you are nasty to me, I will tell you at the time and we can work out whether you meant it or not. You were witnessing my own discomfort with ambition. You didn’t cause it, you’re not the bad guy in this scenario. I am noticing and appreciating how you are thinking about the impact your words may have had on me.

Anne: I think it’s important to me that both of us acknowledge that there is fear perhaps around my BPD, because it is not only a disorder of separation, it is also a disorder of dysregulated emotions and behaviours. Through our work together and the safety of that, I am becoming more able to acknowledge the harms I have done to others and myself, harms that I can now feel regret and sadness about. That includes times I have hurt you in our work together, too, Trish. This doesn’t mean I won’t lash out (again). And as safe as I feel with you, we both know I have lashed out most often against those who are closest to me. So I recognise the courage it takes for you to continue to show up when you have witnessed so many of my hurtful behaviours to others, and sometimes experienced them yourself. That is brave, and I recognise the risk to you.

It is good and important to work together to improve my ability to calibrate my impact on others—to perceive it more clearly, perhaps—but also to model to other therapists that someone with BPD may be frightening or erratic, yes, but we can also be deeply reflective, resilient, empathic, courageous, and hungry to change. And we can care about you, even when we are mired in our own pain. And that this care for you can provide an important window to re-engaging with a world that is sometimes overwhelming for us.

Trish: You talk about acknowledging our fear around your BPD, and I wonder if it is the same for us both? You fear that you will still injure others, including me, despite how far you have come. I also fear that you could hurt me, too, might lash out at me despite the safety of our relationship. And as our therapeutic connection deepens, I take my place as someone at risk of being hurt by you. So how do we hold this fear in a way that makes sense? It brings to mind the dialectic of the work. Where there is fear, there is also bravery; where there is safety, there is also risk. And of course, as always, there is the knowing and the not knowing. It is inevitable that we hurt or disappoint the people who mean the most to us. We will do wrong, it is the nature of the imperfect relationships in which we all engage. And that brings us back to trust. With trust we are able to stay in touch with the resilience and perseverance that we see in one another, which makes repair and recovery possible. So when you care for me, and for others in their turn, know that what you are doing is an ongoing process of recreating a secure base that is at the very heart of what we all yearn for when we love and feel loved in return.


Epilogue: Returning to Embodiment—March 2021

Anne: I’m glad I came to your office today. It has been a long time since we have shared space, and so much has happened in the interim, with COVID and multiple lockdowns. I was aware of you again as a changing human person, and the affective intensity of proximity. I think one reason I felt moved today was not just about the content we were discussing, but about the relationship and the exchange. It is, as Tara Brach would say, sacred ground, where people feel seen and heard. It’s so powerful. That room is a powerful sacred space for me.

Do I have anxiety about going backward, now that my DBT has finished? Disappointing you? Being disappointed by you? Of course! That’s every relationship, surely. Today I just felt moved by the proximity, the laughing—so much laughter!—the attending, the eye contact, the ambient noises, the longevity, the commitment, and the hope, even when I can’t find exactly who I am. And also the power of the room itself. That familiar room—the white blinds, your desk, cup, computer. The little table by the couch, the bin. Pepper had died during lockdown, and I felt his absence so strongly in the room. The environment matters, and I can see it now as another expression of you, of another way of your “bringing yourself” to your clients.

Trish: Yes, it was pretty powerful being together in person today. There was a certain energy which may well have been about how long it has been since we took up the chair and the couch, or perhaps about the added layer of the creative space that we are sharing as we write, knowing that our words on screen find calibration with the ones we speak to one another. Were you more aware of me than you have been in the past? You have said you wanted to be able to hold space for others while you navigate your own emotional space. I think I noticed a subtle shift—while you certainly wanted some thoughts from me about what was going on for you, there was something different, more of an ease in you and a space created for me. And somehow I felt that even though I didn’t really have a clear answer for you, I was still offering you something, and you saw that (and subsequently wrote about it). This work together is making me examine myself in the most profound way, and if I want you to do it, then I will, too. Maybe I am also trying to find out exactly who I am when I am in a therapeutic encounter with you. I know one thing, I will trust the journey.

Anne: I was more aware of wondering what techniques you may have been using, and why. That relational aspect that I had never really thought much about before our co-authoring. I assumed the therapist just showed up and it was a one-way thing. I’m enjoying this change in my awareness: not only in terms of acknowledging what you are bringing, but also for me, thinking relationally about you. You exist. You are thinking and feeling things, not just absorbing. I also think we had a lot more eye contact yesterday than usual, that was something I was aware of. And also the laughing… Why do you think we laughed more yesterday than usual? My perspective is that it was just a bit of happiness to see you again, and also I felt you laughed more than usual and that felt like a kind of openness from you.
 

***
 

As recently as 2015, at the end of Creatures of a Day, Yalom  (4) reminds us that even in the United States, these kinds of relational accounts are all too rare and
 

not generally available in contemporary curricula. Most training programs today (often under pressure by accreditation boards or insurance companies) offer instruction only in brief, “empirically validated” therapies that consist of highly specific techniques addressing discrete diagnostic categories… I worry that this current focus in education will ultimately result in losing sight of the whole person and that the humanistic, holistic approach I used with these ten patients may soon become extinct. Though research on effective psychotherapy continually shows that the most important factor determining outcome is the therapeutic relationship, the texture, the creation, and the evolution of this relationship are rarely a focus of training in graduate programs.


For Trish and Anne, this focus on our creative collaboration allows a deepening of trust and strengthening of our relational dynamics. Trish (and sometimes both of us now) uses many of the suggestions Yalom offers for calling attention to the bond between patient and therapist including: doing process checks, inquiring about the state of the encounter during the session, Trish’s asking if Anne has questions for her. Through creative collaboration, trusting in the here and now becomes multi-modal and multi-directional in ways that can offer new forms of corrective emotional experience. It has also firmly established a secure base, the core purpose of strong and trusting client-therapist relationships, never more important (and challenging) than with clients with Borderline Personality Disorder.
________________________
(4) Creatures of a Day and Other Tales of Psychotherapy

Finding the Goldilocks Zone: An Antidote to Black-and-White Thinking

Everyone likes the idea of therapy being strengths-based, but disentangling clients’ strengths from their problems can be a challenging task (the same might be said of our own strengths and weaknesses as therapists). The root of this issue is that personality-based styles of thinking, feeling, and behaving typically work well in some situations but not others.

At the end of our first year of graduate school, my classmates and I met individually with our advisors to hear a summary of the faculty’s feedback about our progress. You can imagine the tension. My advisor, with a reassuring tone, said the feedback was organized in terms of strengths and weaknesses, with all students receiving some of each. Then he provided an insightful description of my strengths in the areas of learning, thinking, and interacting with others. After a pause, probably with a tremor in my voice, I asked to hear the weaknesses. He said, “Oh—the same things.” “What?” “Your weaknesses are just your strengths in situations where they don’t work.”

I don’t think this maxim is true all the time, but it seems true a lot. The idea that personality-related styles of functioning have advantages and disadvantages can help clients disentangle what they want to keep from what they want to modify.

Adaptive Elements within Dysfunction

In my experience, many faulty cognitions underlying psychological dysfunctional seem to include a valid point—an insight about life or a strategy for achieving safety or success. For example:

  • One anxious client said: “There’s so much that could go wrong, and I feel like if I relax and let my guard down, something will sneak up on me.”
  • A verbally aggressive client offered: “It’s tough out there, and you have to establish dominance to succeed. We’re not going to get very far in this therapy if you think I should let people push me around.”
  • A client with an overspending problem lamented: “Life is short, and I don’t want to be a cheapskate who obsesses about every penny I spend.”

These clients all had valid points, but they had taken their points so far that potential strengths became unobtainable. The culprit is black-and-white thinking, which ignores moderate options and presents spurious choices between extreme alternatives. The above clients benefited from discovering that:

  • It is possible to be careful and prudent without being chronically anxious.
  • It is possible to be non-aggressive without letting people push us around.
  • It is possible to manage money responsibly without obsessing about every penny.

This post is about a technique for helping clients develop gray-area cognitions, which enable them to moderate extreme versions of their styles of functioning and turn weaknesses into strengths. I developed the technique recently, but its roots go back 2,500 years.

Finding the Middle Way

In ancient times, several philosophers and religious leaders, living in separate cultures and with no knowledge of each other, developed the idea that optimal human functioning usually consists of a moderate balance between opposite extremes. In ancient Greece, Aristotle coined the term Golden Mean to summarize this idea; in India, Buddha used the term Middle Way; and in China, Confucius espoused his Doctrine of the Mean. These are different words for the same idea: skillful, effective functioning is generally moderate and balanced, and maladaptive behavior typically involves extremes, including opposite extremes.

The Goldilocks Principle got its name from a children’s story in which the protagonist noticed that qualities lying midway between two opposite extremes (e.g., hot and cold, hard and soft) can be pleasant, satisfying, and “just right.” Applications of this versatile principle appear in the seemingly disparate domains of developmental psychology, economics, communication science, medicine, and astrobiology.

Aaron Beck and others taught us that it is practically impossible to function effectively with a black-and-white map of a complicated, nuanced world. This is a cognitive-clinical issue that affects many clients across diverse diagnoses, so if you like the formulation presented here, you will be able to use it in much of your work.

Aristotle taught that moderation is the key to virtue. For instance, he conceptualized courage as the adaptive midpoint between the maladaptive extremes of cowardice and recklessness. He reasoned that it is bad to be a coward, dominated by fear, and it is also bad to be reckless, oblivious to fear; the virtuous way in the middle is courage. Aristotle offered similar analyses of other virtues that integrate elements from opposite ends of some spectrum.

Jumping ahead to the present, there are many examples of similar analyses in psychotherapy. For instance, it is maladaptive to be aggressive and violent, treating others as if their needs don’t count, and it is maladaptive to be passive and submissive, allowing others to treat us as if our needs don’t count. The virtuous way in the middle is assertiveness—the adaptive midpoint between these two extremes. One of the central strategies of Dialectical Behavior Therapy is to help clients integrate opposite forms of value and personal attributes into adaptive syntheses.

Replacing Binaries with Spectrums

In my psychotherapy practice, I have found that 10-point scales—already familiar to most clients— provide handy, effective tools for conceptualizing personal issues and planning changes. In particular, these scales address black-and-white or dichotomous thinking by presenting the spectrum of options that generally lie in between simple, extreme categories.1

I have found it useful to draw these scales on paper or computer screens, thus creating diagrams that supplement verbal reasoning with visual-spatial information. Psychotherapy tends to be dependent on words, but people think visually, too, so diagrams provide an important avenue of cognition and communication.2 Clients can also track their progress by graphing changes on these scales as they progress through therapy.

Opposite extremes and moderate middles can be represented with numbers and words on scales that describe dimensions of emotion, thought, behavior, and personality. For example, here are diagrams of the personality-related dimensions we have mentioned so far:

1———-2———-3———-4———-5———-6———-7———-8———-9———-10
Cowardly                                     Courageous                                       Reckless

1———-2———-3———-4———-5———-6———-7———-8———-9———-10
Overanxious                                  Prudent                                          Careless

1———-2———-3———-4———-5———-6———-7———-8———-9———-10
Passive                                         Assertive                                      Aggressive

1———-2———-3———-4———-5———-6———-7———-8———-9———-10
Miserly                                           Thrifty                                    Overspending

____________________________
1 Psychotherapeutic diagrams: Pathways, spectrums, feedback loops, and the search for balance.

2 Finding Goldilocks: A guide for creating balance in personal change, relationships, and politics.  

Here is a diagram with a little more detail:

1———-2———-3———-4———-5———-6———-7———-8———-9———-10
Hopeless           Pessimistic           Realistic           Optimistic           Pollyannish

Spending a session on this type of work can yield diagrams like the following:

Openness about Emotion

1———-2———-3———-4———-5———-6———-7———-8———-9———-10
Closed Off            Reserved         Selectively Open      Very Open      Attention Whore

1———-2———-3———-4———-5———-6———-7———-8———-9———-10
Hard to Get to Know                                                    Too Much Information

1———-2———-3———-4———-5———-6———-7———-8———-9———-10
Emotionally Alone                Sharing Important Things with Important People          Spilling Guts to Anyone

Going Over Past Mistakes

1———-2———-3———-4———-5———-6———-7———-8———-9———-10
Obsess about Mistakes         Figure Out What Went Wrong          Forget about Mistakes

1———-2———-3———-4———-5———-6———-7———-8———-9———-10
Beat Myself Up                 Learn from Mistakes                   Ignore Mistakes

1———-2———-3———-4———-5———-6———-7———-8———-9———-10
Feel Doomed by Mistakes            Plan How to Do Better           Pretend They Didn’t Happen

Getting Help from Other People

1———-2———-3———-4———-5———-6———-7———-8———-9———-10
No Help Ever          Last Resort            When Needed        More than Needed        Constantly

1———-2———-3———-4———-5———-6———-7———-8———-9———-10
Irrationally Independent.               Trying, Then Getting Help                Lazy, Dependent

1———-2———-3———-4———-5———-6———-7———-8———-9———-10
Living with One Arm Tied                  Using Resources Skillfully                               Can’t Do Anything
Behind Back                                                                                                              On Own
As these examples illustrate, when styles of functioning are conceptualized on continuums, both sides involve advantages, both involve disadvantages, and the most adaptive combinations are located in the middle—the Goldilocks Zone. Many mental health problems can be conceptualized as points close to the poles of scales like these, and effective styles can usually be pictured in the mid-ranges. Therapy using these scales can provide an antidote to black-and-white thinking.

The Procedure with Clients

I don’t think I’ve ever had two clients who constructed the exact same scale. We develop these diagrams collaboratively, mostly using the Socratic method. Sometimes I suggest words or phrases, and the client decides whether to use them.

The question I ask myself internally is: On what dimension of functioning does the client’s issue lie? The answer generally takes shape as we go through the following steps.

  • (1) Write words describing the client’s problematic way of functioning under the 8-10 points of the scale. For example: perfectionistic, rebellious, undisciplined.
  • (2) Write words describing the opposite style of functioning under the 1-3 points. This usually represents the style that the client most fears, looks down on, and wants to avoid. For example, a perfectionistic client might fear becoming a sloppy slacker; a rebellious client might look down on people who are mindlessly obedient; and an undisciplined client might be repelled by a workaholic lifestyle. These feared styles are generally maladaptive in ways precisely opposite the presenting problems.
  • (3) Write words describing the moderate middle under the 5-6 points of the scale. (5.5 is the midpoint.) This style represents a balance or synthesis that combines elements from both ends of the spectrum. For our examples, the words conscientious, cooperative, and work-life balance represent moderate syntheses.
  • (4) It is also useful to describe the two intermediate regions between the midpoint and poles. These words represent styles that are distinctive and effective, though not necessarily optimal.
  • (5) Ask the client to indicate their self-perceived location on the scale. Most clients are precise about this and give answers in the form of fractions or decimals. These numbers summarize a lot of information in a very succinct way.
  • (6) Finally, there is the goal-setting question: Where does the client want to be? The desired location is almost always between the client’s current position and the mid-point. Usually the distance is only about 2 scale-points—and the goals of therapy seem quite attainable.

Different people need to move in different directions to reach the adaptive middle, depending on where they start out. For example, highly self-critical people need to become easier on themselves, and conceited people need to become harder on themselves. Discussing the advantages and disadvantages of the two sides of these spectrums helps clients form a clear picture of the changes they want to achieve.

Not a Point but a Range

Adaptive functioning does not come in only one form. There are ranges of effective styles on most personality-related dimensions. In terms of our scales, this means that effective functioning is not limited to a tight band between 5 and 6, but extends outward to a broader range, such as 4 to 7, or even 3 to 8. In our search for adaptive moderation, we are not looking for a Goldilocks Point but a Goldilocks Zone (3,4).

In working with clients, I have found that the most effective way of working on personal change is not trying to become a different kind of person—not trying to move to the opposite end of the continuum. Clients don’t even need to move to the midpoint; they can stay on their preferred side and develop a successful style that fits their existing personality and preferences. Realistic, effective goals are usually located in the part of the Goldilocks Zone that is closest to the person’s starting point.

Clients usually like the idea that they can achieve major gains by making small to medium-sized changes in the way they operate. They don’t need to move from a 9 to a 2, or even to a 5.5. If they move from a 9 to a 7, they keep their basic style but moderate it enough to avoid most of its disadvantages and gain many of the benefits on the other side of the spectrum.

Once you get the hang of this method, I think you will find it applicable to a wide variety of mental health symptoms, problems in living, and personal dilemmas, most of which were not mentioned in this post. It is also useful in couples counseling, because it generally reveals to partners that their differences are matters of degree, not categorical matters of principle. In a multitude of ways, clients can turn dysfunctional styles into strengths by moderating them, so their ways of functioning move into the Goldilocks Zone.

Long Term Psychotherapy and BPD, Part 1: A Dialogue on Hope


Question: What do you call a homeless horse with a Borderline Personality Disorder?

Answer: Unstable.
 

Introduction: What We Did

In this, the second of a two-part essay, we (Anne, the client, and Trish, the therapist) seek to share multiple perspectives of our co-writing collaboration, a process that we developed to inform our long-term therapeutic relationship’s new focus on Anne’s diagnosis of borderline personality disorder (BPD). Following on from Part 1, in which we detail the ways in which long-term therapy with Trish has had a powerfully positive impact on Anne’s (treatment for) BPD, this second part—begun 5-6 months after the first—moves into the “how” of our co-authoring experience. Through collaborating, Anne is able to practice better interpersonal relationships, which we identified in Part 1 of this essay as crucial to “building a life worth living.” The epistolary dialogue format (as in Part 1) models the importance of trust in the therapist/client relationship, especially for those with BPD, which for us has been built in a range of ways through creative collaboration. In Part 2, we explore the risks and benefits of this dialogic trust-building collaboration, and recognise the investments of all parties involved in the treatment of those with BPD.

In mid-2020, in the midst of Australia’s COVID lockdown, Anne was asked by a friend who edits a psychotherapy journal to contribute an article on their recent diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD). That process is detailed in Part 1 of this essay. In Part 2, we unpack how collaborative writing is impacting our therapeutic relationship, and how humour has played a powerful role in building trust. Our creative collaboration has also raised a number of questions and negotiations, including: What risks were identified? How were these processed and resolved? How has maintaining our dual roles improved our therapeutic relationship?

We explore not only what has changed in our therapeutic relationship due to our creative collaboration, but also what has happened underneath the changes and how co-authoring (or other creative collaboration) might be useful to both therapist and client. We consider why we came to write together, the power of attuning and attending, and shifts in the therapeutic atmosphere that can result in increased trust—most powerfully, a more expansive view of each other that seems to enhance our work “in the room.” For us, humour is a “way in,” a way for us to extend the safe space of the therapeutic exchange into different kinds of relating, a movement that leads to increased trust.

We share memes and jokes about therapy, BPD, and any other topics that need to be decompressed, which establishes a common irreverent sense of humour that solidifies the trust built over time. Common factors theory suggests that the most important influence on therapeutic change is the strength of the alliance between therapist and client. Looking beyond technique and intervention, how does what happens in the room affect our co-authoring, and how does our co-authoring affect what happens for both of us in the room? As before, we use a dialogic approach to give voice to both perspectives.

Trish (she/her): I remember several months back, you had had a bad couple of days, and you were feeling particularly isolated. I wanted to reach out in some way, so I sent you a video clip showing Pepper (my therapy dog, who has been a part of our work together) magically being able to speak through a phone app, asking how you were feeling. I hesitated several times before I sent it but did it in the end. Ultimately I think it achieved what I hoped—a moment of connection through humour, extended by you, when you sent me a video of your dog replying. This happened before the idea of writing of our first article was even on the table, but there we were, extending our therapeutic alliance beyond the counselling room and into a creative/visual space.

Anne (they/them): Our psychotherapeutic relationship is predominantly a one-way listener relationship, framed by your professional training and the terms of our engagement. Is the incessant talking of the therapy client and the never-ending listening of the therapist a false centring of the client in a way the world doesn’t uphold? Like you said the other day, the few times your own selfness comes out in sessions, the client often overlooks it and is like, “Yeah, so anyway, back to me”—which, sadly, I can totally see myself doing! What if you were to say to me, in a session where I might do that, “Hey Anne! I just said something about myself, and you totally ignored it.” It might be hard for me to hear, but that is exactly what happens in real life. And what would that mean for you as a “therapist-ever-becoming” who considers what might be possible when a client is so caught up in their own woes that they miss the you-ness? A you-ness that might be able to push them further toward better interpersonal relationships?

Trish: You came in with your American swagger, already a devotee to New York style of psychotherapy, where not everyone there might have their very own barista (it’s a Melbourne thing), but they certainly have a therapist. You seemed to be willing to take a chance on me, despite some differences that might have gotten in the way. We seemed to click, conversation flowed and continued to flow in subsequent sessions. We discovered things that connected us in shared experiences in our lives apart from the mutual age bracket we found ourselves inhabiting, both having been high school teachers, both loving dogs in the same devotional kind of way. But maybe it was mostly that I really liked you as a person—your inquiring mind, your desire to make sense of things, your wry humour, your ability to narrate your life from the couch in such a way that I was drawn into the story and cared deeply about the author. Your paid work took you away on a regular basis, often for weeks or months at a time, but you would appear again at my office and we would resume. Before I knew it, we had been doing this for a couple of years and entering the realm of long-term therapy—not new to you, but not guaranteed for me, for two reasons: Australians are not so familiar with this way of receiving (long-term) psychological support, and for me as a therapist sitting outside of the Medicare system, there were no financial structures in place to subsidize the work, at times a disincentive for prospective clients. But it has always been my preferred way of working, as one who has found a fit with the relational emphasis of therapeutic work.

When therapists get together and wax lyrical about unconditional positive regard, they rarely see this as a reciprocal idea. It is considered as something bestowed on the client, flowing from a compassionate therapist. But when it is present in the therapeutic space in its fullest capacity, it emerges out of a mutual desire for the therapist and client to see each other as the best that they can be. I want to help you and I want to be seen as someone capable of that. You want help from me and need to believe that I will not let you down. I keep getting to show up again; I can say I won’t give up on you, and you give me the chance to do that through your own acceptance and trust of me. So is this shared unconditional positive regard?

Anne: I was not surprised to find out that you were a teacher—you remind me of the best teachers I knew during my 11 years teaching in high schools. I can see why the kids would be drawn to you: your sense of humor and down-to-earth vibe instantly put me at ease. Yet one thing I’m seeing in myself through the BPD diagnosis and range of treatments is how transactional I can be: i.e., you are my therapist, and because I pay you, you should be like x. Today when we were talking about you, it occurred to me that if we are talking about mutuality, it has to include a kind of benevolence in me for you, too. It doesn’t mean you have to disclose personal details as I do, but I think the interpersonal, relational mode I was talking about does mean our therapy sessions could be a space where I try out caring more about the other.

You are not just my therapist because you were there and I said yes. You also said yes. I have not just stayed—you have stayed. You have said that you feel you can help people and maybe there’s a question in there that goes beyond me just “feeling better.” I don’t literally affirm to you that you DO help me. You do. And I don’t think I affirm you or acknowledge that in the way that you do for me. What does that mean or look like coming from client to therapist? I think I would like to try some kind of “attending to” you in our next session, as a kind of practice of my learning better how to attend to others, in a non-transactional way. It feels freeing to think of improving my interpersonal skills through getting out of my own needs and trying to live more in others’ experiences or needs. I’m not sure exactly what that looks like in our therapy sessions, but I do think this is evolving in a direction in which I can practice caring for someone without it being based on my own needs, even in therapy. Which is still part of my growth in response to my BPD diagnosis.

But why did we keep writing together, and how has it increased each person’s feeling of “being seen” in a more fulsome manner? Initially, it made sense for Anne to ask Trish to co-write the article for the psychotherapy journal, given she is Anne’s therapist and had played such a profound role in Anne’s diagnostic journey. But what we found was something more than a narration of how long-term psychotherapy might help those with BPD.

Trish and Anne started co-writing online while maintaining fortnightly therapy sessions, as face-to-face sessions had been prohibited by home isolation. During this time Anne was also completing their Dialectical Behaviour Therapy (DBT) program remotely, which had life-changing effects. We also acknowledge that we are producing writing that is going to have a public audience, and that now that shapes our creative collaboration in important ways.

We have tried writing separately and then sharing what we had written at a later point, as Irvin Yalom and his client “Ginny” did in Every Day Gets a Little Closer (1), but ultimately returned to co-authoring in a shared Google doc that has a satisfying interactivity and vibrancy. One aspect of the collaboration that emerged from the beginning is the humorous banter that we both enjoy. It is present in our therapy sessions, too, but not to the extent that it has bloomed in our tracked comments while writing together. So alive was that back-and-forth that we tried to include the tracked comments in the final draft of that first article, but it didn’t feel right; the spontaneity was lost once the time stamps and overlaps in the marginalia were formalised into the body of the essay.

The fluidity of being able to write into the same document, and comment on each others’ and our own writing, seemed to form a big part of the energy of the shared work. Trish identified “rooftop moments” and other important insights that emerged in the writing. We both flagged passages that brought tears.

________________________
(1) Every Day Gets a Little Closer

Trish: Anne, you pose such interesting questions about this creative process and why it works. It takes me back to our earlier discussions as we explored the issue of the power dynamic in the client-therapist relationship. It is a strange beast because it seems like it is both needed and rebelled against simultaneously. Sometimes, as a client, you want me to firmly take the reins and show you the way, and at other times you are aware that as you bare your life to me, I keep mine under wraps. You step into a vulnerable space and I have a boundary that keeps me safe. And I want to offer support and guidance but reject labels like “expert” and get cosy with terms like Yalom’s “fellow travellers.” “Do you think our writing together altered an established power dynamic?” For in that space I saw you as the authority and looked to you to have the answers on how the work would come together. I completely trusted that you would take us to where we needed to be with our first article. How does it feel for us to exchange leadership roles as we move from one space to the other? I encourage you and affirm your resolute commitment to wellness, as you face the parts of you that still flare up at times and remind you of the hell that is other people. (2) Then you encourage me and applaud certain passages that I write. You take note of my hesitancy and respond with patience and curiosity, perhaps in a similar way to how you do with your own students. So we redefine the terms of engagement. We allow the spaces of therapy and writing to co-inform one another, as this most human of relationships draws on all of its strengths to bring out the best in each of us. As Yalom (3)  reminds us:
 

This encounter, the very heart of psychotherapy, is a caring, deeply human meeting between two people, one (generally, but not always, the patient) more troubled than the other. Therapists have a dual role: they must both observe and participate in the lives of their patients. As observer, one must be sufficiently objective to provide necessary rudimentary guidance to the patient. As participant, one enters into the life of the patient and is affected and sometimes changed by the encounter. In choosing to enter fully into each patient’s life, I, the therapist, not only am exposed to the same existential issues as are my patients, I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing, and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.


________________________
(2) No Exit and Three Other Plays
(3) Love’s Executioner and Other Tales of Psychotherapy


Trish: In a recent supervision session with my supervisee James, who works at an in-patient setting, we were reflecting on how patients there form a trusting alliance with the staff. James happens to be blessed with a benevolent warmth, and his presence is therapeutic before he even opens his mouth. He shared his thoughts about the negative impact on patients if they experience the mental health professionals as taking a position that is “above” them—whether that be in the way they dress or speak, or in the attitude that they convey—“I could never be in your shoes.” For James, what is important is the recognition that we can all find ourselves pushed beyond our capacity to cope and experience being unwell. That we need to have a willingness to “also see myself in their story.” Anne, it got me thinking about what you wrote in our first article—that BPD is a disorder of separation. And I wonder how it is possible to trust anyone if you feel so distant from them? As we grapple with understanding how our writing together built trust, it dawned on me that this process has been highlighting the ways in which we are similar rather than different.

Psychiatrist to his nurse: “Just say we’re very busy. Don’t keep saying, ‘It’s a madhouse.’”


When psychotherapy has an interpersonal focus, it can be described as paying attention to the interactions between client and therapist, as well as providing an opportunity for practising a more satisfying relationship that then gets taken into the real world of the client. So what is going on in our writing process, including in the comments? We agree it’s an alternative form of “the real world,” organically appearing out of the mutuality of the co-creative work. Through the collaboration, Anne starts to see Trish as a “fuller human being” with her own wants, needs, ideas, resulting in more trust of Trish. Trish reports seeing Anne also as a fuller person, in their element, strength and power, a kind of agency. We both express how the increased interactions are not necessarily about more stories of our personal lives, but rather an experience of “a different me.” For us both, we have an increased sense of how the other is with other people.

Anne asks Trish questions like, “How does it feel to be a subject with a client? To take up space?”

We both ask, “How much is too much?”

Trish has been thinking a lot about this in the last couple of days, about self disclosure as the therapist, and bringing more of the “real self” into therapy. She says,

 

I thought about your saying that you saw me as a ‘fuller human being’ through the writing process and it made us wonder what that would look like, i.e. to have Trish the fuller human being in the therapy sessions. There is always a risk that something may not work out the way you want it to. Including this collaboration.


For Trish there is tension about whether Anne could still trust her to help them in the therapy space if they see her vulnerable and feeling out of her depth in the writing space. This feels risky but also highly challenging to how she sees herself as a therapist. Trish’s previous self-image as being authentic and honest is tempering with the recognition that there are parts still held back. This important self-examination leads Trish to grapple with the boundary of what becomes known, foregrounding always that whatever she offers of herself still needs to be of therapeutic value. The added role of “collaborator” has both personal and therapeutic benefits for Anne. A healthy intimate relationship means both can safely be vulnerable with the other and know it can be held and ultimately strengthen the relationship, not damage it. The therapeutic potential is that if this happens with Trish, it can strengthen with others in Anne’s life.


Anne: I find it challenging to trust people who remain “distant,” as a therapist may appear, because it feels like rejection and elicits feelings of vulnerability. Navigating these secondary co-creative roles is tricky but feels reassuring to me, and the trust between us seems to increase. In therapy sessions, I am the one with issues, difficult feelings, vulnerability, who looks for support and understanding. You are the one who listens and focuses on how best to meet the needs that I express. So how is it that despite us writing about the therapy, our roles still shift? I often take the lead in the co-authoring, which is not surprising given my professional expertise. I am able to share information with you, Trish, around the process of writing together and send you co-written autoethnographic articles as examples—a classic example of table-turning, you tell me, when we reflect on the times you have sent me articles of a psychological nature in relation to our therapeutic work.

Psychotherapy is often described in the person-centred school as a respectful, collaborative, teamwork-like approach. In this way, the client-therapist team builds their alliance and works together, but—and this is a major distinction—it is all in the service of the growth of the client. And fair enough, given there is a fee attached. But it would be a deception to suggest that the therapist does not grow as well, or, as Yalom says, is not changed or affected by the work, or doesn’t think about the client beyond the therapy hour. How much of this knowledge is—or should be—available to the client? Do they even want to know?

Trish: Anne, you made a comment about not realising how much was going on “behind the scenes” in our sessions. This was probably in response to my talking about a certain approach I might take with a certain goal in mind. Do you think it is helpful for a client to know that what their therapist is doing is reparenting them, or providing empathic attunement, or providing a secure base that was lacking in childhood? I just can’t imagine a client caring about the what, as long as it works, but when I think about talking with other therapists about this work and leaving my clients out of the conversation, it seems ridiculous! I find myself imagining a conversation with fellow therapists:

Me: “Hey therapist colleagues, let me tell you about this great intervention I did the other day in a session…”

Therapist colleagues: “Oh cool…but how do you know it was great? Did you ask the client?”

Me: “Well… no… but, it’s in this book I read.”

Therapist colleagues: ‘“Yeah but how do you know it actually helped the client?”

Me: “Um… well, they probably don’t know it helped them… but… oh, shut up.”


Anne: I wonder at the disjunct between therapists’ acknowledgement that clients need to feel that you are not “above” us, are not inherently different from us, versus how infrequently clients seem to feel this sense of equality, accessibility, or sameness. As in James’ commentary above, I recognise the commitment in you, Trish, and others, to convey a sense of solidarity with clients; I also recognise what you have suggested many times, that clients do need that sense of being held, that the therapist is “holding things together” so that we can be vulnerable. Where is the balance between feeling this as hierarchical, and feeling in it together?

Trish: Anne, you are right that the balance is hard to find, particularly if there isn’t a dialogue between client and therapist about what is actually happening in the space together. As Yalom and others have often noted, it can be hard to know what helps in therapy, and I think quite often a therapist will have a different idea to the client about what was helpful, useful, or powerful in any given session. Sometimes a client will say to me, “When you said that thing last week, I found that really helpful.” And often I think, “Well actually, I didn’t quite say it like that, and it’s not what I meant, but OK. But didn’t you like it when I said this bit? You don’t remember that? Damn, I thought that was the good part…”


Cracking Ourselves Up: Enhancing Trust with Humour

Question: How many psychotherapists does it take to change a light bulb?

Answer: Probably just one, as long as it takes responsibility for its own change. This could be called having “a light bulb moment.”


Laughter has always been part of our therapeutic relationship, and we wonder as we go along what doorway this has opened to increasing trust. Our joking in the document is more frequent, but also a bit different in nature: more feeding off of one another, whereas in the room it’s a bit more measured. We are curious about the many roles humour seems to play between us in our dual roles. We discuss how—in the room—humour can also be a mechanism for deflecting, or keeping things on a more superficial level, and in this way is not always welcome. Nevertheless, once we begin our online interaction, the spontaneous humour grows. Trish writes of a time when she took a holiday and arranged for another staff member at the agency where she worked to see her clients if needed. The audacity of counsellors leaving clients in order to have some leisure time doesn’t go unnoticed by Anne in our track comments in the first article:

[Anne: how dare you LOL]

[Trish: How very BPD of you :)]

[Anne: LOL GUFFAW I think we may have a stand up routine by the end of this.]

[Trish: I know right? The side comments are almost as interesting as the article!!]


In this exchange, our shared humour strikes at the heart of the very condition that has caused Anne such anguish, and yet creates a moment of freedom as the heaviness of the label is discarded, all the while noticing that humour and pathos are indeed good friends. We agree that one reason both our irreverent humour and the creative collaboration work well is because it has emerged out of our pre-existing therapeutic relationship of almost six years. The trust and foundations were there before we altered our relationship, and Anne notes that widespread perceptions of BPD make it likely that such humour about the disorder would be hard to share with a therapist in a less established relationship.

One wall we have mutually hit together is a feeling of “too much”ness after the first essay, when we decided to continue writing together as well as still maintaining therapy sessions. The dual roles and time commitments of both soon felt too demanding, and we were able to talk about that openly and put some boundaries around it.



Trish: Anne, I recall that experience of “too much”ness was precipitated by your writing into our shared document about a dream you had had about me. I commented on how much was in the dream to be examined, but it seemed to be therapeutically, not creatively, relevant. Back then I wondered whether the writing together was blurring the therapeutic line in a confusing way. But now I think we see the line and we choose to walk along it courageously. I see an image of a tightrope walker, holding a long pole for balance. I wonder what the pole is representative of in our work together?

This experience caused us to recognise that we needed careful negotiation around how much and when we enact both roles: for example, do we collaborate while Anne is still a client? Do we have writing sessions and therapy sessions in the same week/month? After a time, we started to realise that they were folding back into one another in an iterative process that was becoming productive for both the writing and therapy, but we continue to monitor the efficacy of maintaining both roles simultaneously.


“Being Seen” through Creative Collaboration

Through humour especially, we both express a powerful feeling of being seen by the other, in deeper if not new ways. The feeling of “being seen” is, of course, a major part of the value of psychotherapy to a client, and was a strong part of Anne’s experience of therapy with Trish before the co-writing started. We decide to explore bringing some of this “whole person” or more interactive dynamic back into our therapy sessions, admitting that neither of us are quite sure what this will look like. We discuss how we might chip away at the “one-wayness,” the illusion of the therapist having no needs, feelings, investment. We consider questions like:

Is Trish always therapist Trish, even when we are co-writing?

What in that therapy space is different or the same?


It is confusing for us both at times, often in different ways.


Trish: I wonder, “Well what IS bringing more into the room?” I believe that my emotional responses are already an act of bringing myself. It is my standard practice to share things like “I’m aware that I’m feeling quite sad as you tell me this.”

We wonder together: what if we were writing a novel instead, or painting a picture? We are writing about our therapy, not something else, so it reinforces the therapeutic relationship. We reflect on the fact that Trish is also a teacher and practice supervisor, and in those roles she encourages her students to be prepared to walk the talk, to consider the ethics of asking clients to go further than they’ll go themselves. We begin to acknowledge our investment in each other.

Of course, our creative collaboration presents challenges as well as benefits. What if it dissolves, runs out of steam, or there is a creative rupture? We discuss the value of this changed way of working, despite the risks. We discuss whether writing about this will be of benefit to other client/therapist teams, and, if this multi-directionality in our sessions doesn’t work for all clients, whether it is still a worthy experiment to share publicly.


Anne: One reason why I have this trust of you is because you have hung in there, not rejecting me, through so many difficult times. And why wasn’t my treatment of you as challenging as so many others in my life? My hard behaviour, I think, is triggered by feeling rejected or judged. But rejection and judging is part of life. So how does unconditional acceptance (“unconditional positive regard”) by you help me handle rejection in the real world? One of the ways I’m suggesting is to regard you with care as a whole person, not just a “therapist.” That is, not just “there for me.” In thinking about this over the last little while, I believe the improvement in much of my behaviour comes from my starting to regard others as whole human beings with their own needs and validity, whether they reject me or not, meet my needs or not. How can I increase my ability to put myself aside and regard others in a less transactional way? If I were to do this with you in our sessions, what does that look like? Certainly not your therapy, or therapy about you. But maybe it’s more like, “How does it feel to you when I just talk the whole session?” or “Do I hurt your feelings?” or “Am I boring you right now?” Maybe attending to you (and others) is holding the dialectic of “My feelings are hurt right now, but I can also attend to your hurt feelings at the same time, or even first.” Part of improving my interpersonal relationships, I think, is being able to perceive my impact on people.

Trish: The process of writing the article with you has provoked me to re-examine the firmly boundaried position of this understood one-way process. No person-centred therapist wants to be a blank screen, and I have always believed I bring my genuine self to the therapy process with clients. Being willing to be more explicit about my internal responses to things you might say to me, rather than hold some therapeutic high ground as I bracket them off, seems like an important way forward.

We agree that it should be as intentional as setting some ground rules for the experiment. Trish suggests regular check-ins, like asking “How is this going right now?” Anne wonders how productive setting ground rules or negotiating terms of relationships might have been in other relationships or friendships, too; maybe with such agreements those relationships would have gone better. Trish suggests to Anne, “See? You are now connecting what we are doing in therapy to your life in the real world, i.e. negotiating with people around the types of interactions you have—what works for both. So here is therapy on the page.”


Mutually Revealing

One day after a co-writing session, Trish scribbles some notes, including:

Explore in what ways (even without Anne knowing) the relationship between us has been therapeutic:

  • Corrective emotional experience
  • Being there
  • Not abandoning
  • Staying with

…and that these things build trust.

Trish: I believe that so much of what a therapist does with clients is to provide a corrective emotional experience. When there is abuse or neglect or misattunement early in life, the therapy of care and unconditional positive regard gives the client the feeling of what it is like to be held. So for you, Anne, maybe some of that was to not have to listen to someone else and validate them (in the way you did for your adoptive mother) in order to feel worthy. That you get to have the experience of this for yourself. In some ways, it is not so important that it isn’t the “real world” but the world of the therapy room. The emotions are real. That I attend to you is real. And you don’t have to be “good” (thanks, Mary Oliver) in order to feel this. And feeling this with me might then motivate you to know that it is possible, and that maybe you can also feel it in your “real” life.


I have been thinking about this quite a bit over the last few days, and I have formed the belief that we needed to do this work (i.e. corrective emotional experience) before we could move into a space of being more overtly interpersonal. Trust is needed for that. I have often wanted to challenge some of my other clients with Borderline features to have a look at certain aspects of themselves and their behaviour that might impact other people, or even me, negatively, but I have found that there is a risk of their fragmenting. If someone already has a fragile sense of self, a suggestion that they could do something differently can be experienced as “I am a bad person.” So it is interesting that we are contemplating this experiment of giving the space between us more attention. Perhaps you feel secure enough in our relationship now to let me challenge you. If I let you see that I have reactions to what you do or say, that it actually affects me, I believe that you can hold this information and stay intact.

Anne: I have been thinking a lot for the past five days about my saying to you to “get over it.” One thing I’ve noticed with myself (is it the BPD?) is that sometimes I don’t intend to, but I am still quite harsh. I have always laughed this off as my New Yorker brusqueness. But is that an excuse for rudeness and not wanting to change? I’m sorry, Trish, that I spoke to you in that way. This is my being accountable interpersonally, even in a therapy session. I meant to encourage you. And I do think you are fearless in going to these places that are not the norm in the Australian context, and I love that and was trying to encourage you, but it came out in a rude and insulting way.

Trish: Twice now you have thought you might have offended me or been rude to me, and twice I have not felt offended or hurt. I wonder what you saw to think that you hurt me? An expression on my face, perhaps? Something in my response? Actually, I feel that on both occasions you were suggesting that maybe I could be more—an invitation to think big. And yet you think you were being dismissive or hurtful. I remember your saying recently that sometimes you find it hard to tell whether some communication between you and others is rude/aggressive or not. And then you might have to backtrack and check it out. I promise if you are nasty to me, I will tell you at the time and we can work out whether you meant it or not. You were witnessing my own discomfort with ambition. You didn’t cause it, you’re not the bad guy in this scenario. I am noticing and appreciating how you are thinking about the impact your words may have had on me.

Anne: I think it’s important to me that both of us acknowledge that there is fear perhaps around my BPD, because it is not only a disorder of separation, it is also a disorder of dysregulated emotions and behaviours. Through our work together and the safety of that, I am becoming more able to acknowledge the harms I have done to others and myself, harms that I can now feel regret and sadness about. That includes times I have hurt you in our work together, too, Trish. This doesn’t mean I won’t lash out (again). And as safe as I feel with you, we both know I have lashed out most often against those who are closest to me. So I recognise the courage it takes for you to continue to show up when you have witnessed so many of my hurtful behaviours to others, and sometimes experienced them yourself. That is brave, and I recognise the risk to you.

It is good and important to work together to improve my ability to calibrate my impact on others—to perceive it more clearly, perhaps—but also to model to other therapists that someone with BPD may be frightening or erratic, yes, but we can also be deeply reflective, resilient, empathic, courageous, and hungry to change. And we can care about you, even when we are mired in our own pain. And that this care for you can provide an important window to re-engaging with a world that is sometimes overwhelming for us.

Trish: You talk about acknowledging our fear around your BPD, and I wonder if it is the same for us both? You fear that you will still injure others, including me, despite how far you have come. I also fear that you could hurt me, too, might lash out at me despite the safety of our relationship. And as our therapeutic connection deepens, I take my place as someone at risk of being hurt by you. So how do we hold this fear in a way that makes sense? It brings to mind the dialectic of the work. Where there is fear, there is also bravery; where there is safety, there is also risk. And of course, as always, there is the knowing and the not knowing. It is inevitable that we hurt or disappoint the people who mean the most to us. We will do wrong, it is the nature of the imperfect relationships in which we all engage. And that brings us back to trust. With trust we are able to stay in touch with the resilience and perseverance that we see in one another, which makes repair and recovery possible. So when you care for me, and for others in their turn, know that what you are doing is an ongoing process of recreating a secure base that is at the very heart of what we all yearn for when we love and feel loved in return.


Epilogue: Returning to Embodiment—March 2021

Anne: I’m glad I came to your office today. It has been a long time since we have shared space, and so much has happened in the interim, with COVID and multiple lockdowns. I was aware of you again as a changing human person, and the affective intensity of proximity. I think one reason I felt moved today was not just about the content we were discussing, but about the relationship and the exchange. It is, as Tara Brach would say, sacred ground, where people feel seen and heard. It’s so powerful. That room is a powerful sacred space for me.

Do I have anxiety about going backward, now that my DBT has finished? Disappointing you? Being disappointed by you? Of course! That’s every relationship, surely. Today I just felt moved by the proximity, the laughing—so much laughter!—the attending, the eye contact, the ambient noises, the longevity, the commitment, and the hope, even when I can’t find exactly who I am. And also the power of the room itself. That familiar room—the white blinds, your desk, cup, computer. The little table by the couch, the bin. Pepper had died during lockdown, and I felt his absence so strongly in the room. The environment matters, and I can see it now as another expression of you, of another way of your “bringing yourself” to your clients.

Trish: Yes, it was pretty powerful being together in person today. There was a certain energy which may well have been about how long it has been since we took up the chair and the couch, or perhaps about the added layer of the creative space that we are sharing as we write, knowing that our words on screen find calibration with the ones we speak to one another. Were you more aware of me than you have been in the past? You have said you wanted to be able to hold space for others while you navigate your own emotional space. I think I noticed a subtle shift—while you certainly wanted some thoughts from me about what was going on for you, there was something different, more of an ease in you and a space created for me. And somehow I felt that even though I didn’t really have a clear answer for you, I was still offering you something, and you saw that (and subsequently wrote about it). This work together is making me examine myself in the most profound way, and if I want you to do it, then I will, too. Maybe I am also trying to find out exactly who I am when I am in a therapeutic encounter with you. I know one thing, I will trust the journey.

Anne: I was more aware of wondering what techniques you may have been using, and why. That relational aspect that I had never really thought much about before our co-authoring. I assumed the therapist just showed up and it was a one-way thing. I’m enjoying this change in my awareness: not only in terms of acknowledging what you are bringing, but also for me, thinking relationally about you. You exist. You are thinking and feeling things, not just absorbing. I also think we had a lot more eye contact yesterday than usual, that was something I was aware of. And also the laughing… Why do you think we laughed more yesterday than usual? My perspective is that it was just a bit of happiness to see you again, and also I felt you laughed more than usual and that felt like a kind of openness from you.
 

***
 

As recently as 2015, at the end of Creatures of a Day, Yalom  (4) reminds us that even in the United States, these kinds of relational accounts are all too rare and
 

not generally available in contemporary curricula. Most training programs today (often under pressure by accreditation boards or insurance companies) offer instruction only in brief, “empirically validated” therapies that consist of highly specific techniques addressing discrete diagnostic categories… I worry that this current focus in education will ultimately result in losing sight of the whole person and that the humanistic, holistic approach I used with these ten patients may soon become extinct. Though research on effective psychotherapy continually shows that the most important factor determining outcome is the therapeutic relationship, the texture, the creation, and the evolution of this relationship are rarely a focus of training in graduate programs.


For Trish and Anne, this focus on our creative collaboration allows a deepening of trust and strengthening of our relational dynamics. Trish (and sometimes both of us now) uses many of the suggestions Yalom offers for calling attention to the bond between patient and therapist including: doing process checks, inquiring about the state of the encounter during the session, Trish’s asking if Anne has questions for her. Through creative collaboration, trusting in the here and now becomes multi-modal and multi-directional in ways that can offer new forms of corrective emotional experience. It has also firmly established a secure base, the core purpose of strong and trusting client-therapist relationships, never more important (and challenging) than with clients with Borderline Personality Disorder.
________________________
(4) Creatures of a Day and Other Tales of Psychotherapy