How To Help Your Clients Undo What They Haven’t Yet Done

Once, a man who was recently released from prison told his counselor how enraged he was that he just had his wallet stolen from him. This man was visibly angry as he described having $450 dollars in that stolen wallet; and to make things worse, he had a strong suspicion who stole it. He told the counselor that he was going to seek out the thief, get his money back, and kill him. The counselor did not flinch, judge, or panic when the man told him he would seek out and kill the thief. Instead, he asked the former prisoner how long he’d been incarcerated. “I was down for 8 years, and I just got out,” the man replied.

The counselor asked, “Did you like your time in prison?”

“What?” replied the man angrily.

"Did you like spending time in prison?" the counselor repeated in honestly inquisitive voice.

The man then stared angrily and directly into the counselor's eyes and asked, “Did you ever spend time in prison?”

“No,” said the counselor.

“I didn’t think so,” said the man angrily, and he looked away shaking his head in disgust.

The counselor prodded further, again, genuinely inquisitively, “Let me ask you: In all that time in prison, were there ever moments when you wanted to get out?”

The former inmate seemed to get even angrier at this question, “What’s wrong with you?” he asked. “Of course I wanted to get out! I wanted to get out every single day!”

Unfazed by this man’s anger, the counselor asked, “How badly did you want to get out?”

The man, now visibly more agitated and enraged, stared down the counselor intensely and said, “I wanted to get out every second of every day!”

And the counselor asked, “What would you have done to get out?”

And the man, still staring through the counselor, replied sharply, “Anything.”

“Anything?” asked the counselor, matching the man’s eye contact and in a firm voice of his own.

“I would have done anything!” said the former inmate, stepping aggressively toward the counselor.

The counselor looked piercingly but compassionately back into the eyes of the angry man without flinching and finally asked, “Would you have paid $450?”

The man stopped. He got it. He understood. The counselor's words moved through him. He realized that if he would have killed the man who stole his $450, he would have ended up in prison (this time probably for life), and while he was in prison, he would have “done anything to get out,” certainly including paying $450 – and his anger left. He thanked the counselor and walked away.

Now, this is a true story, and the client was mine, and because it’s a true story, you probably want to know the rest of what happened, so I’ll tell you. The man, the former inmate, he was calm enough after talking to me that he went home and went to sleep instead of seeking out the man he believed to be the thief who stole his money. In the morning when he awoke, he said a thankful prayer that he didn’t go after that man and end up in prison. In fact, he even imagined that he paid the amount that was stolen from him and was now free. He felt so good knowing that he resisted acting on impulse for the first time in such a long time, that he decided to make another good decision and clean his room as soon as he got out of bed. To his grateful surprise, not long into his picking up the pile of clothes off the floor of his room, he found his wallet – and the $450.

The question you can ask your clients is this: How much would you pay to undo impulsive decisions you've not yet made? Would you be willing to pay the price of self-control? In the safety of your counseling office, it's often helpful to play out your clients' most impulsive thoughts without the slightest bit of judgment. The more you can play out future scenarios, impulsive decisions, realistic consequences, and what your clients would be willing to do to go back and "undo" something that they haven't even technically done yet, the more you can expand their consciousness and move them from the impulsive, emotional center of their brain to the higher-level thinking center that will help them make more effective decisions.

It's never too late to undo what hasn't yet been done.  

Bruce Wampold on What Actually Makes Us Good Therapists

The Zero Percent Difference

Greg Arnold: Bruce, you’ve been in the field of psychotherapy for over 30 years and have made a tremendous contribution to our understanding of psychotherapy from empirical, historical, and anthropological perspectives through what you call the “contextual model of psychotherapy.” Your fantastic book, The Great Psychotherapy Debate: The Evidence for What Makes Psychotherapy Work is in its second edition, and I highly recommend it to our readers.

I want to start right out with what I see as the most significant thing to share with our readers. In your research, you’ve found that the difference in effectiveness of various types of psychotherapy is zero percent. Is that right?
Bruce Wampold: With some qualifications. I would put the differences between various types of psychotherapy at very close to zero percent. That statistic comes from clinical trials comparing treatment A to treatment B—often CBT to another form of CBT or to a dynamic therapy, a humanistic therapy, an interpersonal therapy—and there we don’t find any differences that are consistent or very large. Sometimes they’re small differences. The other area of research, “dismantling studies,” takes out the ingredient that is supposed to be the most important element of the treatment. It turns out that treatment is just as effective without the particular ingredient.

But here’s the qualification. There are a number of trials that compare a coherent, cogent, structured treatment to what’s often called “supportive therapy,” where the patient just sits with an empathic therapist, but there’s no treatment plan, there’s no explanation to the patient about what they’re going to do in therapy to help them get better. And we know, all the way back to Jerome Frank, that we need a coherent explanation for what’s bothering the patient and a believable treatment for them—something for the patient to do so that they work hard to overcome their difficulties. Supportive therapies are a lot more effective than doing nothing, but they’re not as effective for targeted outcomes as those that have a coherent explanation and treatment plan.

As long as what they’re doing is believable, accepted, is given by a therapist who’s skilled and believes in the treatment as well, the treatment tends to go well.
So if a patient comes in with problems in interpersonal relationships, depression, anxiety, we have to come up with a cogent explanation and a believable treatment to overcome their difficulties. As long as what they’re doing is believable, accepted, is given by a therapist who’s skilled and believes in the treatment as well, the treatment tends to go well.
GA: Regardless of the treatment?
BW: That’s right. So that’s the long answer to your question about all treatments being equal. Of course, not all treatments are equal—there are harmful treatments. In my workshops, I show Bob Newhart doing “stop it” therapy.
GA: Yes, I’ve seen it. It’s hilarious.
BW: You can Google it on YouTube. He just keeps saying to the patient, “Stop it!” When we say all therapies are equally effective, we need to be clear that we are not talking about harmful or sarcastic therapy.
GA: Of course. So let’s take a case example, say someone with severe OCD. Most people think exposure with response prevention is far and away superior, its treatment rationale is better than anyone else’s treatment rationale, and that it’s the only therapy that will cure it.
BW: OCD is an interesting one to bring up.
Exposure and response prevention is pretty good, with some provisos, but it’s never been compared to another bona fide, legitimate treatment for OCD.
Exposure and response prevention is pretty good, with some provisos, but it’s never been compared to another bona fide, legitimate treatment for OCD. I would like to see a focused dynamic treatment for OCD, and I would predict it doing just as well.

The other thing about OCD is if you read the literature, outcomes are almost exclusively measured in terms of symptom reduction. There’s a failure to measure quality of life or interpersonal functioning. OCD is a terribly disturbing disorder, and the people who suffer from OCD often have a terrible quality of life—they’re isolated, they’re alienated from people, they’re not integrated into social networks because their disorder interferes, or they have other issues as well. So it’s very misleading to just measure targeted symptoms.
GA: It’s stacking the deck a little bit.
BW: I had a debate with a psychologist here in Wisconsin who has an OCD clinic, and he said the same thing: We know how to reduce symptoms. But the people are not back to work, they don’t have romantic or intimate relationships. So now we’re starting to augment the exposure and response prevention with vocational therapy and counseling for other issues. OCD is an area where we need to do more research.

The claims about CBT being superior to other treatments are not founded.
Another area where we thought CBT was the most effective treatment is panic disorder. But now Barbara Milrod and others have dynamic therapy for panic, and it’s just as effective. Social anxiety is another area. If you read the clinical trials carefully, there isn’t convincing evidence that one particular treatment is more effective. CBT folks have done some amazingly good research and have helped the field immeasurably. I don’t want to discount that, but the claims about CBT being superior to other treatments are not founded.
GA: Those claims are far and wide, deeply rooted. Given that, among the bona fide treatments, they’re all equally effective, then the medical model is not superior either, correct?
BW: Yes. In Western culture, we’re so indoctrinated by the medical model that we ignore the social factors that make psychotherapy particularly effective. Humans are evolved as social animals, and we’re influenced through verbal means. How many of us learn not to stick our fingers in electric sockets because of classical conditioning? Our parents didn’t put our fingers into the socket to learn by experience, or put their fingers in there and have us watch them writhe on the floor in pain. All the parent had to do is say, “that’s dangerous.” We have evolved in such a way that significant others have tremendous influence on us through social means. Psychotherapy very effectively does just that.

A skilled therapist makes a big difference no matter the orientation.
The medical model can have some unfortunate consequences. It leads us to think that a “cure” can come through specific “interventions,” that if a therapist follows some kind of protocol, they will have good outcomes. That’s a myth. A skilled therapist makes a big difference no matter the orientation.
GA: Which is good news, right? People are going to be happy to hear we make a difference.
BW:

Therapists Deteriorate Over Time

Yes, but it comes with responsibility. Let’s ensure that our outcomes are commendable, that they meet benchmarks, and that they improve. We just did a study where we looked at therapists over almost 20 years of practice, and the therapists did not improve. In fact, they deteriorated a bit.
GA: Sobering.
BW: It is. But it’s not surprising when you think about it. What other profession do you go into a room, do your work in privacy, aren’t really allowed to talk about it because it’s confidential, and don’t get any feedback about how you’re doing. How can we expect to get better? Would we go to hear a musician who only performed and never practiced? Do you think world class tennis players just play Wimbledon and the U.S. Open and Australian Open? No, they practice hours a day on particular skills. So becoming a better therapist takes a lot of deliberate practice.
GA: Can you talk a little bit about the therapist factors that make us better or worse that we could be working on—be it in consultation groups or in feedback informed therapy.
BW: For many years I said the fundamental unanswered question in psychotherapy was, “What characterizes an effective therapist? What do they do?” And we didn’t know. But we’re starting to get good scientific evidence about what effective therapists do, so I’ll run through it.
GA: Please do!
BW: Effective therapists are able to form a working alliance—a collaborative working relationship—with a range of patients. The motivated patients with solid attachment histories who easily form an alliance with you—those aren’t the ones that challenge us. The ones that challenge us have poor attachment styles, do not have social networks, they alienate people in their lives, they have borderline features, they’re interpersonally aggressive, they tell us we’re no good. A really effective therapist is able to form a relatively good collaborative working relationship with those types of patients. The therapist effect is larger for more severely disturbed patients, which makes sense.

Effective therapists are also verbally fluent, they can describe the disorder as well as their treatment rationale.
GA: They get the buy-in from the client.
BW: Yes, they’re persuasive as well as verbally fluent, so when they explain things, they do it in two or three sentences and it’s coherent. I have my students practice explaining what they’re going to do in therapy. It’s difficult to do and you have to practice until you can do it in three or four sentence.

An effective therapist can read the emotional state of clients even when they’re trying to hide it. And we know the patients hide what they’re feeling. It isn’t intentional; it’s part of their struggle in life. They suppress anger or they’re not allowed to express sadness. A good therapist can understand and respond to the patient affect. Good therapists also can modulate their own affect.
Can you be expressive and activated when you have a really depressed patient who just kind of sits there?
Can you be expressive and activated when you have a really depressed patient who just kind of sits there? Affect is really contagious. We know that from basic science.

On the other hand, if we have an extremely anxious patient, can we be relaxed and calm? Modulating our own affect takes some practice as well. Are we warm, understanding, and caring? You may think all therapists are warm, understanding, and caring, but it takes work. I had a student whose patient didn’t bathe, so it reeked when the patient came in. What would your facial expression be?
GA: It would be hard not to feel some disgust.
BW: Exactly. We had to practice not displaying disgust. Being warm and empathic is easy with some patients, but really hard with others.
GA: Do people lose faith when they realize that the medical model, that any model really, isn’t the X factor in therapy? Do they just throw in the towel?
BW: I wouldn’t say that. When therapists say, “My treatment is the best there is for X, Y and Z,” in a way I’m glad. I want people to believe in their treatment, as that is an element of effective therapy. But instead of thinking that treatment X is the most effective treatment, we should believe that treatment X as I deliver it to this particular patient is effective.

This is where the focus on outcomes is so helpful. Is this patient getting better? Are they reaching their goals? If so, you can have faith not in the treatment itself but in your use of the treatment with the patient who is getting better. If we’re rigidly attached to a treatment, that’s problematic. I dislike it when therapists say in the first session, “Here’s how I work. This is what we’re going to do here.” You haven’t even listened to the patient yet and understood how the patient wants to work.

You need to modify treatment for some patients, or you might have to abandon it and do something very different for particular patients. Flexibility is another characteristic of effective therapists. That doesn’t mean doing something different every week with them, which is confusing; we need to be consistent, but also flexible.
GA: Dogma gets in the way here, and you’ve shown that more fidelity to a treatment actually gives less positive outcomes.
BW:

The Sweet Spot

There’s a sweet spot. You don’t want to be so flexible that you lack coherence, as that is not effective either. We need to be kind of in that sweet spot where there’s consistency in what we’re doing so the patient feels like we’re working towards their goals with a logical treatment plan.

But there may be a crisis in a patient’s life or a dramatic event or they’re just resistant. One of the things I teach my trainees is to see the nonverbal signs of resistance—they’re not following through on activities or when we explain what we’re doing they look away. They don’t want to say, “No, that doesn’t make sense, you’ve got it wrong.” So we have to be really attuned to those signs and willing to explore them.
GA: Still, it seems like this contextual model kind of suggests that we don’t really need particular treatment models. That if we are naturally good at making alliances with all kinds of clients and verbally skilled, we don’t need to be steeped in a particular treatment model.
BW: Well that’s where coherence and clear articulation of a treatment plan come into play. You don’t have that without having some kind of approach. When we go to a doctor, we want to know what’s wrong with us and how we’re going to get better. CBT therapists are great at this. They incorporate psychoeducation into the treatment structure, so a coherent treatment plan is central to the work they do with clients.

Where CBT therapists can fall short if they don’t attend to it is the warm, empathic, understanding treatment expectation part of the contextual model.
If you administer CBT without warmth and understanding, it’s not going to be nearly as effective.
If you administer CBT without warmth and understanding, it’s not going to be nearly as effective. On the other side are the humanistic therapists who are often great at the warm, empathic part of therapy but don’t always have a coherent treatment structure. I think we all have to look at our practice and assess what we are really good at, what are the elements that seem to work well with our clients and then have a good hard look at the areas where we are falling short.
GA: Yes, for me it’s figuring out the fine line between non-directive and directionless.
BW: That a good way to put it.
GA: It sounds like we should all be multi-modal, integrative, competent in several modalities because different things are going to work with different clients. None of us should be one-trick ponies.

To what extent does this call upon us to be more educated and trained in multiple modalities? Training culture these days seems to be trending towards manualized therapies, those that have been shown to be effective with particular disorders, etc. How do you think students should be getting trained these days?
BW: That’s an interesting question. I’m a counseling psychologist, and in counseling psychology we usually start by teaching the basic interpersonal skills first. In clinical programs, they are more often these days teaching manualized treatment—CBT for panic disorder or exposure therapy for OCD. We need to integrate the basic humanistic skills that are necessary for effective treatments as well as learning treatment protocols.

I have no problem with treatment protocols. I think people should be relatively fluent in several. And we should recognize our limitations. If we’re psychodynamic and have a client who is more interested in doing CBT, or we think would be better served by a CBT therapist, we should refer them out.
We often have this belief that we can help everybody, but it’s really not true.
We often have this belief that we can help everybody, but it’s really not true.

Look at how many treatment failures there are for widely accepted medical practices. We’re not going to help every psychotherapy patient, and maybe some other therapists could do a better job with particular patients. Flexibility is called for not just within a particular therapist, but within the community of therapists.
GA: One of the elements of effective therapy you cited was being able to create a positive working alliance with a variety of patients, and difficult patients, so how do you balance that with knowing when to refer out?
BW: Well, the really effective therapists probably don’t refer out much because they’re pretty good at accommodating their treatment style to the particular patient. And we have to be careful about referrals because if it appears to the patient that they’re just being referred out because they’re difficult, that can be very wounding. I’ve heard of difficult patients saying, “I didn’t really get better, but this therapist stuck with me, and that was really helpful to me.”

Some disorders are going to take maintenance therapy to keep people out of the hospital and functioning. So even though they’re not going to approach what we would call “normal” functioning, it’s still an appropriate use of therapy. The medical model doesn’t really support this kind of treatment though. It’s looking for a specific outcome in a limited amount of time.

In the United States we’re paid by the health delivery system, which is advantageous for therapists because they’re getting paid, and advantageous for patients because there was a time when only the rich could pay out-of-pocket for therapy. Those without resources simply couldn’t afford psychotherapy and now it is available to many more people, which is a great thing. But there are some unfortunate consequences of being forced into this medical model. Limitations on sessions is probably the one that impacts therapists and clients the most.
GA: This isn’t going to change overnight. It’s deeply embedded in our culture. But in order to change the culture, we need a positive vision for the alternative. What would that look like? I think the contextual model has the potential to really change the system because not only is it scientific, it’s more scientific than the medical model.
BW: That’s a fundamental question we have to address.
We know psychotherapy is remarkably effective. It helps many people. It’s as effective as medication, and longer lasting. But we have to influence policy makers.
Many of us are working hard to influence policy, and the way to do that in my view is to present the evidence. I’ve dedicated my career to providing the evidence for the humane delivery of mental health services. We know psychotherapy is effective. It’s remarkably effective. It helps many people. It’s as effective as medication, and longer lasting. But we have to influence policy makers. There are places where we’re making progress, and there are places where it’s frustrating as hell.
GA: I bet.
BW: But we also have to be making progress as therapists. We have a responsibility to provide effective services.
GA: It’s disheartening to hear that we aren’t getting better over the course of our own professional lives.
BW:

Coming Out of Isolation

We don’t, but as we learn more through research about what makes therapists effective, we can begin to incorporate what we learn into our training and professional development. I’m involved in a start-up company, TheraVue that’s dedicated to online skill building for psychotherapists. I think technology can play an important role in making not just therapy, but consultation and training more accessible to people.
GA: That’s hopeful to hear. So many people want to be in consultation groups, but it’s much harder to make happen than you would think.
BW: This is an isolating profession. We’re sitting one-on-one or sometimes with couples or families, but essentially we’re doing our work in isolation. We have to have that peer support to help us both fight the isolation and to get better, but it’s difficult. We work six, eight hours a day with patients and at the end of the day, we don’t want to drive somewhere for a peer consultation. We want to get home to our families and friends.
GA: So given that there are these challenges, how do we get more therapists to make consultation a regular part of the practice?
BW: Psychotherapy is not the road to riches. I think most of us are in this field because we’re dedicated to helping people, so I think there’s an intrinsic motivation to get better. I don’t think there’s going to be resistance when people really understand what it takes to be a better therapist. In fact, there’s going to be eagerness to improve if it’s built-in in a way that makes it accommodating. I think it’s absurd that we don’t give CE units for actual efforts to improve other than going to workshops and doing online courses. I’m a licensed psychologist, so I do them, and some of them are really good, but is this helping me become a more effective therapist? Tomorrow are my patients going to be getting better therapy than they got before I went to this workshop? So the training and accreditation processes need to support the activities that actually help therapists get better.
GA: So we know that workshops and online courses and reading books isn’t enough. We recently did an interview with Tony Rousmaniere on deliberate practice, although we haven’t published this yet. It’s a concept he learned from Scott Miller that involves literally practicing—like tennis players do between games—the skills of therapy outside of the therapy office. Videotaping ourselves, practicing how we talk, having mentors watch our work, trying to eliminate things that aren’t helping clients—weird idiosyncrasies we wouldn’t necessarily pick up without an outside observer. Are these the kinds of practices you are talking about?
BW:

Good Therapists Are Humble

Yes, exactly. You can’t just reflect and think about your practice, just do process notes or whatever. It’s important to do those things, and certainly one of the characteristics of effective therapists is professional humility. Good therapists, the ones that get better outcomes, are the ones who say, “I’m not sure I’m helping patients. I need to get better.” But Daryl Chow and Scott Miller did a study that revealed that people who work outside of their practice to get better actually have better outcomes.

Good therapists, the ones that get better outcomes, are the ones who say, “I’m not sure I’m helping patients. I need to get better.”
The skills I’ve talked about, you have to do them over and over again with feedback from somebody. This is what we’re doing with practicum students now. Often students will go, “I’m an advanced student now; these are basic skills you’re teaching.” No, we all need to practice these things. By the end, they often say, “this was the best practice class I’ve ever had because we actually practiced the skills we use in therapy.”
GA: So we can improve our skills through practice, get unambiguous feedback from someone we respect and hopefully challenge our own confirmation bias that we’re the best therapist ever, by cultivating some humility.

Still, if the motivation to get better was intrinsic, don’t you think more therapists would be doing these things? Sell us a little more on it if you don’t mind. Like, how much am I going to improve if I implement these new strategies?
BW: That’s a great question. In my presentations I use the example of baseball. The difference between a 300 hitter and a 275 hitter is not very much. In fact, if you watch the poor hitter for two weeks, they may have more hits than the 300 hitter. But if you look over the career, the 300 hitter helps his team immensely more.

A small improvement by each therapist would have a tremendous impact and benefit to patients.
An incremental improvement doesn’t have to be dramatic, but it has a tremendous impact on the number of patients who benefit from psychotherapy. I can give you the facts and figures because I love math and statistics, but a small improvement by each therapist would have a tremendous impact and benefit to patients. It’s quite remarkable.
GA: So that’s our call to action as a profession.
BW: Yes.
GA: We know what we need to do, the gains are there for the taking, and we need to keep pushing on policy to support those efforts. None of us are going to get rich doing it, but it’s hopeful that we can really make a difference as we improve and grow.
BW: I think it is hopeful. We have the strategies and the technology for continual improvement as therapists. Let’s get better. Let’s work at it. Let’s support each other. And let’s measure outcomes so that we know how we’re doing.
GA: That’s a whole other piece we hadn’t talked about: measuring outcomes.
BW: Yes, it’s very important. What the research seems to show is that at least for cases at risk for deterioration, feedback may improve outcomes. But it’s pretty clear that just getting feedback—this patient is improving; this patient is not—doesn’t help the therapist become more skilled.

But it is important to know if you’re actually helping patients, if you’re gradually improving over time. Look and see what types of patients you’re having difficulty with.
GA: Routinely.
BW: Yes, and I would add that, in my experience, and I think the research supports this, discussing the feedback with patients is helpful. What it communicates to the patient is that you are improving and that their feedback actually matters to you. But it also makes it clear that the focus is on, “Are you getting better?” I want to know that continually. We should all be discussing with our patients how therapy is going and how we can change to more readily support their goals. That’s a tremendously powerful message when we discuss that with patients. If we’re not meeting the goals, what can we do differently? Some would call that client-informed, but all therapists are client-informed. To a large degree, we should all be discussing with our patients how therapy is going and how we can change to more readily support their goals.
GA: There’s also an indirect benefit in that it communicates care in a new way to the client, bringing them in on monitoring outcome.
BW: It’s not indirect. It’s direct. In the contextual model, we don’t minimize these things as indirect. This is deliberate.
GA: The meat and potatoes.
BW: Absolutely. The focus on patient progress is central to what we do.
GA: So we have a call to action for clinicians, one for policy makers, what about for psychotherapy researchers?
BW:
My plea to all researchers would be, if you’re going to do a clinical trial, please include a quality of life measure because I want to see that your treatment actually has a significant benefit to patients in the quality of their life.
My plea to all researchers would be, if you’re going to do a clinical trial, please include a quality of life measure because I want to see that your treatment actually has a significant benefit to patients in the quality of their life. That’s why they come to treatment. I don’t want to just see targeted symptoms are reduced and therefore your model is best for a particular disorder.
GA: Any final words of wisdom you’d like to leave our readers from your years in the industry?
BW: I would say to therapists—to all of us—let’s work to get better, to continually improve over the course of our careers. It will benefit patients. It will benefit us. Our satisfaction with our work will improve as well. At this point in my career, I want to do whatever I can to help therapists do that.
GA: I am so grateful for the work you do, and I want everyone to go out and read your work so that we can all become better therapists.
BW: Thank you, Greg, it’s been such a pleasure talking to you.

Tony Rousmaniere on Deliberate Practice for Psychotherapists

The Other 50%

Victor Yalom: Tony, congratulations on your new book, Deliberate Practice for Psychotherapists: A Guide to Improving Clinical Effectiveness. We’ll get to the deliberate practice part later, and find out what that means, but let’s start with clinical effectiveness, which we as therapists all certainly strive for. You’re very candid and self-revealing in this book, which I think is admirable. And it seems the thing that got you started on your quest towards improving your own clinical effectiveness was the realization early on in your training that you were only helping 50% of your clients. Can you tell us about that?
Tony Rousmaniere: When I initially started training at my first practicum, I was working with high school students and I had a number of the clients respond very quickly. They had a range of different goals and whether it was anxiety, or feeling depressed, or wanting to do better at school, and they showed what is called in the research literature, “rapid gains.”
VY: That’s always nice when that happens. It makes you feel like you know what you’re doing, or you’re doing something helpful.
TR: I went into the field feeling like I could be good at this. I’m good with people, so I was optimistic, and the initial response from clients gave me a lot of optimism. But as time went on,
I gradually realized to my disappointment that a fair amount of my clients were not improving.
I gradually realized to my disappointment that a fair amount of my clients were not improving. And when I started to try to assess overall how many that was, it was about 50%. I call that “my other 50%.” There’s some of them who responded a little, and then just plateaued. There’s some of them who deteriorated—they actually got worse during treatment—and then there are also a fair amount, at least a quarter of them, who just dropped out.
VY: Dropouts are certainly a big problem for almost all therapists. I certainly recall, especially early in my career, I had a file of dropouts that came once or twice, and it was a pretty thick file.
TR: Yeah. It’s something we don’t always like to talk about but it is pretty universal across therapists.
VY: So you took the initiative to take a frank look at this, and what did you find?
TR: Well, I spent a number of years throughout my training trying to figure out what was going wrong and then how could I improve. Specifically, how could I reach the 50% of clients that I wasn’t helping effectively? And I started going back to the traditional method of clinical supervision. I was doing the same clinical supervision that pretty much every graduate student does, where they’re meeting weekly with their supervisor for an hour or two individually, and then also with a group.


I’d often feel like I was getting better, and I was learning the theory better, so I could write better papers about psychotherapy, or I could talk in more sophisticated ways about psychotherapy, but the percentage of my clients actually improving stayed the same.
I was very fortunate that throughout my training I had really good supervisors. I know that’s not always the case, but every year of my graduate training I had supervisors who were very open, very collaborative, very encouraging. They had really good advice and understood psychotherapy theory and technique well, but I found that though I was getting all of this great advice from them and my peers in group supervision, my effectiveness was not actually improving.

I’d often feel like I was getting better, and I was learning the theory better, so I could write better papers about psychotherapy, or I could talk in more sophisticated ways about psychotherapy, but the percentage of my clients actually improving stayed the same.
VY: It sounds like one thing you did was actually track your data, which is something most of us don’t do. We rely more on the second form of feedback you described: Do we feel good about what we’re doing? Can we talk about it intelligently? Do our peers seem to respect us? But that’s not really what we’re in the field for.
TR: Our whole field suffers from a lack of outcome data at the individual therapist level. We have lots of data from randomized clinical trials which show you how therapists do in these tightly controlled circumstances. And we have some data from research collaboratives where they’ll track a large group of therapists over time. But pretty much no therapist individually tracks their own outcome data, or reports it to the public. So nobody really knows how effective they or other therapists are. We know how well we can talk about therapy, or how well we can write about therapy, or how well we can theorize about therapy, but imagine if you could never see a basketball player play, you could only hear them talk about how well they played. Or you could never hear a violinist perform, you could only hear them talk about it.

Imagine if you could never see a basketball player play, you could only hear them talk about how well they played.
This is a real problem in our field. Imagine learning to paint, but you’re never able to show your paintings to anyone. You would just describe them to someone and say, “In this painting I used a lot of green. It might have been too much. Do you think I should have used less?”
VY: When I produced my first video, and then got in the business of producing training videos, what I used to say is, imagine a dental student going to a lecture about dentistry, or about a certain technique like doing fillings, and then going off to perform the filling in a private room, and then meeting with a supervisor a week later to discuss what they did. Would you risk getting a filling from such a person? That’s the problem we’re dealing with. And that was one of the things that motivated me to start producing videos of expert therapists doing therapy.

So you were aware of this problem and used the traditional tools available for developing skills as a therapist: clinical supervision, reading, talking with colleagues.
TR: Going to workshops.
VY: But you still found that your client outcome data wasn’t getting better. How did you track your client outcome data?
TR: I was using one of the simpler outcome measures called the “Outcome Ratings Scale” that as well developed by Scott Miller and Barry Duncan and others, and is part of what’s called “Feedback Informed Treatment.” It’s very accessible—it’s free and can be downloaded from their websites. It lets therapists over time track how well each client is doing, and then if they get enough data, let’s say 30 to 50 clients, they can look at how well are they doing as a therapist overall.
VY: Once you got your data, what did you do then?
TR:

Deliberate Practice

Honestly, I just started casting about, trying everything I could get my hands on. I went to lots of different workshops, read lots of different books and got supervision from different people. I was in a supervision group with you, as you well know, where we actually used some of the methods of deliberate practice, though we didn’t call them that. In retrospect, I can see that they were, and we can talk about that later on.

But there’s one supervisor in particular I found, Jonathan Frederickson, who was trained as a classical musician, and as a musician he used the method of deliberate practice. He integrated deliberate practice into his supervision and I found that working with him, using those methods, that it really improved my effectiveness more directly.
VY: Can you define what deliberate practice is and where it came from?
TR: Sure. Did you ever learn a musical instrument?
VY: Depends what you mean by learn, but I tried. And achieved a very low level of mastery with a few instruments.
TR: What instruments?
VY: Piano. Clarinet. Banjo. Harmonica.
TR: So imagine you went to your piano teacher and you said, “I want to be really good at piano. In fact, I want to be a professional pianist. But I just don’t have time to practice. I’m hoping you can assign me some books so I can get better. We’ll meet once a week, and then in a few years I’d like to have some performances.” What do you think your piano instructor would say?
VY: If I could say that with a straight face, I’m sure I’d be laughed out of the room.
TR: Exactly. As part of learning piano you did deliberate practice. Did you ever learn a sport in school or college?
VY: Sure. I played tennis and I’m engaged in some deliberate practice of tennis these days. I have a weekly lesson and am playing during the week and trying to get better, but it’s very difficult.
TR: Well, imagine you went to your tennis coach and said, “I want to play tennis at a professional level, but I just don’t have time to practice. I mean, who has time for that? So let’s meet once a week. Give me some books I can read and I’ll make it work.” They would, again, laugh you out of the room, right?

Most people have experience with deliberate practice, they just do it in other fields. Many fields use deliberate practice as a core part of training—not just to be a professional, but to achieve basic competence, to achieve moderate expertise, and then to achieve full expertise.
VY: So what does that mean in a psychotherapy practice?
TR: Deliberate practice is a term invented by K. Anders Ericsson and colleagues in the early ‘90s. They were trying to figure out how experts achieved their expertise across a broad range of fields—musicians, athletes, chess masters, pilots, you name it—and they isolated only one variable that predicted expertise: solitary deliberate practice.

Deliberate practice is based on five principles. The first is observing your own work. So in psychotherapy that would be watching videotapes of your own work, or having an expert observe your work.

Second is getting expert feedback on the work. So that’s supervision or consultation.

The third is setting small incremental learning goals just beyond our ability. In tennis, that is turning your wrist a little to the left, or in piano it would be just working on this one note.
In psychotherapy, we talk about broad things like trying to improve the working alliance, but there are a hundred skills that fall under that broad umbrella.
In psychotherapy, we talk about broad things like trying to improve the working alliance, but there are a hundred skills that fall under that broad umbrella.

The fourth component is repetitive behavioral rehearsal of those specific skills. So when you’re playing tennis you’ve got the ball machine shooting balls at you and you’re just hitting the balls again and again and again. That’s your repetitive behavioral rehearsal. It lets you move the skills that you’re learning into behavioral memory, procedural memory, so that they can begin to happen automatically, which frees up your mind to think about more complicated parts of the game.

The fifth component of deliberate practice is continually assessing performance. That’s something we do subjectively in psychotherapy, but there’s a lot of research to show that our subjective assessments of client outcome are not terribly accurate.
VY: One thing you say in your book, which I find quite refreshing, is, “I am not a master clinician. I am not a master therapist.” Why did you write that?
TR: Well, I wanted to be very clear. This is not a book by an expert therapist and this wasn’t me imparting my wisdom about my therapy techniques. I am a beginner. I am relatively new to the field. However, I am obsessed with becoming a more effective therapist. I might not ever become an expert therapist. I might not ever become a master therapist. That’s okay. As long as I keep getting better, I feel really good about that. So I really wanted to frame this book from the very beginning as one about just trying to improve.
VY: How did you start learning about deliberate practice and then implementing it for yourself?
TR: Well, I should say that I actually found out about deliberate practice when I interviewed Scott Miller for Psychotherapy.net. In that interview, Scott Miller talked about deliberate practice for psychotherapists, and it was the first time I had ever heard of it. So he should get credit. He is the first psychologist to consider this for our field and he worked on this from the ground up.

My supervisor at the time only would supervise therapists who videotaped their work. He said the reason was that there’s so much nonverbal communication going on. A lot of it is totally unconscious. Unless we can see what’s happening in therapy, as well as hear it, we just don’t really know what’s going on. And as I showed him videotapes of my work, there were multiple instances where the transcript of the session looked like good therapy. It read like good therapy. But the nonverbal communication showed that the client wasn’t progressing at all.
VY: You give several examples of that in your book. Can you give us one now?
TR:
I found that I had a bunch of clients who were basically complying with me. They were pretending to go along with therapy.
I found that I had a bunch of clients who were basically complying with me. They were pretending to go along with therapy. They would answer my questions. They would think about themselves, but they weren’t really struggling within themselves. They were appeasing me and kind of assuming, “If I give Tony what he wants, somehow magically I’m going to feel better.”

And I was going along with this. In fact, sometimes I was even cutting them off. I was talking over them. That’s another thing you can’t see in a transcript. Sometimes my tone of voice was very strong. Theirs was very meek. You can’t catch that in a transcript. Sometimes I would be sitting forward, with a lot of intention in my seat, and they would be sitting back kind of passively. In psychodynamic therapy, we call these “transference dynamics.” Each model of therapy has a different way of discussing the relational dynamics between the client and the therapist, but I found that by watching video I was able to identify all kinds of mistakes I didn’t realize I was making.
VY: It takes courage to look at yourself and have someone else observe you.
TR: Thank you, but it felt more like desperation than courage. I got into this field because I really wanted to help people, and I had a lot of clients that I really cared about. I really wanted to help them but I wasn’t. Sometimes they’d drop out and sometimes they’d deteriorate, and that really pained me.

I could give you another example. Role-plays are another great way of getting direct observation of your work and we would do role-plays in the consultation group you and I were in together. You observed while I was role-playing with one of the other group members that my voice was kind of forced.
VY: Yes.
TR: Do you remember?
VY: I do remember it, yeah.
TR:
My voice sounded like someone trying to be a therapist rather than just being a real person.
I was trying to be a therapist. And my voice sounded like someone trying to be a therapist rather than just being a real person.
VY: Right.
TR: That would have never shown up in a transcript. What you advised me to do is to work on this specific skill. We isolated the specific skill. You said, “Just try talking naturally, Tony. Just try saying whatever you’d say naturally.” And if you remember, it was hard. It took a lot of practice for me to do that. I don’t know if I ever told you this, but I went back after that group and I watched video after video of my clients and I practiced just talking naturally to my clients in the videos.
VY: You just sat by yourself and practiced saying the words aloud?
TR: Yeah.
VY: Wow. So that’s an example of solitary deliberate practice. You were just sitting by yourself with a video and practicing speaking.
TR: Exactly. In most other fields, the bulk of the training actually occurs during solitary deliberate practice. So a professional musician might get coaching a few hours a week, but then they’re spending 20 hours a week practicing on their own. The same with an athlete. Same with a master chess player. And that is something that we do not have in our field. We spend time reading about psychotherapy a lot. But we don’t spend time practicing skills ourselves, so the skills don’t move into procedural memory, and then we’re often left floundering in session.
VY: I remember that term procedural memory from graduate school, but I don’t remember what it is. Can you refresh our readers about what it means and why it’s important?
TR: When you ride a bike you are using procedural memory. When you drive a car you’re using procedural memory. It’s when your body just remembers automatically how to do something, because you’ve done it so many hours. It’s automatic. So you can think about other things while you’re driving—like how to get to your destination—because your body knows how to make turns and yield and stop at the light.

Now, that can be a double-edged sword. My wife points out quite frequently that my driving is not always so great. But it’s in procedural memory, so I do it automatically. We want to get the skills into procedural memory, but then we want to also keep refining them throughout time, or else we stay stuck at the same plateau.
VY: Getting back to deliberate practice, so the first step is observing your own work, and one way to do it is through video. Getting expert feedback is step two, and you were getting some feedback from your supervisor about your work via video. The next step is setting small incremental learning goals just beyond your abilities. How do you do that?
TR: Ideally that’s done by the supervisor. In the group supervision we were in, you identified my voice being forced, which was something I couldn’t hear in myself. You showed me how to improve that and then let me practice it. In the group, you gave me little tweaks here and there. Try a little of this, a little of that. And then I took it home to practice on my own with the solitary deliberate practice. Ideally we’re getting that kind of corrective feedback that focuses on specific incremental skills throughout our careers. That’s how you learn pretty much any other skill.
VY: In any other field you’re getting constant feedback. If you’re a lawyer, you’re observing your senior try a case and you’re sitting next to him and maybe you’re getting up and doing some things and they’re observing you. If you’re in plumbing, you’re an apprentice plumber, you’re going to watch a master, they’re going to watch you. We’re about the only field that I can think of where that doesn’t happen on a regular basis.
TR: I think we actually work in one of the most secret fields on the planet, though not intentionally so.
I think we actually work in one of the most secret fields on the planet.
I mean, obviously there’s confidentiality rules and that kind of thing, but even CIA agents in deep cover every few years get some kind of performance review. But I could go the next 30 years without ever having anyone give a meaningful look at my work. We’re required to do continuing education units, but that’s generally about cognitive learning, which is valuable for learning new laws or new theories, but a lot of research has shown that it doesn’t translate to improved skills or effectiveness with clients.
VY: You cite a lot of evidence in your book that even years of clinical experience don’t lead to improved performance.
TR:

The Audience Can Tell the Difference

Researchers have been looking into this for decades. There’s literally decades of research and they’re trying every which way to show that experience improves performance. But except for isolated cases here and there—for example, experienced clinicians can do better with severely psychotic clients—experience is not associated with improved performance.

I think this can be possibly explained by the fact that we do not as a field engage with ongoing deliberate practice. You could take a professional basketball player and if you tell them that they’re not allowed to practice anymore, and then ask them to play 10 years later, they’re not going to be as good.

My friend plays for the symphony in Washington, DC, and she practices two hours a day, six days a week. She’s at the very top of her field and she still practices. She’s getting close to retiring. She still practices. I asked her why she still practices and she said, “If I go a day without practicing, I can tell the difference. If I go two days without practicing, my peers can tell the difference. If I go three days without practicing, the audience can tell the difference.”
VY: The evidence is compelling, but it flies in the face of what we as clinicians think. Most of us feel a lot more confident ten or twenty years into our practice. We feel like we know so much more, not only from our clinical work, but from our life experience. We can empathize with a broader range of clients because we have a broader range of experiences ourselves. We’re not so anxious in session, worrying about how clients are going to think of us, and whether they are going to see how young and inexperienced we are. So it just feels like we are much better therapists. Yet you’re saying that the evidence does not bear that out.
TR: Well, the evidence shows that there’s a lot of variability. Some therapists do improve in time. But some get worse over time. And because we’re typically not tracking our outcome data from an empirical perspective, it’s hard for us to know. We have a lot of cognitive biases, not because we’re bad people, but because it’s the way our brains were built. So it’s risky to trust your own private perception of your work over time without ever getting feedback.

Unfortunately relying on our clients’ opinions is not entirely reliable either. There’s been many studies showing that clients will routinely not tell their therapists when they’re not doing well. In fact, Matt Blanchard and Barry Farber at Columbia University did a study of over 500 clients and found that 93% of them reported having lied to their therapist. Negative reactions to therapy was one of the most common topics they lied about, including pretending to find therapy effective, and not admitting wanting to end therapy.

Now, almost every client I have in my practice has been in multiple previous therapies that they found to be marginally effective or not effective at all. They probably did not tell their previous therapist this. I can tell you, I have a lot of dropouts. I’ve had an overall 25% dropout rate across my career.
Almost none of my clients tell me that I’m not helping them before they drop out. They just leave.
Almost none of my clients tell me that I’m not helping them before they drop out. They just leave. These are the clients we need feedback from the most. Clients who are like, “Oh, this is helping so much!” are not as helpful with their feedback.
VY: Are you still using the same forms to get feedback from your clients?
TR: I use a variety of forms—the session rating scale and some others. I’m always experimenting with different ways of getting feedback from clients and also from experts—but what I do most now is record all of my sessions through video and then get expert feedback on the sessions.
VY: And when you have dropouts, if you look back on those rating forms, do you see warnings signs?
TR: Yes. There often are, but not always. Many clients feel pressure to be nice to their therapist. Look, when I’m at a restaurant and I don’t really like the food, and they come around and ask me how’s the food, I don’t often say, “It’s kind of crappy.” I usually say, “Oh, it’s fine.”
VY: So let’s get back to the final two steps of deliberate practice: engaging in repetitive behavioral rehearsal and continuously assessing performance. How have you gone about doing that?
TR:

Jazzing it Up

So the first three steps we’ve covered are usually pretty easy for therapists to understand, but I often lose them when I talk about repetitive behavioral rehearsal. They’re like, “Psychotherapy is a relational art. Every session is different. Every relationship is unique. This isn’t just playing chess and moving pieces around. It’s not football or basketball where the net is always in the same place. Our clients change their goals every session. We work in an infinitely complex field. So, how can we repetitively practice behavioral skills?”

A metaphor I like to use is jazz. Jazz is the kind of music that utilizes improvisation as an inherent part of the craft. But jazz musicians don’t just sit down and start randomly doing whatever they want on their instruments. To become a jazz musician, you actually go through very rigorous training where you’re learning standardized ways of playing your instrument. You’re learning the same notes as everyone else. You’re learning the same theory as everyone else. You’re practicing the same way as everyone else. And when all those musical skills are moved into procedural memory, you’re then able to improvise with other performers.
VY: That’s why I never got too far with clarinet, because I wanted to improvise. I just wanted to be able to improvise like jazz, but I wasn’t willing to spend the hundreds or thousands of hours playing the scales.
TR: There’s been a lot of research that shows that slavishly adhering to psychotherapy models, kind of following them cookbook style, or doing exactly what’s in the manual with every client, actually leads to worse outcomes. So that doesn’t help either.

There’s a tricky balance where on one hand you know the skills, you’ve internalized the skills, you’ve practiced the skills. But then on the other hand, you’re very adaptable and reflexive to the client.
VY: I think what you’ve pointed out is not obvious to therapists at all, because we just don’t have that in our professional culture, in our training. As you said, so much of the focus is on theory, on reading books, on writing papers, on being able to sound intelligent in class or seminars or group supervision. What are the actual skills to practice?
TR: Many people assume that since they’ve gotten lots of face-to-face hours with clients that that should count as practice. To get a degree and get licensed, typically you have to have hundreds or thousands of hours with clients.

It only counts as practice if there isn’t a real client in front of you.
Something K. Anders Ericsson and the other researchers on expertise found was that it only counts as practice if there isn’t a real client or real engagement in front of you. So a basketball player playing a game doesn’t count as practice. A musician performing doesn’t count as practice. A chess player playing a match doesn’t count as practice. That’s all considered performance. And the reason is that during performance you can’t isolate a specific skill, and you can’t repeat it again and again and again while getting feedback.
VY: I see that in tennis. I’ve spent years trying to learn a top-spin backhand, and yet when I play matches, I’m worried about winning the point. I default to hitting a slice. I don’t do what I’ve learned.
TR: Well that takes us back to procedural memory. When we’re in moments of what we call emotional arousal, your brain immediately goes to procedural memory. That is why it’s important to practice these skills behaviorally and repeat them hundreds and hundreds of times until they’re moved into procedural memory—so you can perform them in those moments of emotional arousal.

In psychotherapy, we work in states of very high emotional arousal. We help clients who are suffering intensely. And we feel that suffering while we’re sitting with them. So we will go almost immediately into procedural memory.
VY: We don’t have a lot of experience or knowledge about how to practice skills that are fundamental in the psychotherapy enterprise. How did you figure this out since there wasn’t a manual for you?
TR: Most fields have taken hundreds of years to figure out models and methods for deliberate practice. I’m hoping that we can start this. Because there wasn’t already a model or method for doing it, I focused on what’s called “facilitative interpersonal behaviors.” These are behaviors that have been shown by research to be effective in therapy across a wide range of models. You can think of them as the basics of psychotherapy. Many of them have to do with attunement with the clients in session, components of the working alliance.

A lot of research shows again and again that the quality of the working alliance in therapy contributes ten times more to outcome than the model or anything else. Bruce Wampold has written a lot about this in his books. He calls it “the contextual model for psychotherapy,” where he focuses on facilitative interpersonal behaviors. An example of that would be tone of voice. I’ve noticed that if I’m not careful I can start speaking louder than my clients. I can talk over them. I can basically overpower them with my voice. This is sometimes due to my own anxiety that goes up in session due sometimes to what they’re presenting, or my own counter-transference.
VY: How do you work on that?
TR: I sit with my own videos, especially videos of clients that I find stir up my own anxiety, and I will practice talking to the video in a level voice. I want to be engaged.
VY: You’ll literally be watching a video and just practice speaking?
TR: Yes. If someone saw me doing that, they would think I was crazy. But think of it like a basketball player shooting, practicing free throws. They’ll just sit there doing it again and again and again, and they might do a hundred a day. So I’ll spend 15 minutes just practicing speaking to videos of clients who I find I have some anxiety with when in session with them.
VY: So you’re experimenting with different tones of voice, and kind of get that into your body, into your procedural memory.
TR: Yes. Another thing I’ll do is I’ll watch videos where there’s clients who are stalled, deteriorating, something’s not going well. I’ll watch the sessions with the volume off. And I will take notes about everything I see in terms of their body language. And as I watch that, I’ll also notice my own anxiety. Does my own anxiety go up or down based on their body language?
VY: Your anxiety in the session, or your anxiety as you’re—
TR: Watching the video.
VY: Your anxiety as you’re sitting there watching the video?
TR: Yeah. I found this very surprising at first, but just watching my own videos was incredibly mobilizing of my own anxiety, my own feelings, and my own defenses. Every therapist I’ve talked with who watches videos of their own work also finds it to be quite challenging emotionally.

It’s exposing ourselves to ourselves, and in a way that we normally aren’t. And that’s one of the reasons it’s difficult to videotape and then watch your own work. So if I can sit there watching the video and noticing the body language and noticing my own anxiety, those are two different skills I’m working on. If I can do enough of that so it moves to procedural memory when I’m sitting with the real clients in front of me, it’ll be that much easier to do those skills in the background, so I can focus on something else.
VY: And what impact did that have on your work? How did you know or notice that that was actually helping you?
TR: Well, one thing I noticed is that I have a butt-load of anxiety with a lot of my clients. And I was shocked to find out. At first I was incredibly embarrassed. I didn’t want to tell anyone. And then I realized that some people could tell anyways when I talked about it with them. And then I thought, keeping it secret is not going to help anyone.
One thing I noticed is that I have a butt-load of anxiety with a lot of my clients. And I was shocked to find out.
And then I realized most therapists have some degree of emotional reaction. I’m a psychodynamic therapist; we call this “counter-transference.” But I also found that there’s a certain level of anxiety that’s kind of universal working with all of my clients. So I don’t know if it’s individual counter-transference from a certain client, or it’s just me.

Some of it might be a sympathetic reaction to what the client is bringing up. Some of it is just my own material. Some of it is wanting to do a good job. And there’s just a certain level of anxiety always going up and down within me during a session. I’m still not really good at this, but I’ve gotten better at tracking that in the background during the session. I can use it psychodiagnostically. So if a client is talking about something that really bothers them, but they’re good at hiding it in their words or even nonverbals, I can often feel their anxiety within me. A sympathetic reaction to their anxiety within me. There’s a clue there.
VY: Using yourself as a tool.
TR: Exactly. When I talk about deliberate practice, people often assume I’m talking about CBT or behavioral therapy, but that’s not accurate. The most benefit I’ve gotten from the deliberate practice methods has been with the more dynamic interpersonal/intrapersonal aspects of therapy.
VY: What do you mean by that?
TR: The more subtle, intuitive sense of myself and the transference roles being played out between me and the client, what I feel pulled to do with the client, how that might be repeating old problematic patterns from the client’s life. How my own counter-transference might be getting stirred up, and I might be guiding the client towards or away from material in ways that are unhelpful. How I might be retreating.

I’ll give you another example. A supervisor once pointed out that I was being critical of a client. I was horrified by this. Horrified. My job is to be empathic, not critical. And if you read the transcript, I was not coming across as critical. In the transcript, I was coming across as very supportive. But he said, “Listen to your voice. It’s critical right here.” I was embarrassed to admit it, but I actually had a sharp edge in my voice. And that was due to my own counter-transference.
VY: Whether you use the term counter-transference or not, or whether you work with a model that has transference or counter-transference or intersubjectivity, or as an important part of a theoretical model, those things are happening anyway.
TR: Yes.
VY: There are feelings between client and therapist that you’re feeling drawn orcompel us to do compelled with certain thing with certain clientsclients to do certain things, whether you act on them or not, whether it’s to support them, whether it’s to tell them what to do. Whether you feel detached or bored. Or whether they pull on your anxiety in one way or the other. Those types of dynamics are always occurring, whether you’re paying attention to them or not.
TR: Many of us know this from reading the theory, but we haven’t practiced actually noticing it in the moment. We practice it with real clients, but that doesn’t count as practice. So, one of the ways that I have addressed this is I’ll sit and watch videos of clients where, again, they’re stalled or deteriorating. And I will just write down what do I feel pulled to do. Do I feel pulled to save them? To criticize them? To support them? Or what role do I kind of want to be in with them?

And over time, doing this again and again, and again, I’ve built my ability to observe that as it happens in session.
VY: So the final idea in deliberate practice is continuously assessing performance. Usually we think that most of our training belongs in graduate school or early in our careers, when we’re interns or psych assistants, accumulating our hours. But you believe that if we want to achieve our maximum proficiency, we should be like other professions and keep doing whatever is necessary to get to the top of our game.
TR: In pretty much every other profession, professionals have to engage in continual deliberate practice throughout their entire career. And if they don’t, they stall, and then gradually decrease in effectiveness.
VY: Let me just challenge you on that. If you’re a professional athlete or musician, yes, you’re going to spend hours a day practicing. Most other professions, I think, you don’t do that. If you’re a surgeon, you do surgery. If you’re a lawyer, you do legal work. You’re not setting aside time to actually practice being a lawyer or a surgeon.
TR:

Competency vs. Excellence

Surgeons actually do set aside time now, and they engage in repetitive behavioral simulations. For other fields, including psychotherapy, it is possible to stay at a level of competence without deliberate practice. So I believe most therapists are competent. In fact, by the end of graduate training, most therapists are competent. Overall, the outcome data for psychotherapy is pretty good. It compares favorably to medicine in many ways. Our deterioration rate of 5 to 10% is actually not horrible. The rate of complications or side effects is very low. The rate of legal problems, people suing us, is relatively low. Overall, we perform a competent service, right? And you can stay an absolutely competent therapist your entire career without using deliberate practice.

Now if you’re an accountant, you might not need to get better. Being competent might be totally fine for your livelihood. Or if you’re a lawyer, being competent might be totally fine for your livelihood. And I’ve met musicians who don’t engage in deliberate practice. They’ve found a level of competence which works for them and they’re totally happy with that. That’s totally fine. For me, it’s not satisfying. It wasn’t satisfying. And it still isn’t satisfying. But that doesn’t mean that it has to be appropriate for everyone.
VY:
You can stay an absolutely competent therapist your entire career without using deliberate practice.
I know that for several years your wife got a job at the University of Fairbanks and you were up there with a lot of darkness. And you used that time productively by learning about deliberate practice and some of these exercises you’ve just described. For therapists that are reading this and are intrigued, and do have that desire to up their game, in addition to reading your book—which is wonderful and well-written and also very funny at times—what would you advise them to do in terms of utilizing these principles?
TR: I’d recommend a few things. One is record your work. Video is really the most effective way of doing that. Using video for consultation supervision is now becoming more and more recommended across the field, and I have advice in the book about how to start videotaping your work. I want to emphasize that this is especially true for psychodynamic therapists, who are traditionally the most resistant to reporting their work.
VY: A lot of therapists worry that their clients will be put off by that.
TR: There’s been a bunch of research on this, and they’ve found that clients in general don’t mind. The client wants to get better. That’s really what the client is thinking about. I don’t mandate recording video for all my clients. I always ask them and it’s always optional and 10 or 20 percent say they don’t want to do it. I don’t argue with them about it.
VY: So you think it’s the therapists who are more uncomfortable about it?
TR: The research shows that, absolutely. Mark Hilsenroth, a psychodynamic researcher, and colleagues did a study recently where they gave the clients questionnaires about using video, and most of the clients were like, “fine, no problem.” They just want to feel better. When I go to the doctor, I’m like “do whatever you got to do.” I want to feel better. That’s what I’m thinking about. However, they also gave the questionnaires to therapists, and they found that when the therapist was uncomfortable with video, the clients were more likely to be uncomfortable with video.

I almost got fired from one of my first supervision jobs because other supervisors were uncomfortable with me using video. Therapists can be very uncomfortable with it, which I find to be quite ironic. Because the clients don’t seem to mind much.
VY: How do you introduce it to clients?
TR: I’m very upfront with the client. I say, “ I’m a human being, I make mistakes like everyone else. And if we record the session, and I can look at the videos later, or show them to experts for consultation, I have a much higher chance of spotting my mistakes. And then we can address them and then I can help you more.”
VY: It makes so much sense. And as you say it now, I recall early in my career, maybe in my internship when we audio recorded our sessions, the idea that I might make mistakes, or that I was getting supervision or consultation, filled me with a lot of anxiety. I think that’s more reflective of the state of anxiety that many beginning therapists feel. And as you mature you realize you’re not perfect, that you don’t help everyone, that there’s always more to learn. Certainly a maxim in psychotherapy is that there is no end to what clients can learn about themselves. There’s certainly no end to what therapists can learn about themselves, including how to be a better therapist.
TR: I’ve found through watching years of my own tapes that if I work with a client for two or three sessions, I’ve already made a mistake. Honestly, I probably made a mistake in the first session, which sometimes can take two or three sessions for me to see. So if I’m not seeing my own mistakes by the third session, it means I’m missing something. And I’m okay with that.
I don’t think being an expert means never making mistakes.
I don’t think being an expert means never making mistakes. It means knowing how to spot your mistakes and correct for them in a timely way.
VY: All right. So you’d encourage therapists first to start video recording their sessions. And then what?
TR: To get expert feedback from someone that they trust. It’s got to be someone you feel good about it. A good supervisor is able to get under your skin. You were able to notice something in my voice. And that’s personal, that’s intimate. And it was okay because I trusted you. We had a good relationship. Without a relationship like that, it’s going to be hard to get the necessary feedback. Ideally it’s a long-term relationship. A lot of our trainings are these one-off weekends or series of two or three weekends, where you’re getting a big knowledge dump, but no one is looking at your work. You’re not getting individualized feedback. And then you’re not getting ongoing long-term feedback. But that’s what’s necessary for the skills to improve.
VY: I think that may be changing. Some of the approaches that we’ve just been making videos of—motivational interviewing and emotionally-focused couples therapy— actually have a lot of that integrated into their ongoing training, where you have to submit samples of your work and get feedback on it. But what you’re saying makes a lot of sense.

Research shows that most therapists think they’re well above average, which statistically is impossible. How do we then go about choosing a supervisor, a consultant, who is good?
TR: This is tricky because I don’t know any supervisor who tracks their outcome data or reports it to people who are approaching them for supervision. At this point all we can really go off of is our gut sense, and occasionally we can watch videos of our supervisor’s work. I found you because I met you and had a good feeling about you. And then as we did supervision together I found it was helpful. But ideally we’ll have a more empirically rigorous way of assessing that in the future.
VY: I tell therapy clients to meet with a therapist a few times. If it doesn’t feel helpful, you may want to discuss with them what feels good, what doesn’t feel good, and see if they’re open and receptive to hearing that. If they’re not, or the therapy doesn’t feel helpful, try someone else. It’s too important not to.

So get a coach, supervisor, a consultant. And then what?
TR:

Track Your Outcomes!

Another thing I recommend doing is tracking your own outcomes, and then using some kind of empirical measure to do that. The outcome ratings scale is a great measure to use. It’s free. It’s easy to use. There are dozens of other measures available. There’s the Outcome Questionnaire. There’s the Behavioral Health Measure. There’s measures made for different settings, like universities, or working with children. And accumulate your own outcome data over time. And over years you’ll start to get a picture of how effective your practice is.

One of the reasons I started doing this is I had a supervisor look at my work and she thought I was doing horrible work. In fact, she said, “You want to kill your clients.” I was shocked. I knew I had made mistakes but I didn’t think I was that bad. But I didn’t have any data; it was just one opinion versus another. This is one of the reasons I doubled down on collecting my outcome data. After a year I had enough outcome data to look at my practice and see that overall I was helping the majority of my clients.

I definitely still have dropouts and deteriorations, but it helped my self-assessment be more level. Before then, there were some weeks I felt like Superman. I felt like everyone was getting better. And then some weeks where it seemed like everyone was getting worse. Of course, neither was ever true.
VY: But we certainly have days like that. If you’re in private practice and you have a few dropouts, or a few no-shows, it’s hard not to feel like something is wrong with you. So getting long-term outcome data is kind of a buffer for that.
TR: I found that my outcomes at my private practice in San Francisco were pretty good. The outcomes at the university counseling center in Alaska were not as good.
The outcome data never looks all good. And it never looks all bad.
Maybe that was due to the setting, the clients, maybe it was due to the darkness. Maybe it was because I was on the edge of being depressed because I was in the middle of Alaska. I mean, it could have been any number of things. Back here in Seattle, the outcome data is looking a little better. But importantly the outcome data never looks all good. And it never looks all bad.
VY: So it’s not so bad that you think you should hang up your shingle. And it’s not so good that you think, “I nailed this. I can coast.”
TR: Yes. Correct.
VY: So people start recording their sessions, getting a consultant in a long-term relationship, but the rubber meets the road with deliberate practice. What would you recommend to help people get over the initial hurdle, because I imagine it’s a big hurdle to actually sit down and do some of these solo exercises that you recommend.
TR:

“It’s the thing I look forward to least in my day”

It is a big hurdle. It’s the thing I look forward to the least in my day. It’s the thing I put off the first in my day. I would rather go to the gym, pay my taxes. In the recent election I was making get out the vote phone calls, which is a very stressful thing to do, and I found that I would do that before my deliberate practice. So it is very, very stressful. And unfortunately in our field it’s not recognized. It’s not rewarded. You’re not compensated for it. Your clients don’t know you’re doing it. Your peers don’t know you’re doing it, or don’t care. A licensure that never asks, or doesn’t care if you do it.
VY: Your spouse may prefer that you go wash the dishes, rather than sit and talk to yourself on video.
TR: Exactly. And to add to that burden is the fact that there are not immediate payoffs. They call deliberate practice short-term effort for long-term gain. So here’s what I do: I think of the therapists who are really, really good who I want to be like. And I know from talking with them that they got that good by engaging in hundreds or thousands of hours of watching their own videos. I’m not smarter than them. I’m not more talented than them. If I ever want to be that good, I’m going to have to put in that time.

The same way that if I wanted to be a really good basketball player, or a really good anything else. It might not make me as good as they are, but it will definitely move me in that direction. I have a reminder that pops up on my computer every day that says, “How good do you want to be in five years?” Now, if that day I don’t really care how good I am in five years, I won’t do it. And that might be fine. I might feel like I’m good enough, and that’s totally fine. But as of today, I still want to be that much better in five years.
VY: Well, I admire what you’re doing. And I’m gratified that I was able to impart some wisdom that was useful to you. It’s lovely to have this conversation and to have been able to read your book and have the tables turned and to be able to learn some very valuable things from you, Tony.
TR: Oh, thank you. To be interviewed by you for your website, it’s a great honor.
VY: I would encourage anyone who finds these ideas interesting to go out and grab your book and read it. Although it is chock full of research citations to back up what you’re saying, it’s not just idle theory. It’s also chock full of funny stories, humorous anecdotes, and I guess I’d like to just leave our audience with one of them. Can you tell the story about the job at the university?
TR:

Professional Identity Politics

Sure. My wife was applying for a job at a university in the West that really wanted to hire her. It was a very small town, and it was full of therapists, so I didn’t think I could just start a private practice there. She’s a wildlife biologist and the ecology department at that university that wanted to hire her were trying to arrange what’s called a “spousal hire,” which is something traditionally done in academic circles when they want to hire a person and there’s a spouse. They call it the “two body problem.” So they went to the university counseling center and they said, “We will give you money, we will pay for the salary if you hire Tony for three years. Part-time. Just so we can get his wife. We don’t care about Tony, but we want his wife, and Tony comes with the wife.” In other words they could have had me as a part-time therapist for three years for free.

We’re more like religions than any kind of public healthcare service.
They asked me to submit videos of my work as part of the application process and I thought, “This is great. I’ve been videotaping my work for years now.” So I sent in some videos and went in for the interview and they were horrified by my work. The style of therapy that I do is short-term psychodynamic psychotherapy. It’s a bit more active and engaged and I work actively with the client’s feelings and defenses. They were doing a more traditional long-term, reflective approach of psychodynamic therapy. When we were watching the video they kept asking, “Do you think this is appropriate for the client?” I kept saying to them, “Why don’t we look at the client outcome data. Why don’t we look at how the client responded?”

It’s like we were having two different conversations. They weren’t really concerned with how the client was responding. They were concerned with the model of therapy I was using. It made me realize that we’re more like religion than any kind of public healthcare service.
VY: You wrote in your book that they weren’t interested in your outcome data any more than a church would want to see how many meals a Buddhist monk had provided to the poor!
TR: Exactly. If we don’t collect our outcome data, if we don’t look at our work, we get unmoored from the outcomes, and we get stuck in professional identity politics where have all these debates about obscure theory because we don’t have actual outcome data to look at. They actually liked me as a person. They said, “You’re such a nice guy. It’s a shame it’s not going to work out.” But they didn’t accept me, and so we couldn’t move there, she didn’t take the job.
VY: The interesting thing is you were both in the general rubric of psychodynamic therapy where oftentimes the clashes are most intense.
TR: Yes.
VY: I had a college roommate who was a Leninist and he would go to some Communist convention. Probably less than a very, very small percentage of the population consider themselves Communist. And instead of coming back with a Kumbaya feeling, he would come back and report to me the big clashes between the Stalinists and the Leninists.

And even now with this emphasis on evidence-based treatments, or so-called evidence-based treatments, there’s a clash often between modalities, not taking into account that the data finds that modalities and theories do not explain outcome.
TR: If anyone ever talks to you about evidence-based treatment, ask them whose evidence. If it’s someone else’s evidence, it is not correlated with your personal outcomes as a therapist. There’s been study after study after study showing that though the models are proven very effective in clinical trials, when taught to therapists they don’t improve the outcomes of individual therapists.
Until evidence means our individual evidence, we’re not really doing evidence-based therapy.
Until evidence means our individual evidence, we’re not really doing evidence-based therapy. We’re working from someone else’s evidence.
VY: Well thank you so much for taking the time to share your journey and your expertise with our readers. Even though you humbly claim not to be an expert therapist, you certainly have accumulated a great deal of expertise on how to become an expert or master therapist.
TR: Yeah, I am learning a lot about how to become one. And thank you for having me. It’s been wonderful.

Note: Tony’s latest article, "What Your Therapist Doesn’t Know," has been been published in The Atlantic.

Ayahuasca Is My Therapist (Or Is It?)

It was about 4am, and the ceremony had concluded. People were making their way from the jungle marquee towards the “temple” and kitchen where hot soup was waiting. Some walked in silence, while others began to talk of their experience. I sat in the circle longer than most, taking in the scene. I had drunk 4 times in total. Each drink taken in an effort to catalyze some sort of non-ordinary experience. The Peruvian curandero chuckling mischievously each time I returned, tapping his head and saying “stubborn, like a donkey,” before offering me another cup of the sacred brew. Despite my four cups, I had sat through the night fairly uneventfully, watching as people sat in silence, moaned, sang, cried, and laughed their way though 6 hours of “medicine” journey.

I wandered up the hill, trying to determine whether my perception was in any way changed, and concluding that the jungle bathed in full-moon light was special enough to account for the subtle sense of magic I was feeling. I arrived in the dimly lit kitchen, and fixed myself some pumpkin soup and bread. I sat on a little staircase and took in the scene around me. People in blankets and beanies, eyes twinkling. After a time a man approached and began to speak to me. I noticed in passing that his T-Shirt read, “Ayahuasca is my Therapist.” This man—let’s call him Fred—turned out to be something of a professional ayahuasca evangelist. He told me in his jovial British accent of his travels around the world spreading the word through medicine circle after medicine circle. He told me of skeptics who became believers: bankers, engineers, doctors, and drug addicts.

His stories were interesting, but I didn’t really feel like talking all that much. As I plotted my way to a sentence that might free me from Fred’s grasp I noticed that his poncho was taking on an odd texture. “I looked up at his face again only to find myself looking into the face of a large owl.” I squinted and closed my eyes. I opened them again. I was looking at a jaguar or some other big cat. I looked at the floor and stood, giving up on any hope of forming a polite sentence to excuse myself. What do you say to an owl anyway?

I made my way to a low couch and lay down as the voices in the room became cacophonous. I called out to a woman—let’s call her Jane—who I trusted and who I knew was nearby. She was one of the “midwives,” skilled in sitting with people as they “journeyed.” She came and I asked her to take me to the temple. It felt like someone had turned up the dial on all my senses, and in an effort to dull the world I had placed my blanket over my head. She gently took my arm and led me away from the others. We arrived at the temple, a beautifully crafted small space with high windows and a wooden floor. Thankfully it was empty. I sat there and moved quickly into my journey, which lasted some 2-3 hours. Jane sat by me the whole time, silently offering support and modeling a certain trust in the process.

That journey was profound for me, as have been the journeys I have taken with ayahuasca in the three years since. I learned that night that a little bit of food helps my body start to work with the ayahuasca, and since then I always take a small bag of nuts or a piece of bread. To some aficionados this is a “no go,” but hey, it works for me. I could write about my experiences with ayahuasca, all the lessons I think I’ve learned, the ways I’ve grown or changed, and the places I’ve been, and I think that’d make for some interesting reading. But this piece is about something else. And it comes back to the statement on Fred’s T-Shirt: “Ayahuasca is my Therapist.”

Or Is It?

I was a psychotherapist when I met Fred, and I am still a psychotherapist. I am also regularly in therapy myself. It’s often powerful, healing work, and an absolute privilege for the therapist. But it takes time, costs money, and—for many clients—is difficult. If there were a way to bypass the work of therapy, and achieve the same ends—or greater ends—more cheaply, more effectively, and perhaps even more beautifully, then I’d be first in line. Is ayahuasca an alternative to therapy? Or do these experiences relate to each other in some other way? It’s taken me a few years to gain clarity around this question.

In the ayahuasca community I have encountered those who speak of therapists as though they prey on the weak, benefiting from their misery, while contributing to locking them into their stories of stuck-ness and separation. To some, this is an attractive conspiracy that has a certain resonance with other conspiracies of insidious power structures that inhibit the Great Awakening. Some of these same people see ayahuasca as a panacea—a cure-all—for the ills of contemporary society. In the medicine community there often seems to be a simplistic assumption that ayahuasca can have only a good impact on the individual or the collective, but my own experiences tell a different story, and perhaps a more nuanced one.

My emerging understanding of the place of ayahuasca in the journey towards human wholeness is informed by a number of things. Over the last five years I have worked with a growing number of clients who have come to me, in part, to talk about their experiences with ayahuasca. I also teach transpersonal psychology and encounter many—often young—students who are participating in medicine circles or are considering doing so. Finally, I have been to number of extended retreats where I have come to know the participants and facilitators, and something of their stories and personalities, and what ayahuasca means to them.

The Ayahuasca Experience

There are a great many things the ayahuasca experience does for people. In many instances the experience itself is quite radically different from a person’s everyday or ordinary waking experience. What is more, the experience usually takes place in the context of a supportive exploratory community. People report that experiences with ayahuasca include profound personal healing, intergenerational healing, deep psychological insight, a recognition of inter-being with others and with the earth, life-changing spiritual peak-experiences, insights into the nature of mind, liberation from ego, a sense of spiritual community, a shift from ego-centrism to eco-centrism, and an opportunity for exploration and adventure. This list could go on and on.

How does the individual integrate or understand these experiences? How do these experiences relate to and inform the individual's everyday existence? Are they always beneficial? If not, then in what ways can they be detrimental? For some people the integration is quite obvious and seamless. But my work with clients and students suggests that for some, repeated ayahuasca experiences do not necessarily lead to fuller, happier lives. As ayahuasca becomes more widely available I feel it would be good to see a more balanced discourse emerge around what we might call “best practice.” This discussion might include an exploration of the role of the facilitator and his/her ongoing responsibility, an outline of supportive or aligned mindfulness and health practices, and an understanding of social and psychological contraindications. But for now we might ask more simply, ““When is it not a good idea to drink more ayahuasca?””

Before proceeding here I want to re-emphasise that I do not seek to generate fear around the phenomenon of ayahuasca, nor to suggest that its use is inherently dangerous or misguided. On the whole I think its emergence is a blessing and an opportunity for humanity. Rather, I am seeking to introduce some discernment in the use of—and “pushing” of—ayahuasca, and also to explore the place of ayahuasca alongside something like regular psychotherapy. I do not feel that I have all the answers, but I do feel that I can ask some well informed questions.

Spiritual Bypassing

One of the phrases that I’ve come across in researching working with people and their experiences with plant medicines is “spiritual bypassing,” a term coined by author and therapist John Welwood. Spiritual bypassing is essentially the tendency to avoid, or bypass, certain aspects of our day-to-day existence through an escape to a more spiritual realm. Very often what is being “bypassed” are those more stubborn and abiding aspects of our psychologies relating to personal or emotional “unfinished business.” People particularly susceptible to spiritual bypassing are those who are struggling with what therapists might call “developmental tasks.”

A classic caricature of a person engaged in spiritual bypassing is the monk who returns from a year-long cave retreat to a lunch with his family, only to find himself emotionally charged and bickering with his parents. Closer to home, my own encounters with spiritual bypassing involve working with people from the medicine community who have difficulty in two key areas: 1) In getting the affairs of their life in order—family, work, money, and physical health or 2) Forming and maintaining nourishing relationships. Just as work and relationships alone may not fulfill our spiritual hunger, so it could be said that spiritual work alone cannot enable us to deal with the challenges of relationship and modern life. In medicine communities it is not uncommon to encounter individuals who struggle with forming satisfying relationships, or with life’s practical demands, returning again and again to ayahuasca as therapist. It was my witnessing of this phenomenon that first gave me cause for concern that the discourse around ayahuasca was overly simplistic and utopian.

The Therapeutic Relationship

So what might therapy offer that ayahuasca cannot? One of the most widespread conditions I encounter as a therapist is loneliness. This loneliness is generally born of an inability to successfully navigate intimacy and contact with other people. Many people in contemporary society spend their days surrounded by other people, but feel the absence of any genuine connection or intimacy. I suspect we all know something of this.

Therapy has something unique to offer in the domain of developing the capacity to form and sustain close interpersonal relationships. It provides a container in which client and therapist can explore that defining human tension between a need for emotional safety, and a craving for a genuinely intimate connection. Every one of us comes to adulthood with certain learned—and often intense—responses to various types of emotional contact. Taking the time to understand and unknot these reactions, so that we might respond with greater freedom and choice, is the very heart of the therapeutic encounter. This work is delicate, takes time, and is grounded in a process of two people relating in an ordinary waking state.

Abiding loneliness is a sad fate for a social being, and working through the correlated issues is difficult work that requires a great deal of courage and persistence. For this reason, it is exactly the type of experience that we are likely to seek to deal with via an escape to the realm of the spiritual. My encounters through therapy, teaching, and the medicine community suggest to me that ayahuasca is not the best way for an individual to address this issue, perhaps largely because the ayahuasca experience is primarily a "solitary" experience that does not support us at our human-to-human relational edge.

Perhaps the simplest observation I can make from working with the medicine community as a therapist is that ayahuasca’s gifts can most readily be received and integrated when the journeyer launches from a solid foundation of sound life-skills and a capacity for relationship. In this context, ayahuasca can be a wonderful companion. Where these are lacking, more ayahuasca is not helpful. Somewhat contentiously perhaps, I would say that ayahuasca as a regular practice can be detrimental to those who struggle with life’s demands or with personal relationships, especially when it becomes something of an escape, or a person’s primary source of meaning and connection.

Cultural Context

It is worthwhile noting in passing that the practice of working with plant medicines traditionally takes place within a cultural context that offers fairly seamless integration with other social and psychological realities. In contrast, contemporary ayahuasca drinkers return from their ayahuasca experience to worlds, families, and workplaces that do not offer simple pathways for integration or understanding.

While this culturally decontextualised use of plant medicine no doubt has certain advantages, it might also place greater responsibility on people in positions of leadership within the medicine community to consider the need to nurture a more complex, nuanced, integrated, and supportive model of best practice.

Allies, Not Alternatives

In summary then, let’s return to Fred and his T-Shirt that reads, “Ayahuasca is my Therapist.” I believe that Fred was sincere in his work and in his belief that he was bettering the world by spreading the practice of sitting with the medicine. And for the most part I too think it is a great gift to human consciousness. But I wonder how many people, lured by the easy promise of bypassing the hard work involved in addressing real developmental or relational issues, return to the medicine only to drift further from a solid foothold in the everyday world. It is in the “everyday” world, after all, that we must ultimately find or create meaning through relationship and expression.

In so far as both therapy and ayahuasca enable us to become whole, to give and receive love more readily, and become more complete members of the earth community, I’d say they are aligned. But what each of these activities offer on the path to wholeness is quite different, and while there are clearly things that ayahuasca can offer us that therapy cannot, the same is true in reverse. It would be a mistake to think that ayahuasca replaces or makes redundant the work of therapy.

Louis Cozolino on the Integration of Neuroscience into Psychotherapy—and its Limitations

Neuroscience or Neuro-psychobabble?

Sudhanva Rajagopal: Lou Cozolino, you are a psychologist and professor of psychology at Pepperdine University, where you were a teacher of mine. You’re a prolific writer and researcher on topics ranging from schizophrenia, child abuse, the long-term effects of stress, and, more recently, neuroscience in psychotherapy and the brain as a social organ.As a clinician in training, it seems like there is a lot of neuroscience talk out there in our field, and it gets used to legitimize anything from specific interventions to whole theoretical orientations. My first question to you is, for the clinician in training, how do you recommend that we see through the noise of all that to what is actually helpful in the room with a client? How does knowledge of neuroscience play out in the room and what is actually important for the clinician to know?

Louis Cozolino: There are two main realms where neuroscience can aid clinicians. One is case conceptualization and the other is for clients who aren’t really open to a psychotherapeutic framework or an emotional framework. For them a neuroscientific explanation or conceptualization of their problem is often something they can grasp while they can’t or won’t grasp other things.

People who learn a half a dozen words about neuroscience think they’re neuroscience literate.

But there’s so much psychobabble and neuro-psychobabble out there, and the thing is if you say something is the amygdala as opposed to saying it’s anxiety or fear-based, you haven’t really upgraded the quality of the discourse. You just substituted one word for another. So the risk is that people who learn a half a dozen words about neuroscience think they’re neuroscience literate.

Learning neuroscience takes dedication. It takes work to get beyond the cocktail level of conversation and clichés. It took me ten years to feel like I had any sense of what was going on and I studied it pretty intensively. So I think we all have to be careful, but even more importantly, just because you know some neuroscience doesn’t mean you know anything more than the therapist who doesn’t. It’s really about how you use that information to upgrade the quality of the work you’re doing.

SR: In your book, Why Therapy Works: Using Your Mind to Change Your Brain, you say that science in many ways is just another metaphor. Do you think there are dangers to people using neuroscience to legitimize their work?
LC: Well, sure. There’s a fellow, Daniel Amen, who does these SPECT scans of people and he’s been selling them for thousands of dollars for probably 20 years now. It’s hard to know whether any of his data has any meaning. All we know is he’s made a hell of a lot of money doing them. The danger is in selling things before you know that they have any legitimacy, so you have to watch out for snake oil salesmen just like you do when you’re buying carpets and used cars.
SR: So how do you recommend that someone like me goes about finding and learning about neuroscience in a way that’s helpful? How do I avoid the snake oil salesmen?
LC: It’s important to realize that knowing neuroscience doesn’t make you a good clinician—in fact it doesn’t make you any kind of clinician at all. So I would say for beginning therapists, it’s probably best not to pay too much attention to neuroscience.Learn a few things about it but focus on getting the best supervision you can in a recognized form of psychotherapy—psychodynamic, cognitive, behavioral, family systems, etc. And avoid the passing fancy of all of the new therapies; every day there’s a new therapy with a new set of letters in front of it.

SR: Yeah there are so many different kinds of therapies these days.
LC: Try to learn something that isn’t just a fad, because the fads—I’ve watched hundreds of them come and go over my years. But if you cleave to psychodynamic training and cleave to cognitive behavioral, Gestalt, family systems training—those are the things that you can hang your hat on. Then you can learn the fads to add to your tool box. The fads are very sexy and they create the illusion of understanding because they’ve got fancy terms and nice workbooks and such, but really you’re not a thinker when you’re doing those things, you’re more of a mechanic.Now neuroscience is sort of like a sidecar to conceptualization, but you’ve got to remember the motorcycle is the real tried and true way of thinking about clients. You know, what is a particular problem? What is mental distress or mental illness? Where does it come from developmentally and what are the tried and true ways of approaching it and treating it?

Every Therapy is Embedded in Culture

SR: Speaking of tried and true ways of thinking, you say in your book, “Psychotherapy is not a modern invention, but a relationship-based learning environment grounded in the history of our social brains. Thus the roots of psychotherapy go back to mother-child bonding, attachment to family and friends, and the guidance of wise elders.” My question is, where do you think psychotherapy fits in to the context of healing traditions that have been around for millennia?
LC: Well, I think one thing that seems to be different over the last hundred years in psychotherapy is a kind of structured recognition of the fact that the therapist is imperfect and contributes in a lot of different ways to the problems. The tradition of wise elders was one of an authoritarian stance: This is the truth and I’ll take you on this journey with me to change you into my likeness. To whatever degree psychotherapy has evolved past that has to do with the self-analysis of the therapist and the recognition that whatever pathology exists in the relationship between client and therapist, some—hopefully not the majority, but some—pathology in the relationship comes from the therapist.That type of recognition is a step forward. There are probably some steps backward too. Often psychotherapy is ahistorical and acultural—or at least tries to be—but every therapy is embedded in culture. There is a kind of pretense about an objective scientific stance that is just a fantasy. So in some ways, wise elders in a tribal context with a long history are probably advantageous for some people as compared to psychotherapy.

SR: I was flipping through the index of your book and noticed the word “culture” appears exactly once, though you do talk about the wisdom of the ancients, about Buddhism and Confucianism and some of the Indian traditions. Seems to me that once we start relying on these kind of generalized, evolutionary, and biological forces as explanations for things, there’s a risk of painting people’s lived experience with a pretty broad brush. What’s your take on the importance of culture as it relates to neuroscience and psychotherapy?
LC: From an evolutionary perspective, a basic principle is biodiversity, and culture is too blunt an instrument to understand people because there are so many differences within culture. I think in terms of every individual being an experiment of nature. Every family is a culture in and of itself, and the more different someone’s cultural background is from mine, the more there is for me to learn. I think that culture needs to be interwoven into every sentence of every book, not just included in some special chapter of a book.
SR: From my point of view, many of these older cultural practices have been repackaged and rebranded as psychotherapy theories and techniques. The “mindfulness revolution” and transcendental meditation are based on ancient cultural traditions, but they are marketed as if they are especially effective because they are “new” and “evidence-based.” What is your stance on that?
LC: Having studied religion and philosophy and Sanskrit starting back when I was in college in the 70s, the self-awareness of meditation has been part my worldview since long before it became a cottage industry. But even back then there was the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and the Beatles, and it was coming into the cultural context. Now people have figured out how to package it as a way to sell more therapy, which isn’t all bad, but runs the risk of becoming “the answer.”

I think we’re in a race between global destruction and global consciousness, so we’ll see who gets to the finish line first.

What I’ve been hoping for since I first discovered Buddhism in the 1960s, is that as the world gets smaller and as people from different cultures communicate more, the wisdom of the ancient Eastern philosophies will be interwoven with Western technology and we’ll come to some higher level synthesis of understanding and consciousness. I think we’re in a race between global destruction and global consciousness, so we’ll see who gets to the finish line first.

SR: Can you say more about that?
LC: Well, it’s a slow evolutionary process for the types of awareness that people four or five thousand years ago discovered in India and Tibet, in China, in Japan, to penetrate Western culture. The Western world view is so different—for so many people it’s almost impossible to conceptualize an internal world; everything is external. Everything is about creation, growth, and, in a more destructive sense, conquering and genocide.So there are forces of destruction—of each other and of the planet—on the one hand and then there are the forces of consciousness and wholeness and a sense of oneness of the species on the other. So will we understand that we’re all brothers and sisters on a spaceship before we destroy the spaceship?

“There only needs to be a piece of you that’s a psychologist”

SR: How can psychotherapy play a positive role in this race you’re talking about? Or psychotherapy as we know it in the Western world?
LC: Well, one of the problems with psychotherapy as I see it is that psychotherapists tend to be sort of passive—they retreat from the world of leadership and create very insulated relationships in their consulting rooms. But for the field of psychotherapy to have any impact, it has to be expressed politically and socially. The types of ideas and theories that we’ve researched and studied, like the importance of early child rearing, self-awareness, authoritarian personalities, positive psychology and so much else, need to become part of political discourse both to elevate it and also have an impact on how resources are distributed.

One of the problems with psychotherapy as I see it is that psychotherapists tend to be sort of passive—they retreat from the world of leadership and create very insulated relationships in their consulting rooms.

Evolution is a slow, meandering process. All you have to do is watch the Republican debates to see that. It reminds me of junior high school in the Bronx in New York where we used to engage in chop fights, which was all about humiliating the manhood of other guys just to get a one-up. It doesn’t make me optimistic about the evolution of consciousness, but we’ll see what happens.

SR: I want to move onto something you said in your preface that I liked a lot: “Like monks and soldiers, therapists of all denominations assume that God is on their side.” What do you think are the limitations of psychotherapy and where does it come up short against the human condition, cultural walls or seemingly immovable, systemic injustice? In other words, when do we have to admit that psychotherapy is just not helpful or effective?

LC: The risk with psychology and psychotherapy is that it can lean too much in the direction of helping people tolerate rather than fight against oppression. Self-awareness and self-compassion are crucial experiences and skills that we foster as psychotherapists, but there needs to be a balance there. You can’t become too much of a psychologist. There only needs to be a piece of you that’s a psychologist and there’s another piece of you that has to be willing to go out and fight for systemic change.

As I said before, psychologists tend to watch from the sidelines, and that’s why as a field it has relatively little impact. In fact, the profession gets a lot of bad press because there are plenty of famous psychologists who do staggeringly immoral and unethical things. They are the basis of the cartoon version of the therapist nodding their head and going, “uh huh.”

SR: You talk about psychology as being an essentially solitary profession. Are there people you can think of who aren’t standing on the sidelines?
LC: Psychologists you mean?
SR: Yeah, psychologists.
LC: No. Can you?
SR: Not off the top of my head.
LC: Psychologists are really good at telling other people they should do something. It’s sort of like life by proxy.
SR: Indeed.
LC: Another problem in psychotherapy is a lack of appreciation or respect for anger; anger is always something you’re supposed to manage. Or you’re supposed to learn how to behave appropriately in society, but that’s not always an appropriate response, especially if you’re a member of an oppressed group. It’s really important sometimes to go on picket lines and carry bricks and defend yourself and make a lot of noise.I very much respect the Black Lives Matter movement and I watch them in these Trump rallies, and they’re getting pushed around. It breaks my heart because it reminds me of a lot of bad memories from childhood during the Civil Rights Movement. And I’m sure you’ve seen pictures too of what happened in India with the British, of people being hosed and slaughtered. There’s a tendency in human behavior to objectify differences and we really need to fight against and not tolerate that. I’m hoping that, given that Trump is consolidating and activating the anger of people in this culture against immigrants and foreigners and God knows what else, that it also energizes the liberal base and brings out a new progressive movement as well.

SR: Absolutely, but this idea of psychologists carrying bricks and taking up arms seems really at odds to me with this image we have of psychologists as dispassionate observers, people who are sitting in their therapy chairs saying, “uh huh.”My interests lie in political action as well and I do remember, at least from my dad’s generation and my grandfather’s generation, thinking about British rule and the independence movement in India and the idea of people really taking a stand. But that doesn’t seem like something psychologists really do. Even in the room with a client, we’re not taught to take a stance on things, you know?

LC: In fact it’s the opposite. Everything that we believe is interpreted as countertransference and non-neutral. It creates a real rift in people. It’s hard to imagine that a lot of younger psychologists with any sort of a political drive would be attracted to psychology. It will continue to attract people who want to stay on the sidelines in the world or avoid the conflict.
SR: How is that going to change?
LC: In truth I don’t know. In the 60s we had something called community psychology, which was very radical at the time and which still exists, but it’s not prominent at all anymore. One of the main focuses of community psychology was to identify those people in the community or in the tribe that other people went to for assistance—people like hairdressers and bartenders and cab drivers. These are the people that folks in trouble tended to talk to, so community psychology emphasized educating people in the community that were sort of hubs of interaction. The field has gotten so much more insular since then.

Transitioning From a Beta to an Alpha

SR: I want to go back to something you said about anger that intrigued me. I’m just thinking back to discussions and supervision I’ve had in training, and whenever anger comes up, you’re told there’s something “behind” the anger. You know, there’s shame behind the anger, or sadness behind the anger. How do you feel about anger as just a primary kind of emotion? And do you think it has value both for the therapist and for the client?
LC: If you’re going to become empowered, if you’re going to transition from a beta to an alpha in your life, you really need to be able to get back in touch with your anger because it can be very propulsive, very helpful in life. It evolved along with caretaking and nurturing because it’s not just necessary to feed and nurture babies, but to protect them.Anger is the only left-hemisphere emotion that we consider negative, but anger is a social emotion, unlike rage. It can be engaging, relational, constructive. In order to combat the social programming that leads to shame, we have to get at least somewhat angry—at both the voices in our head and out in the world that shame us, disempower us, keep us from speaking up.

When I think of somebody like Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr., I think of the courage it took to walk into angry crowds. It’s so moving to me and such a powerful act. We can’t just be passive about these voices in our head and in society. We have to get angry because our anger and our assertiveness and our power are all interconnected. If you give up your anger, you give up your power.

SR: Agreed. Tell me a little bit about your idea of the social synapse.
LC: The more I studied different physiologies, social psychologies, organisms, the more I realized that there is a very complex highway of information that connects us via pupil dilation and facial expression and body posture and tone of voice, and probably a hundred things that we haven’t even discovered yet.What we’re doing in psychotherapy, and in any relationship where we’re trying to be soothing and supportive and nurturant, is connecting across the synapse between you and someone else. You’re trying to create a synergy between the two of you and have an effect on their internal biochemistry that enhances their physical health, their brain development, their learning. If you’ve ever been with a really good teacher, you know that in part because you feel a lot smarter because you’re connecting with someone who’s stimulating your brain to work better. If you’re with a bad teacher, you feel dumber, and you get pissed off and angry. And there are not a lot of good teachers out there so you’ve got to cleave to the good ones.

But also there’s a different chemistry between different people. Someone who’s a good teacher for one person may not be a good one for another. Same thing with therapists. Every therapeutic relationship creates a new organism—a dyadic field— and sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t. The chemistry part we often don’t have any control over.

SR: Going back to the brain and neuroscience, where do you think we are in right now in the field and where are we headed?
LC: Well, we’re all over the place in brain science, but there is a great deal of focus right now on genetics. In other words, looking at the relationship between experience and interactions and how the molecular level of the brain gets constructed and changes over time in relation to the others and the environment. I think that the translation of parenting and relationships in psychotherapy into actual protein synthesis and brain building is an incredibly complicated but very important paradigm shift that is going to be playing out probably over the next century at least as we uncover those things.Another shift in neuroscience is getting past the phrenology of looking at individual brain regions related to specific tasks and starting to look at these new technologies that measure brain connectivity. In other words, how do different areas connect to regulate each other and synergize? The next step will be figuring out how two or more brains interact and stimulate each other.

I don’t know where the technology to research that is going to come from but I think it’s on the horizon. We’ve got to get beyond thinking about brains as individual organs and think about how they weave into relational matrices so we can understand human connection and have a scientific view for the types of things that Buddhists and Hindu meditators and Tibetan scholars have been thinking about for the last several thousand years or so.

Why Does Neuroscience Matter?

SR: How would you explain to an existential psychotherapist why these advances in technology and in brain science are at all important to what they do?
LC: I don’t know if they are important to what they do. I don’t think neuroscience is more important than Buddhism—it’s basically just another narrative.
SR: Interesting.
LC: It’s just another way of looking at things. Think about when you’re at a museum looking at an exhibit and you’re walking around it trying to experience it and appreciate it from a number of different angles.That’s pretty much what reality is. We walk around it and we have these different ways of thinking about it and explaining it that are partially satisfying and partially unsatisfying. Buddhism is incredibly satisfying a lot of the time and very unsatisfying some of the time. So when you get bored with one way of looking, you want to look at something in a different way. For me it’s interesting to combine and integrate different perspectives but I don’t think that you have to subjugate one to the other.

In the 1950s Carl Rogers was talking about how to create a healing relationship. Fast forward 65 years and now neuroscience is discovering pretty much what Rogers was talking about. Am I better off talking about it from that perspective than listening to Carl Rogers? I don’t know. But it makes me appreciate what Rogers says even more and in a deeper way when I can see it from this scientific perspective.

SR: That makes sense.
LC: If Buddha were alive, he’d say, “Of course,” right? “There’s 5,000 research studies you did, but all you needed to do was read the Sutra and you would have figured it out.”But I think it’s interesting to just keep learning about life from as many points of view as possible. When have your read enough novels?

Each novel you read is a new way of capturing the universe, and they’re entertaining and stimulating and make you feel human. I feel the same way about the sciences, which is why I love reading E.O. Wilson’s work on ants, because I learn a lot about humans by reading about ants. So many things we do are very ant-like. Plus, ants are interesting.

Nobody Has the Answer

SR: Ants are very interesting. That’s a great way to look at it and I completely agree. Moving away from neuroscience for a moment, I’m curious about how your clinical work has changed over the years.
LC: It’s changed constantly. When I started as a student of pastoral counseling at the Harvard Divinity School, Carl Rogers was one of my teachers, so my first real training was Rogerian. The reason I got interested in counseling in the first place was reading Fritz Perls’ Gestalt Therapy. Then when I ended up at UCLA I realized you have to learn cognitive behavioral therapy whether you like it or not. So I was trained in that. I did a couple of years at a family therapy institute in Westwood in L.A. My supervisors were psychodynamic and my therapist at the time was a Jungian, and then I had a couple of other therapists who were psychodynamic and Gestalt.I was working with people who had been severely traumatized as kids, so I got interested in neuroscience through a study of memory, trying to figure out what the heck was going with the memories of people who’d suffered severe trauma.

Since then, my heart is more in the object relations world, I think mostly because it matches my personality and the type of relationships I like to create with people. But I’ve woven in neuroscience, attachment theory, a bit of EMDR, some meditation and self-awareness exercises. It’s a hodgepodge of all the different things that I’ve learned, but I don’t really feel like I’ve got a hammer and everybody who comes in is a nail. It’s more like I’ve got a toolbox of 30 or 40 years of things that I’ve been collecting and I try to figure out how to match as best I can to the needs and the interests of the client.

SR: Is there a certain population or certain pathologies that you’ve been working with more lately or that you’re more interested in?
LC: Not really. My practice is pretty general and I like to keep it that way. I don’t really like to see the same problem over and over again. I always think of psychotherapy as kind of like a collaborative research project. People come in and we work together to figure out what’s going on—how did it arise? Is there any hope of making it better? I really like having problems I haven’t dealt with before.
SR: What do you wish you’d known as a beginning clinician?
LC: When I started, I was looking for an answer and I wanted to know who had the answer. So

I tried to become a disciple of one person or another person. It took me quite a while to realize nobody has the answer. Everybody has a little piece of it.

And what I’ve got to do is just learn the best I can and then sacrifice and move on. This is a very ancient Rig Veda philosophy—every day you wake up, you sacrifice the day before, you move on, you create a new reality.

Had I understood this, I would have spent a lot less time worrying about finding the truth and being acceptable to whatever godhead I happened to run into at the moment. I think idolatry is the problem. Idolatry and objectification.

SR: It’s hard to avoid being exposed to that as a student. At least in my experience, in every new class you’re exposed to something people think is the answer, the best way to look at things.
LC: In my experience, the degree to which someone is enthusiastic and adamant about having “the answer” usually reflects the degree of insecurity they have and their lack of ability to tolerate their own ignorance. If we’ve learned anything, especially when it comes to diversity, it’s that we have to embrace our ignorance and be curious as opposed to leading with certainty.Jacob Bronowski was a physicist who died about 20 years ago, but he did this wonderful documentary about visiting Auschwitz, where his whole family was slaughtered. He waded into the mud behind the crematory and grabbed a handful of mud, realizing that his ancestors were part of this soil, and said, “This is what happens when we’re certain.”

Certainty leads to ideological beliefs that supersede humanity. At a less dramatic level, we get so enamored with our philosophies and our therapeutic beliefs that we miss our clients because we’re so convinced that we’ve got to convince them we’re right about the things we believe should be true.

SR: So last question here; where do you think the field as a whole is going?
LC: Well, I don’t think mental distress is going anywhere. I think that more and more people are going to be having psychological problems as society and civilization become increasingly crazy. No matter how many therapists the schools pump out, the world is creating plenty of suffering, so there will always be a need for therapy.And though there will always be therapists trying to create revolutionary new therapies with great acronyms, I think that the tried and true methods will remain strong and stay strong because they’re tapping into fundamental constructs in human experience—the need to connect with other people, to be able to leverage our thinking to modify our brains, to ask questions about ultimate meaning and existence.

Where the field is going to have to upgrade its sophistication and quality is in the areas of like pharmacology, epigenetics, psychoneuroimmunology, diet. All of the actual mechanisms that create and sustain our brains will have to become part of the dialogue about how we help people sustain and maintain health. This might just be my Eastern philosophy bias, but we’ll probably be moving in the direction of more holistic, integrated thinking and treatment—not just combining East and West, but integrating scientific discoveries into our case conceptualizations and treatments.

Finally, I hope that psychology becomes more integrated with education. I have a book series that I’m editing for W.W. Norton which is on the social neuroscience of education, and we’re pushing to have psychologists, neurologists, neuroscientists and educators communicate more so that the things we’re learning can be integrated into each field.

SR: Well that seems like a great place to end. Thank you so much for taking the time to share a bit about your work and your life with the readers of psychotherapy.net.
LC: It was a pleasure, thank you.

Look at me!

Many people struggle to fully meet their therapist’s eyes the beginning. Particularly those who are shy or introverted.

The warmth, care, interest or love that we may perceive in a therapist’s compassionate gaze may seem “too much” or even unbearable for many who missed or never received it from their original caretakers.

Rachel was my first therapy client totally unable to tolerate the eye contact during a session. The first time we met, this lack of eye contact made me sense her anxiety; she looked like a captured bird, scared and ready to fly away at the first occasion. I thought she would not come back for another session, but she eventually did.

Rachel stuck to the regularity and timing of our sessions, but I kept having an uneasy impression that she was not entirely there. She had been in therapy previously for several years, and her previous therapists had seemed to accept her lack of eye contact without questioning it.

We were doing interesting work, she was open and honest, but my feeling of unease grew. So I decided to address it in the “here and now” with her.

What sense did she make of her avoidance of eye contact?

It helps me to not be really here. At the same time she readily admitted that she wanted to be in therapy and was coming willingly. But to be fully present was “too much.”

To avoid looking into other’s eyes is a very primitive and powerful defense mechanism. For human infants, it is not only a natural way of attracting attention and maintaining it, but also an efficient way of grading the intensity of contact. When we look away and avoid eye contact in a crowded subway train, we expect others to do the same and to not push in, staring at us. When somebody does not respect this tacit message, we may feel invaded, intruded upon in our private space.

Rachel had experienced sexual abuse in her childhood. When our freedom is restricted and we feel trapped (this is what any victim of sexual abuse goes through), the only way we are able to escape, at least partly, the abuser is to close our eyes or to look away. It then becomes the unique way of measuring the quantity of contact, a desperate hope to gain some control over an uncontrollable situation.

I felt compassion for the little girl that had been abused and silenced, but at the same time my frustration with her kept growing. I knew that somehow without confronting this problem our work would get stale.

Talking this through with Rachel helped us put the problem on the table. She was entirely conscious of the impact of her avoidance on our interaction, but still unable to take the risk and meet my eyes.

Look at me! I would I have screamed, had I not been aware of my countertransference.

But with the risk of repeating a traumatic experience, I needed to be patient and “to stay with it.” Her need for security and control was to be respected.

After a while, Rachel felt safe enough to share some painful details of her past. When her abuser, a family member, was with her in the room, she felt too terrified and ashamed to scream. Her parents “were not noticing” what was happening to their young daughter. Years later, when she could finally tell them what had happened, they still chose to ignore the uneasy truth and did not estrange the abuser from the family.

Rachel, a mature adult now, had to face her childhood nightmare, her abuser, at every family gathering. How did she do this?

She learnt to ignore him, to avoid looking at him. This strategy helped again to gain some form of control, an illusion of not entirely being there. Once again, this was the only thing in her power.

With time, I got used to her way of being only half-present, her need to securely preserve some parts of her self. I still enjoyed our dialogue, and the work we were doing around her artistic expression as a cello player.

After a year or so our work came to a natural end. Rachel was doing reasonably well, and she had played successfully at the audition she had initially been so anxious about. As result she landed her dream job in an important orchestra.

At out last session, before saying our goodbyes, Rachel’s eyes briefly met mine. I was now used to this fleeing, light contact between us and appreciated its meaning.

Thank you for not forcing me to make eye contact. When I was abused… he kept saying : “Look at me!” But I never did.

And she gazed at me steadily.

She seemed strong and composed: that looking away had preserved something precious in her; this is how she had defended herself and stood up to the abuser. The new Rachel was able to esteem herself, to fight, to win, and to be a passionate musician.

Brian McNeill on the Art of Supervision

What is Effective Supervision?

Greg Arnold: Brian you’ve been in the field of psychotherapy for over thirty years and you’ve done a great deal of research and work in the area of supervision. My first question is kind of a big one. It seems to me there’s more disagreement than ever in the field about what works in psychotherapy. How do we know what effective supervision is if we can’t even agree on what effective therapy is?
Brian McNeill: That’s a very good question. I think my reading of the psychotherapy literature might be a little bit different from yours, in that I see research on effectiveness of psychotherapy converging into what’s known as the “common factors” across divergent therapies. Wampold and his colleagues did a great deal of research on these factors in his most recent edition of the Great Psychotherapy Debate. Their research suggests primarily that we need to get away from the idea of manualized treatments, especially for training programs, where there’s way too much emphasis on it. I know it’s easy, I know it gives students something to get a handle on, but it discounts those common factors that account for so much of the variance across diverging approaches—relationship building skills, therapist qualities, world view—things that are now consistent with what APA has adopted as evidence-based psychology practice.
GA: So if you focused on the common factors you’d be well in the wheelhouse of accepted clinical science?
BM: Yes
GA: But you said it’s harder than just teaching a manualized treatment. Why do you think there is such a strong pull to fall back on a mechanistic view of the work that we do and to teach it through memorization of knowledge. Why is that so attractive and easy?
BM: I think it’s very attractive particularly for beginning counselors, because it provides a template for what to do in a given session. For example, for many cognitive behavioral approaches we set the agenda in the first 10 minutes; the next 10 to 15 minutes we review homework, and then we get into the agenda for the session.

It has its place at times, but I think it’s overused because it helps reduce a lot of that initial anxiety in beginning therapists, which comes from not knowing what to do if a session doesn’t go as planned. If the client stops talking, for example, it gives them something to fall back on. It’s harder to go in and listen very closely, very carefully—to really attempt to understand what your clients are saying as well as what’s not said and what the meaning is behind non-verbal behaviors, voice inflection. In other words, what a client is not saying, but trying to communicate nonetheless.
GA: Is there an attraction to the manualized approach from the supervisor’s point of view?
BM:
A manualized approach is easier than trying to train your students to be more reflective, or to examine themselves in terms of who they are as a person how that impacts their professional practice.
I think it gives supervisors a break in the sense that if you’re promoting a treatment manual approach, it’s much easier to go in there and say, “Okay, you followed these directions correctly. You could maybe have included these items on your agenda, or reviewed things in a different way, or implemented these particular kinds of cognitive challenges, or engaged in more of a Socratic dialogue.” A manualized approach is easier than trying to train your students to be more reflective, or to examine themselves in terms of who they are as a person how that impacts their professional practice.
GA: Easier in terms of the supervisor’s anxiety?
BM: Yes, absolutely.
GA: So it’s more comfortable for each party—the supervisee and supervisor—to presume this mechanistic view of a manualized treatment and technical rationality, but they’re missing so much juicy, nutritious, formative development. What are they missing there?
BM: From the model that I work from, I believe that what they’re missing are the personal aspects that really play a large part in this journey to becoming an effective psychotherapist. I like the idea of competencies and the competency movement, and I think it provides good kinds of behavioral anchors for various stages of therapist development, but what they’re missing is the journey and the process of what it takes to become an effective therapist. That’s where therapists need to integrate their personal identity with their professional identity. To look at who they are as a person, how that impacts their work in this field, how it impacts their relationships with their clients, how they can engage in reflective practice and be self aware in their interactions with their clients.

Especially from an interpersonal process orientation, how they can use their self-reflections, their feelings in the session, in the moment, in a way that’s effective and helpful for clients, by sharing their perceptions, by giving clients feedback in the moment—those kinds of interactions.

Are Counselors Selected or Grown?

GA: Congruence, immediacy, using their human instrument, being a real person, being integrated—that’s hard work. What is the process of that journey you’ve identified through your research. Since it needs to be personal, and folks can’t hide behind their manuals, isn’t the success of the work tied to the actual person of the therapist? In other words, are counselors selected or grown? Who do we keep and who do we kick out? Are they a tomato plant or are they a diamond in the rough?
BM: Well, to me they’re grown. I know a lot of people gravitate to our field because they believe that they have some natural helping abilities or skills; they’ve maybe been told by friends that they’re good listeners and whatnot, but I think while that can be a nice start for folks, we still need skills and abilities that only training can provide. Becoming a therapist is different than becoming a biologist, or an engineer, in that it requires self-examination and a very high level of self-awareness.
GA: Can anyone undergo that process successfully?
BM:
I do believe that people who are motivated to really want to help others can learn the skills to be effective in this field.
Yeah, if you’re willing. If you are motivated enough, then just about anyone can go through that process. People who are resistant to self-examination are definitely going to struggle in this field. If you’re suffering from a personality disorder, it’s going to be much harder to engage in that kind of self-examination and be insightful. But for the most part, I do believe that people who are motivated to really want to help others can learn the skills to be effective in this field
GA: So barring real outliers, if you engage in this process of self-reflection and vulnerable, non-defensive engagement with training, you’re going to develop these capacities for using yourself and therapy in a way that is effective?
BM: Yes
GA: What does it say about the field that many doctoral programs in psychology are harder to get into than medical school? I’ve seen one spot per 360 applicants at certain programs and there are all these aptitude requirements to set you apart.
BM: I think that is where we’re still very far behind. I never have believed that the traditional selection variables of college GPA and GRE scores have ever been predictive of someone’s interpersonal skills or abilities to interact personally on the level that we do as clinicians and therapists.

With my program, and I know others out there as well, we try to expand those selection variables a bit, but it’s still very difficult. We try to read into what could be some of those qualities through letters of recommendations or statements of purpose, or past life experiences, a kind of outlook—variables that just aren’t very easy to quantify.

The Developmental Approach to Supervision

GA: So you’ve expanded the selection criteria, you get the individuals selected for this privilege, then how do you balance the inherent dual relationship built into supervision? If someone is operating on your license, there’s a tension between oversight—where you have to think of client safety and liability and the reputation of your clinic—and the more humanistic, nurturing role of standing behind trainees when they make mistakes, which are essential to learning, but they also pose a liability. So how do you balance your gatekeeping role and your role as a supervisor tasked with nurturing their development?
BM:
We are thankfully moving away from the idea that to be an effective supervisor you just need to be an experienced effective clinician.
We are thankfully moving away from the idea that to be an effective supervisor you just need to be an experienced effective clinician. Over the past 30 years we have come to understand that these are very different domains. It’s taken awhile, as you can see from the just recently published supervisor competencies that the APA put out.

We now have more of a developmental approach to supervision. We know that beginners are going to be exhibiting certain kinds of qualities and have certain needs, versus intermediate or advanced trainees. It takes a skilled supervisor to assess where a given trainee is at developmentally and to provide the appropriate supervision environment that is going to enhance acquisition of skills—not only in terms of interventions, but abilities to be self-reflective, to develop as a therapist personally and professionally.
GA: How does a person go from a lay person, totally uninitiated through the whole journey of maturation to a great clinician?
BM: We look at three levels of psychotherapist development. At the beginning level we have trainees that are obviously just entering the field. It’s a novel situation for them and they’re typically highly invested. In most programs, probably 80% of your students want to be clinicians, even though we do obviously take a scientist practitioner kind of approach.

It’s anxiety producing for beginners, and as supervisors we need to help them reduce that anxiety, to help them take the focus off themselves early on during sessions and give them some structure and support. We focus on formulating relationships with their clients and learning those important listening skills.

Then we look at dependency versus autonomy. Obviously a beginning student is going to be very dependent upon their supervisor for structure, direction, and support. We look at self-awareness, both in the cognitive and affective realms and, again, a beginner is not going to be very self-aware in terms of how they come off in a session.

We believe that if you attend to the appropriate level of structure, direction and support, especially at the beginning level, that helps them progress onto an intermediate level.
GA: Let’s hang out at level one for a second. What could go wrong at that level?
BM:
Students get anxious. They feel like they need to do something, that listening isn’t enough.
Students get anxious. They feel like they need to do something, that listening isn’t enough. And that’s when they want to fall back on a manualized approach, but even a manualized approach, at least in my mind, is not going to be effective unless you have that base of all effective therapeutic intervention and that is the relationship. Things can go awry if students aren’t acculturated to the research about the therapeutic relationship being the basis of all later therapeutic intervention.

That’s the thing that I harp on the most, because I think that that’s what I see going awry the most. The lack of appreciation for developing those basic interpersonal skills early on.
GA: Really believing and internalizing that value, that this relationship is really important to cultivate.
BM: Yes, and that I need to effectively listen and communicate empathy.
GA: What about for the supervisor in this level? What can get in the way of them providing what the student needs at level one?
BM: Well, much like the therapeutic relationship, the supervisory relationship serves as the base of any kind of supervisor effectiveness as well. If for whatever reason the trainee and the supervisor don’t hit it off personally, the supervision isn’t likely to go well. I see that the most where the supervisor is not focusing in on the beginning trainee’s needs; they take an old line perspective that they shouldn’t be providing advice to their supervisees.
GA: Let them squirm. Encourage autonomy.
BM: Yeah, sink or swim. Or we’ll also see supervisors get hung up on their approach to psychotherapy and apply it to supervision. So if they’re very psychodynamic or interpersonally oriented, they want to get in there with the beginning supervisee and start processing with them, whereas the supervisee is really more concerned about what do I do with this client in the next session.

The Adolescent Stage

GA: So assuming all goes well and the supervisor is able to build a great supervisory dyad, attending to the person as an individual in an empathic way that builds a relationship and then providing structure to mitigate their anxiety and then the supervisee is able to get out of their own head, cultivate some self-awareness. They’re starting to be able to balance the focus on the clients, all that stuff. We move into a new intermediate stage.
BM: They then move into second stage or level two. At this point they’ve had some experiences with success in their interventions with clients and they’ve also had some failures. In other words, they’ve been through a couple of semesters of actually seeing clients and engaging in clinical work, so they have a greater sense of the complexity involved in providing psychotherapy. They’ve come to the realization that maybe it’s not as easy as they thought it might be.

It’s hard at times. Clients don’t come back and you’re left asking yourself what happened. Or the client is very resistant. In these cases, the supervisee’s motivation then can fluctuate—they start to question themselves and in some cases they might question whether they’re suited for this field because of some of the failures that they’ve experienced.

At the same time, hopefully they’ve had some success and so they want to develop a sense of autonomy or independence. They are becoming more self-aware. They’re not only able to focus on what they’re experiencing during the session, but they start to be able to focus in and sometimes at this level maybe a little bit too much towards what the client’s experience is.
A pitfall for students in the intermediate stage is that they can get a little bit overly enmeshed in their client’s issues.
A pitfall for students in the intermediate stage is that they can get a little bit overly enmeshed in their client’s issues.

This calls for a different kind of supervisory environment—one where you have to give them a little bit more autonomy. You do have to allow them to try out things that they’re interested in. Let them make some decisions. Of course, overriding all of this is the concern of client welfare, so you constantly have to monitor client welfare and make sure that ultimately your trainees are still following what you would see as required kinds of interventions in the interest of client welfare. But, they want to be able to come up with some more things on their own. They’re less dependent upon the supervisor. And so you’ve got to give them some leeway here.

They’re also more open to some examination of who they are as a person and how that impacts their clinical work. In fact, at this stage they really want that kind of self-examination. They want to look at transference, counter transference kinds of reactions and those kinds of implications because they’re getting a little bit more advanced in their abilities, their skills, their knowledge. So you have to be flexible as a supervisor and be able to assess where your trainee is at.

The analogy we draw is that it’s almost like dealing with an adolescent. They’re gaining some skills and perhaps they want to demonstrate their autonomy.
The analogy we draw is that it’s almost like dealing with an adolescent. They’re gaining some skills and perhaps they want to demonstrate their autonomy. If you can’t lighten up a bit, or deal with that kind of therapeutic adolescence, it’s going to create some resistance, and even some rebellion at this point. If you want to just stay with a completely structured kind of approach of always directing your trainee, we’re saying that that’s not going to work at this stage. You have to help them through stages or periods where they feel like their motivation is low because they’re discouraged with some clients or certain client types. You have to be able to identify that when you’re reviewing recorded sessions.

In that sense it does take a lot of work on the part of the supervisor to accurately assess and intervene with their trainees to foster their continued development as a therapist.
GA: It sounds like it could be a really rewarding time for everyone involved.
BM: Yes, absolutely. It can be very challenging, but ultimately very rewarding.
GA: So take me through level three really quickly.
BM: At this point, we’re probably looking at a trainee at the advanced stage of level two moving off into internship. Typically what we would see as a level three trainee is in my mind developed during that internship year.

They’ve kind of weathered that storm of level two in terms of that dependency/autonomy conflict and they’re able to pretty much operate at an independent level. Motivation is high. They understand the complexities of this endeavor of our field. They go into their work with an understanding that, yeah, there’s going to be successes but there’s going to be some failures, there’s going to be difficult clients. There’s going to be some client types or populations or diagnostic categories that I work best with and others that maybe just push my buttons and that I’ve got to be careful with.
GA: We can’t help everybody all the time.
BM: Exactly. They demonstrate that high level of self-awareness and self-insight on both cognitive as well as affective levels. They’re self-aware enough to know that if there’s something that isn’t working for them, if they need some help on something, or if they don’t have the experience in a given domain—maybe marriage and family therapy as opposed to doing individual therapy—they know and have the awareness to consult with somebody run it past their supervisor.

And they’re not going to be reluctant to do that. They just understand that that’s really part of what they need to do to develop their skills, and that ethically that’s what’s called for. Hopefully that occurs by the end of internship or is fully developed out there with some post-doctoral supervision. That’s what we envision as the advanced psychotherapist and one that hopefully develops into later years as a master psychotherapist.
GA: Talk about post-doctoral supervision, where you’ve got your degree but you’re not yet licensed because you still have 1500 hours to complete [in some states].
BM: Post-doctoral supervision used to be in name only. As long as you had an identified supervisor, it really wasn’t necessary to meet or document. Maybe if you had a problem or some questions you’d go and consult with your post-doc supervisor. It was also the norm that your post-doc supervisor just had to be a clinician with three years of experience.

I think we have made progress on that front, too. For example, APA and our programs now requiring training in supervision.
GA: Many programs still don’t require that, though.
BM: It puzzles me how programs can get accredited by saying that they offer a workshop on supervision, or they implement a module during practicum training. That’s really not enough, but I think that’s the case with the majority of programs.

In that sense I’m happy to see APA publish the supervisor competencies, which I think is going to help a lot. More strictly enforcing that APA requirement that all trainees receive training in supervision is going to help.
GA: What’s the risk of this all-lip-service post-doctoral supervision? What’s the pitfall of someone who says, “Oh, I’m level three, I’m done growing. I don’t need consultation.”
BM: Well, if an advanced trainee has that attitude, that’s definitely problematic. More often than not there are areas where they need to develop and to grow, as well as weaknesses they need to attend to.

We run the risk of just assuming that because someone has completed their coursework and internship and training requirements that that’s all there is. The journey does continue to becoming a master therapist and some of those qualities manifest themselves later down the road. Experience matters and learning doesn’t stop. You can always learn from a mentor at any point in your career.
GA: Forever.
BM: Yes, absolutely.
GA: In closing, pretend I’m your student and I am thinking about what to do with my career and I’m saying, “This supervision stuff is a lot of work. It’s not compensated very well. The field doesn’t seem to value it very much. I’m not sure I’m going to pursue supervision in my career.” How would you talk me into it?
BM: I would say that a lot of clinicians gravitate to training programs at the internship and post-doc level because it’s tough work to just be seeing clients all the time. It’s easy to get burned out just seeing clients.
Supervising can be a nice break, a way to stay current, and also just really enjoyable to have the opportunity to work with trainees.
Supervising can be a nice break, a way to stay current, and also just really enjoyable to have the opportunity to work with trainees. The relationship with trainees can be long-lasting, and you may get calls from them in the future for advice not just about clients, but about their careers or other aspects of their lives. It’s very rewarding to have the wisdom that you’ve developed over a number of years valued later on.
GA: I’m sold. We all must go forth and propagate quality supervision.

Any closing thoughts to share with our readers, your wisdom from these 30 years of studying this and experiencing it personally?
BM: Well, I listen to a lot of music, a lot of jazz. And I draw a lot of parallels for how we operate in the moment as clinicians, as supervisors based on our accumulated experience and skills. One of my idols, a jazz bassist named Charlie Hayden, passed away recently, and I remember reading an interview with him in which he said, “to be a good musician, to really communicate as a good musician, you have to be a good person.” What he meant was a good, humble individual who is willing to look closely at him or herself and implement that humility in their work.

I strongly believe that as clinicians, and by extension trainers and supervisors, that if we work on being a good person—and that can take many forms in terms of personal development, spirituality, etc.—it helps us to be good clinicians, good supervisors, trainers of our students. And it affects our clientele. So I tell my students all the time to be a good clinician, try to do your best to develop yourself as a good person.
GA: It’s been an absolute pleasure. Thank you so much for sitting with me.
BM: Thank you so much for the opportunity.

What Remains: The Aftermath of Patient Suicide

Note: Clinical material in this article is taken across various venues and years of treatments. Identities are disguised to protect confidentiality. References used in writing this article, as well as resources for clinicians, can be found at the bottom of this page.

Silent Mourners

The memory is quite clear: several years ago, early one morning checking my voicemail, two messages in I came upon a message from my patient, Jill. The message was date-stamped the evening before. She said she would miss today’s session due to a need to find new housing; she thanked me for our work thus far (as she frequently did, sometimes out of social politeness or her fears of abandonment, other times out of sincere heartfelt gratitude, something we frequently explored). This time her gratitude sounded heartfelt in tone. Her message also left me perplexed, as we had not talked of housing, and I saved it. Another message, left moments before I checked my voicemail, was from Jill’s psychiatrist, Brian, asking me to give him a call when I got in the office. Brian and I spoke frequently of Jill, her ongoing medical decline at a relatively young age, and her persistent depression and posttraumatic stress. We followed her carefully, exchanged perspectives, and possessed mutual respect for one another’s clinical skills.

I called him immediately. “Are you in your office?” he asked, his voice ominous.

“Yes,” I replied, feeling my stomach tightening.

“Are you aware of the events related to Jill?”

“No,” my heart now pounded from my chest into my throat.

“Jill killed herself by handgun . . . “

I do not remember what he said next, just that he was still talking. I gasped, crying, while simultaneously attempting to hide my upset.

“Margaret, there was nothing, nothing you could have done to prevent this,” Brian continued, his voice clear and emphatic, speaking from his decades of experience, his knowledge of Jill, and his knowledge of our work together.

We talked for some time, and I could feel myself wanting to hang up the phone and be alone, but Brian insistently kept me on the line, wisely, for forty-five minutes. That was enough time for both of us to begin feeling the immensity of Jill’s death, and to begin the longer process of inquiry and reflection into her suicide and its after-effects. It was a process that would continue for a few months between us, and for more than a year for me.

Clinicians who lose patients to suicide are sometimes referred to as “silent mourners.” Some describe this kind of grief as disenfranchised. For me, I think of this grief as a kind of lived experience that catapults you into another environment which is foreign and therefore scary; a kind of grief that is uniquely solitary to bear and therefore devoid of larger community to bear it with you; a kind of grief that is intensely intertwined with shame; and a traumatic grief that possesses all the hallmarks of interpersonal trauma, whose impacts often continue reverberating long after the initial shattering experience has occurred. All of these facets and more underscore the particular experience of clinicians grieving suicide loss.

The differences are rather key in understanding how to be with our selves and also how to respond to colleagues who experience this kind of loss personally or professionally. My hope in writing this article is to buoy understanding, widen the circles of support for clinicians who have experienced suicide loss, and to offer some guideposts along the way of grieving. This topic and these aims are one of my life-long passions in my career. I have had the unfortunate experience of surviving two siblings’ suicides, the sudden death of a third sibling that suggested passive suicide, and the deaths of both parents from organic causes that were informed by these traumatic losses. My terrain of grief and traumatic loss was quite familiar to me by the time I met Jill, having traversed its intricacies in feeling, thought, and body using psychotherapy, meditation, long-distance hiking, body work, and writing, for many years. My experience served me well in working with Jill while she was alive, as well as holding what remained after her death. I was and am, after all, a wounded healer, meeting her suffering in life and in death.

Our Privileged Intimacy, Our Private Mourning

By its very nature, psychotherapy is a privileged space. The therapeutic relationship is characterized by a unique emotional intimacy with each patient. As therapists we are honored by our patients’ presence, the trust that is hard won, and the growing capacities through the course of psychotherapy we witness. We accompany and guide, inquire and curiously explore in a most particular way with each patient. With each patient, a slightly different relationship forms. We are slightly different therapists with each patient we encounter.

The extent to which we as therapists may deny the singular relationship with and presence of our patients in our lives contributes to the complications of grieving their departure in any form—from treatment termination to physical death. In her article, “Necessary and unnecessary losses: the analyst’s mourning” (2000) Sandra Buechler reflects that, because our work asks us to cultivate objectivity, and objectivity is often (over) emphasized in the work (and in training), it becomes a norm without critical thinking or reflection. This clinical cultural norm may also encourage a sense that we can (or should, perhaps) simply “move-on” when a patient departs. A therapist’s stance of distance may additionally complicate the grieving picture, especially in the case of loss by suicide. That stance may feed defenses of denial, encourage guilt, and amplify feelings of shame.

The great Jungian, James Hillman, stated that the suicide of patients is a “wrenching agony of therapeutic practice.” It is also a reality of practice that we fantasize will not touch us, despite the statistics. Depending upon the research reviewed, approximately fifty per cent of psychiatrists and thirty per cent of psychologists experience patient suicide. The statistics are incomplete and varied, often reflective of response rates to inquiry. Further, we do not, to my knowledge, have statistics on the numbers of mental health professionals who have experienced suicide loss within their personal circles of close family-friend relations, but it is fair to consider the percentages may be slightly higher if these were included.

For clinicians, suicide challenges every value we place in the therapeutic endeavor. It can raise fears of litigation, cloud clinical decision-making, and spark feelings of professional isolation. Suicide of a patient can challenge personal and professional identities, career trajectory, and sense of professional security. In its wake, patient suicide can leave posttraumatic stress symptoms behind as well as complicated grief. Interestingly, in my work with therapists who have experienced suicide loss of family or other close relations, they experience similar dilemmas. The sense that as a clinician he or she did not serve their family member or friend well, the questioning of clinical acumen, the guilt of feeling as though he or she should have done something to be of help and more, are common. As clinicians, suicide loss in any arena of our lives is experienced through the lens of our clinical knowledge, expertise, and experience.

There is little personal discussion on how therapists weather such a loss. Lay survivors of suicide are in an unknown country, inhabiting a strange landscape. Therapists surviving the suicide of a patient are in a similar land and yet there are important differences: there is no institutionalized ritual, no community of mourners, no one, really, who knew the patient as the clinician knew the patient. There is no one who witnessed first-hand (as best anyone can) the relationship between a certain patient and a certain therapist, yet the specific dyadic relationship is never to be experienced again. It is never to be remembered by anyone else but the therapist. In specific ways, we are the only one who holds our patient in mind. Even in the case of Jill, Brian held one particular relationship with her, and I another. Although Jill sometimes spoke of us to one another, the bulk of our memories of her are solitary, and the texture of our relationship with her singular.

Therapists are usually left alone with what remains in the aftermath of patient suicide. These remnants include all that was unsaid, unprocessed within the therapeutic relationship—both the regrets of what was not named and processed that are possibly linked to the suicide, and certainly all that had no chance to be felt and spoken of together that more time would have provided. Additionally, all that the therapist retains of his or her patient remains inside the therapist’s memory.

Further, who the therapist was with this particular patient is lost. This leaves open the question of who we are as therapist now. The process of mourning for therapist-survivors asks that we delve into the question of who we are now that our patient has left in this self-destructive way. And who are we, as therapist, the one here to facilitate healing—to engender life, if we have that kind of perspective—in the face of chosen death?

It can be alluring as the therapist-survivor for all these reasons to move far from the confusing thicket of feelings left by patient suicide. The cultural context and identity as therapist can encourage this moving away from honest reflection and processing too. Yet as we know with our patients, moving away from the real experience of the here and now can lead to a dulling of living, a numbing. In our work, moving away from our feelings can feed psychotherapeutic cynicism, burnout, and depression. It can also lead to problematic clinical decision-making and ethical lapses in judgment.

Our willingness to open, receive, and make contact with our patients within the therapeutic work is an offering toward healing—if we choose to risk it. From a relational perspective, certainly, our willingness in these ways is a vital vehicle in the process of transformation found within the therapeutic endeavor. Upon the suicide of a patient, it is tempting to shut down in response to profound relational loss and loss of the therapeutic framework upon which we rely.

Being with Groundlessness

“The dead leave us starving with mouths full of love,” the poet Anne Michaels writes. Jill left me starving and full. Her message to me left me full. The timing of her departure left me starving, questioning. She left me loving her, yes, but also left me with a myriad of other feelings including meaninglessness, impotence, frustration, and raw sadness. I was, because of my life experiences, immediately aware that I needed to take seriously the particular kind of loss I was experiencing—the loss of an incomplete, torn-apart relationship, the loss of who Jill was to me, a loss of clinical voice, and the loss of who I was as a psychotherapist with Jill.

There is ineffability—an unspoken quality— in this kind of traumatic loss. Psychoanalyst Ghislaine Boulanger distinguishes between child and adult onset trauma, noting how core self experience and self-in-relation experiences are undermined. Adult onset trauma shatters illusions of omnipotent control, ever-shaking the normative expectation of personal agency and healthful denial of omnipresent mortality. The suicide of a patient shatters illusions of therapist omnipotence, shaking expectations of potential positive influence upon patients, and calls into question core identity as well as identity-in-relationship to other patients and colleagues.

Western psychology rests within a worldview of personal agency. It is a worldview imbued with Euro-American, individualistic, educated, and moneyed values—all of which are crushed in the face of adult onset trauma. It is the very nature of this kind of traumatic loss that it rocks our assumptive world as therapists: questioning whether our endeavors are life giving, whether our efforts possess meaning and influence; and whether our chosen profession is worthwhile.

There was Todd, a patient-therapist in my practice who came to me after his long-term patient completed suicide. Todd had fifteen years of clinical experience and before that eight as a university professor. He was well versed in suicide prevention and intervention. “After his patient’s death, he refused to ever work with a patient again who even mentioned suicidal feeling states; he would refer them.” His stance is maintained to this day, six years later. His way of coping is not unusual among therapist-patients in my practice or across the profession. Whenever I present a paper on this topic, I hear stories of mental health professionals at all levels responding similarly. So understandably haunted, they desire to avoid any chance of experiencing a suicide loss again; some believe they can no longer objectively assess risk; and others feel traumatized, unable to clinically engage with a patient experiencing suicidal ideation or self-harm.

There are some other common coping approaches among therapist-survivors. They include all the ways we may become vigilant in our practice: taking numerous, even if repetitive, trainings on ethics and suicide prevention; developing a rigid stance in responding to patients expressing suicidal thoughts or intent; and intervening in overly-conservative ways that communicate anxiety to the patient rather than clinical engagement. In her essay for the collection, The Therapist in Mourning: From the Faraway Nearby (2013), Catherine Anderson describes these kinds of responses as part of the working through process with “a desperate need to understand what had happened and a magical wish to protect [oneself] against any future vulnerability.”

Another common response is to avoid examining clinical missed opportunities and errors, to defend against the pain, shame, and perhaps guilt that are simmering. Gina, a patient-clinician of mine, experienced a patient suicide after two sessions. When the patient did not show to the third session, Gina called. Subsequently, the patient’s father contacted Gina. He told her his son killed himself the day after the second session. It was excruciating for Gina to slowly begin to examine her state of mind during the sessions. She came to realize that she was, due to many factors, defending against making genuine a connection with this patient, and was more distant than usual. Her past clinical experience told her that when she has that kind of response, she hesitates exploring avenues that would be productive, and that she overlooks what later, when less defensive, was there all along. That was her missed opportunity. Of course, there is no telling if Gina had been less defended if that would have made a difference—given her a vital piece of clinical information that she could capitalize upon to then help the patient. It was crucially important, however, to Gina’s healing process to bring into consciousness what she already actually knew about herself in her brief work with the patient.

The ground of my being was continually moving beneath me after Jill’s suicide. Because of my life history and my working with it in therapeutic ways, I knew my footing could be regained, but I questioned when that would happen. I returned to writings that reminded me about how vulnerable groundlessness really is and how inevitable it is as well. Pema Chodron, in When Things Fall Apart, writes:

“[T]hings don’t really get solved. They come together and they fall apart. Then they come together again and fall apart again. It's just like that. The healing comes from letting there be room for all of this to happen: room for grief, for relief, for misery, for joy."

Her perspective, for me, reflects what I believe and practice in my private and professional life, but can easily forget in times of great tumult. It is a kind of perspective that provides me refuge.

I knew from my history that if I refused to directly experience what was present within me I would only harden my heart. Cutting myself off by armoring my heart would negatively impact my relationships with other patients, let alone the relationships in my personal circle and my relationship to life itself.

The practice of mindfulness meditation is one way I engage my direct experience, and it had been a practice of mine for many years before I began my clinical work. I returned to intensive practice after sustaining the many family deaths in quick succession aforementioned; I spent a month on a silent meditation retreat as well. The amount of silence offered was an integral experience for my body, heart, and mind to begin having room to feel through those traumatic losses. With Jill’s death, I returned to steady meditation practice again, in order to create room inside myself for the range of feelings I was experiencing. It sounds, perhaps, so simple, so easy, and yet it is not. Silently meditating twice daily confronted me with every vulnerability, every feeling, body sensation, and thought I possessed. Profound shame, futility, anger, banality, and sorrow as well as heartache and headache were some of the many storms I weathered sitting quietly on my meditation cushion. Yet it was the silence and the generous observing accompaniment to myself that were central in my finding footing again.

Ritual as Scaffolding

James Hillman suggests that in the face of patient suicide the clinician go into the context of the death—not to stay on the surface. His advice speaks to delving into our interior world, and grieving, but also something more. He suggests lending all of our knowledge of our patient to the endeavor as well, exploring as thoroughly as possible nuances of our patient’s suicide.

With Jill, intuitively I knew I needed rituals as a frame in my quest to deeply understand her suicide to the best of my abilities, as well as to mourn her death and all of the losses accompanying it. One ritual that was obvious was the therapy itself. There are the set days and times of sessions; the usual pattern of entering and exiting sessions with some of their inevitable variability; the parameters of the relationship.

Keenly aware of how groundless I felt, I longed for grounding in the ritual of my sessions with Jill. “I could not fathom scheduling another patient in Jill’s session times. I realized what I wanted was to keep my appointment with Jill. So I did just that: I kept my appointments with Jill for one year.” Sometimes I went to a meditation space near my office for the appointment; sometimes I was in a natural setting. Other times, I spent it in my office. Wherever I chose to spend the sessions, I also was with Jill. Sometimes reading a book of poetry that evoked Jill, or intentionally recollecting parts of sessions.

By the second week of appointments with Jill, I began writing during the time. I used poetry as a companion. Sometimes I wrote to Jill, sometimes extemporaneously to the Reader with a capital R. An excerpt follows of one of my writings:

I reviewed notes on Jill I came across; process notes. Notes when Brian spoke with me several weeks ago. There is much that remains unsolved in my heart. And it’s in my heart, especially, that time takes its own rhythm, a time that doesn’t match up with the clocks and the calendars.

It’s sorrow or poignancy, both, being touched by Jill—I’m feeling right now. Knowing I’m not alone, really, in such an experience ultimately—like anyone grieving anything how universal and connected to the everyday human experience this actually is. Paradoxically how alone and singular I feel. Alien among colleagues who have not experienced such a violent loss. A lone mourner.

Jill suffered in body and mind, physical and emotional pain. Her physicality used to be a route to survival as a child and a young adult. Her physicality was already failing her. The grief she felt was so layered and frequently linked to all the losses felt trans-generationally across her family history. And even this doesn’t say all she felt and lived with.

I can and do write circles of theory or case formulation but that is not what I’m desiring here. I feel almost desperate to continue delving into this process with her in this kind of way, unsure of where it is leading.

Strange, I guess, to feel the shock, still, that she is dead. I just know the only way to move with this, through this, to be with it all, is to do what I’m doing. Let it come in words or feelings. Let it come through me, in silence.

Of course, the questions remaining in the aftermath of suicide usually cannot be fully answered, but answering all the questions is not the point of such a process. If there is an aim, it is the recognition that the clinician continues in relationship without her (or his) partner in the dyad. Feeling and thinking alongside that recognition is the heart of the process. Psychologist Robert Gaines would call this the stitching together of continuity our relationship to the dead. Finding a relational home once again. Finding one’s clinical and human voice again.

Other rituals also occurred to me related to mourning, whether a formal memorial or an informal honoring, as well as creating continuity. By the end of the second week of appointments with the spirit of Jill, I realized I needed two additional things: to visit where she died, and to create some kind of memorial. There was no funeral service for Jill; she had no family or close community. Something of our process together needed representation. Something of her treasured symbols shared with me needed representation. And something of our relationship needed representation too.

Brian drew me a virtual map in verbal description as to where she died. Over the next four appointments with the spirit of Jill, I developed a memorial. A colleague accompanied me on the day that I set, and we drove to the place close to where Brian described. We walked the remainder of the way. Although Jill chose a place where she surely would be discovered, it was not an overly exposed public place. When I got there, I wept. I wept not because of her death in that moment but because of the purposefulness of the place. I recognized it, immediately, based on our work together. Based on what Jill shared with me. I could see how Jill, with her particular perspective, felt beauty in this place. The place fit into the story of her life, the story she shared with me. The story we made sense of together. The place symbolized what she would frequently discuss and feel, the existentials of existence, and the evolution of her life.

The ritual included flowers, some writing I read to commemorate Jill, and a prayer combined with poetry I put together to reflect our relationship. My colleague and I sat in silence afterward, listening to the sounds around us. I felt close to Jill in the moment. Through the scaffolding of this ritual, as well as the ritual of appointments with her, I began to understand some meanings in her death, and I regained my voice once again.

Jill genuinely affected me—her life as well as her death. Destruction, and particularly self-destruction, surrounded her in the history of her life yet she developed into a highly deliberate, aesthetically-minded, symbolically-attuned woman who struggled with looming thoughts that dragged her into familiar mire she was accustomed to escaping by vigorously and creatively using her body, no longer available to her. Her suicide was equally aesthetically minded—if you forgive the stretch of the word in this context but rather feel into the contour of its meaning. I noticed this in numerous ways from the evidence she left behind, the chosen place of her death, the timing of her death, to her message left for me.

I was acutely aware in working with Jill of my family standing with me, for they are there, always, in the background of my mind and heart, like a luminous shawl. How the experience of their tragic, violent, and sorrowful deaths created, initially, a nuclear-sized crater within me that since healed—and continues to evolve in healing—with scarred but incredibly strong layers. Layers of capacity and depth for ambiguity, curiosity, and love in the face of enormous challenge, rejection, and destruction. I never revealed to Jill my personal history, yet I felt it was these very experiences and my working with them, through them, that enabled me to meet Jill in the dark and light of her psyche without collapsing. All of these details and their meaning that I came to understand over time enabled me to continue to serve fully in my life in all ways professionally and personally with openness.

Relational Home for One Another

Clinician-survivors come in contact with the real attachment felt for the person who died in the process of mourning. Regardless of theoretical orientation or therapeutic stance, there was (and is) a relationship. The basis of the relationship is connection, care, and likely love. Therapists may have difficulty admitting they love their patients; some secretly do so with shame as if caring were untoward. When working in my practice with therapists mourning a suicide, moving through the shame of caring to the healing and human quality of caring is vital.

Clinician-survivors ask me to be their therapist initially because they find my contact information from the American Association of Suicidology’s website. There, among numerous resources, is a link to resources for clinician-survivors. Clinicians who contact me often gingerly express their desire for support, understandably fearing an amplification of shame they already are carrying. Shame demolishes a person’s sense of self. Shame isolates and evicts us from our relational home.

Some studies have explored the ubiquitousness with which clinician-survivors are met with judgment and shaming from colleagues. It has been found that clinicians who have not experienced a suicide loss professionally or personally are more likely to assume that there must have been something the treating clinician had done wrong. One way to understand this is to consider the nature of trauma. People involved in the traumatic event, either directly or indirectly (hearing of it, etc.), hold parts of the experience and defend against the emotional enormity of it. Blame, shame, grandiosity, omnipotence, and guilt are often convoluted in the mix. Unbearable feelings are projected or disavowed. Most of us “know” this, but when we are in the midst of it ourselves we can forget.

Before I entered my contact information on the clinician-survivor network, I carefully considered this act—a public acknowledgment of an aspect of my history. Before I agreed to write this article, which is drawn from a public presentation I gave to two different professional organizations, I considered how my history in print felt quite different than speaking it. I sensed the risk I felt in both instances. For me the risk is primarily located in relationship to colleagues unfamiliar with suicide loss. My feeling of risk among the professional community is not singular—it is cited repeatedly as a way that therapists feel shame for their grief in relation to patients generally, and most especially the shame felt when a patient completes suicide.

Coming out, so to speak, on the website and in this article are acts of advocacy for other therapists in a direct way, and ultimately also, I believe, advocacy for patients. Coming out in these ways are antidotes to shame as well, although revealing oneself carries with it a chance of being judged or shamed. Hiding when feeling shame, after all, is a protective solution to those risks—albeit risks that are generalized. Two anecdotes may elucidate.

When a psychologist-colleague found out that I publicly acknowledged my identity as a suicide survivor, he questioned me. He wondered if I were exposing something that “should” be hidden. His sense of hiding was initially justified by the importance of neutral stance and limited self-disclosure. With further exploration between us, however, my colleague came to realize that he felt anxious and even dissociated when hearing about my experiences. His shaming reaction toward me was a coping mechanism for his anxieties.

Another colleague responded quite differently to finding out about my public acknowledgment as a suicide survivor. Her response: There but before the grace of God go I. She too felt anxious hearing my experience, but she remained in communion with me. She shared her anxiety and her wishful fantasy that she would never experience this kind of trauma. Through our discussion, we created a relational home for one another.

In therapy, we create, with our patients, a relational home. While this home is focused on the patient’s needs, it is irrevocably the particular home we live in with our patient. That home continues to live inside of the therapist-survivor after the patient dies. In Trauma and Human Existence: Autobiographical, Psychoanalytic, and Philosophical Reflections (2007), Robert Stolorow writes, “The mangling and the darkness can be enduringly borne, not in solitude, but in relational contexts of deep emotional attunement and understanding.” The loss of a patient or a loved one by suicide is unfathomable, though we know it happens. It is nothing short of a cataclysmic trauma, one that is enormous to digest. The impact of it on clinicians has been compared to the traumatic loss of a parent. It is a leveling experience for it takes us out of our protected role as therapist and throws us into the most humble, bare experience of our own humanity.

Brian, the psychiatrist, only learned of my family history after Jill’s death. He wondered, “Perhaps there is some unconscious way Jill knew you could make meaning of and bear her death.” It is curious whatever Jill may have implicitly known of me—but ultimately that is something I will never know. Importantly, it was not lost on me, her therapist, the relevance of the place she chose to die. What it meant to her, what she communicated to me in her final message, and what she communicated in her choice of place. It was not lost on me, her therapist, the layered meanings in the timing of death. The curious exploration of these among other unspoken aspects of our work together was what I gave voice to in my year of kept appointments. A year of rediscovering meaning. A year of regaining clarity, ground, and clinical voice. A year of examining the soul of the process between us, and what lived on within me.

***

Following is a list of readings and resources for clinicians and clinician-survivors who wish to learn more about, and seek support for, the grief of losing a client to suicide.

The clinician-survivor network of the American Association of Suicidiology provides consultation, resources, support, and education to mental health professionals in the aftermath of suicide loss, personally and/or professionally. The website includes nationwide clinicians available as resources, as well as an extensive bibliography.

Anderson, C. (2013). "When what we have to offer isn’t enough" in Malawista, K. and Adelmari, A., Eds. The therapist in mourning: from the faraway nearby. New York: Columbia University.

Boulanger, G. (2002). Wounded by Reality: understanding and treating adult onset trauma. New Jersey: Analytic Press.

Buechler, S. (2000). "Necessary and unnecessary losses: the analyst’s mourning." Contemporary Psychoanalysis 36: 77-90.

Chodron, P. (2000). When things fall apart: heart advice for difficult times. Boston: Shambhala Publications.

DeYoung, P., (2015). Understanding and treating chronic shame: a relational/neurobiological approach. New York: Routledge.

Gaines, R. (1997). "Detachment and continuity: the two tasks of mourning." Contemporary Psychoanalysis 33(4): 549-571.

Hillman, J. (1997). Suicide and the soul. Connecticut: Spring Publications.

Michaels, A. (1997). Memoriam in The Weight of Oranges / Miner’s Pond. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart.

Plakun, E. & Tillman, J. (2005). "Responding to clinicians after loss of a patient to suicide." Retrieved December 2013 from http://www.austenriggs.org.

Stolorow, R. (2011). "Portkeys, eternal recurrence, and the phenomenology of traumatic temporality." International Journal of Psychoanalytic Self Psychology, 6:433-436.

Stolorow, R. (2007). Trauma and human existence: autobiographical, psychoanalytic, and philosophical reflections. New York: Routledge.

Tillman, J. (2006). "When a patient commits suicide: an empirical study of psychoanalytic clinicians." The International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 87(1), 159-177.

 

Ronald Siegel on Integrating Mindfulness into Psychotherapy

Mindfulness is an Attitude Toward Experience

Deb Kory: Ronald Siegel, you’re an assistant professor of psychology at Harvard Medical School, a longtime student and teacher of mindfulness meditation, on the faculty of the Institute for Psychotherapy and Meditation and in private practice as a psychotherapist. You’ve done a great deal of work in bringing mindfulness to chronic pain patients and co-wrote a book called Back Sense: A Revolutionary Approach to Halting the Cycle of Chronic Back Pain as well as one for therapists, Sitting Together: Essential Skills for Mindfulness-based Psychotherapy. Most exciting of all—for us at least—you are the star of a new video we produced and are releasing this month called Integrating Mindfulness into Counseling and Psychotherapy, which features you doing mindfulness-based psychotherapy with real clients. In it, you go into great detail about the theory and practice of mindfulness-based psychotherapy, and also do four different therapy sessions with clients each presenting different issues. For our readers who haven’t yet had a chance to watch it, let’s start with the basics: What is mindfulness?
Ronald D. Siegel:
Mindfulness is an attitude toward experience—approaching any moment of our lives with both awareness and acceptance.
Mindfulness is an attitude toward experience—approaching any moment of our lives with both awareness and acceptance. Many people mistake mindfulness for mindfulness meditation, which is actually an umbrella term for many different practices that are designed to cultivate mindfulness, some of which involve following an object of awareness, like the breath, others of which involve things like loving kindness practice or equanimity practices. Those are practices designed to cultivate mindfulness, but mindfulness itself is an attitude toward moment-to-moment experience.
DK: Is it possible to practice mindfulness without having some experience with meditation?
RS: Absolutely. We all have moments in which we’re mindful, in which our minds and bodies show up for an experience. In fact, you might take a minute just now, while reading this, to think of a meaningful moment you’ve had. People will often say, the birth of a child or a graduation or getting married or a particular sunset or a conversation with a friend—all of those moments are essentially moments in which our attention is in the present. We’re accepting of what’s happening and we’re not lost in fantasies of the past that we call memories, nor fantasies of the future. We’re actually present.

We have many moments of this kind of mindful presence in the course of our lives, it’s just that once we start to be attentive to various states of consciousness, we notice that they’re the exception, rather than the rule. They’re relatively rare. So we do mindfulness practices to cultivate more of these moments in our lives.
DK: A sunset or being with a loved one—those are positive experiences. Do we tend to be more mindful in positive moments?
RS: I think instinctually we are, because when we’re experiencing painful moments, we recoil from them. We try to change them or get them to stop, and it takes some practice to open to unpleasant experiences as well. That is a central part of mindfulness practices, particularly in the therapeutic arena, where we understand one aspect of psychopathology as a tendency to resist experience, to try to make it stop.
DK: You are considered a mindfulness expert of sorts and you’re also a psychologist. Have you always brought mindfulness into your psychotherapy practice?
RS: Well, I’d like to challenge that designation first. I’m certainly not a poster child for the practice, given my experience with my own unruly mind. However, I first started practicing mindfulness back in high school, so I have been at it for some time and the principles associated with mindfulness have always infused my psychotherapy practice. In fact, when I learned more conventional psychotherapeutic techniques like cognitive behavior therapy, psychodynamic techniques, systems techniques, humanistic psychological techniques, it was always against the backdrop of Buddhist psychology, which is really the ground out of which mindfulness practices grew.

Our Relentless Tendency Toward "Selfing"

DK: How do therapists actually bring mindfulness into therapy?
RS:
Experienced psychotherapists are perfectly capable of having a full session, making reflective comments, insightful interpretations, all while planning a 12-course meal and having our attention quite divided.
Mindfulness can infuse psychotherapy on many different levels. It can infuse psychotherapy simply on the level of the practicing psychotherapist—what happens to us as the tool or instrument of treatment when we start practicing ourselves. For example, we start to actually show up in the room more fully. Experienced psychotherapists are perfectly capable of having a full session, making reflective comments, insightful interpretations, all while planning a 12-course meal and having our attention quite divided.
DK: Shhhh, that’s supposed to be a secret!
RS: Yeah, don’t tell people outside of the field! But the more we practice mindfulness, the more we’re able to be present. The other thing that happens is our capacity to be with and bear difficult emotions increases a great deal as we take up these practices. As therapists, we tend to hear about painful matters all day long, and sometimes it feels like too much, so we start to shut down our feelings; that can get in the way of being present. Mindfulness practices can help us to remain open in a fresh way to those painful feelings.

At the next level, there’s what we might call mindfulness-informed psychotherapy, which involves gaining insights into how the mind creates suffering for itself—through our own mindfulness practice and through the experience of longtime practitioners. As we gain some of those insights, we start to see certain patterns of mind that begin to inform our models of psychotherapy. For example, our relentless tendency toward “selfing”— creating narratives in our minds, starring me. These narratives are often quite distorted and create a tremendous amount of tension and suffering as we try to hold on to one self image and abort another.

As we see this through our own mindfulness practice, we start to notice that our clients or patients seem to be struggling with the same thing and we can help them with that by drawing upon our own insights and practices. Similarly, noticing the tendency to resist experience and how that multiplies difficulty. In psychotherapy, regardless of what sort of treatment we’re doing, we try to help people move toward, rather than away from, painful experience. To be more present, rather than to be lost in the thought stream involving narratives about the past and the future. That’s a mindfulness-informed psychotherapy.

Finally, there’s the option that comes out of our own experience of doing meditation and realizing that it helps us be more present, clear, have greater affect tolerance, more perspective, and more wisdom in on our lives, as well as more compassion for others. We think, “Hmm, maybe this could help my clients or patients to do this same. Perhaps I’ll teach it to some of them.” I should underscore that it’s about teaching it to some of them and having a map or an understanding of what sort of people might respond well to which sorts of mindfulness practices, at what stages in treatment or stages in life development. It’s not a one-size-fits-all practice.

When Mindfulness is Contraindicated

DK: Isn’t it actually contraindicated for some people?
RS: It’s absolutely contraindicated for many people. For example, for folks who have a lot of unresolved trauma, meaning they’ve experienced painful events in their lives that were too difficult to fully let into awareness at the time, so some aspect of them has been blocked. Maybe it’s the narrative historical memory of the event that’s blocked, maybe it’s the affect associated with the experience that’s blocked, but in some way, the experience has been disavowed. Folks like that, if they start doing certain mindfulness practices, such as spending time following the breath, tend to become quite overwhelmed with the rush of previously blocked material that comes into awareness.

The most problematic adverse effect is due to “derepression,” or the rushing into awareness of things which defensively have been held out of awareness.
A colleague of mine at Brown University named Willoughby Britain is doing a large study on the adverse effects of mindfulness practices, and the most problematic adverse effect is due to what she calls “derepression,” which is this rushing into awareness of things which defensively have been held out of awareness up until the start of mindfulness practices. So, much as we wouldn’t in psychotherapy start talking about material in a vivid way that someone’s not ready to talk about, we don’t want to start doing mindfulness practices that might be premature for various people.
DK: Is Britton against using mindfulness at all in psychotherapy?
RS: No, she’s a mindfulness practitioner herself, a research psychologist who is very enthusiastic about these things and is trying to map this territory. What many meditation teachers know from observation is that these adverse effects are much more likely when somebody attends an intensive silent retreat over the course of many days. But I’ve lead countless groups of psychotherapists through mindfulness practices that are as short as 20-30 minutes and it’s not unusual for one or two members of the group to become overwhelmed by the experience, either by the emotions that comes up or by bodily sensations that they tend to keep out of awareness with constant activity and entertainment. Many, many people are vulnerable to reconnecting with split-off contents.
DK: Let’s say someone comes in to see you for psychotherapy and they haven’t done much psychotherapy and they seem somewhat fragile in this way. How might you work with them?
RS: What’s interesting is there are many mindfulness practices that actually help to create a sense of safety, that create a sense of holding, as Winnicott would say. There are mindfulness practices that are akin to guided imagery or have aspects that feel like hypnosis, and if they’re done in the context of a trusting therapeutic relationship, bring the safety of the therapeutic alliance into the experience of the mindfulness practice.

There are also practices that ground us in the safe aspects of moment-to-moment experience. Walking meditation, where we’re feeling the sensations of the feet touching the ground, or listening meditation, where we’re listening to the sounds of nature or the ambient sounds in the city. Or nature meditation, where we’re looking at clouds and trees and sky. Those objects, since they tend to be safe for most people and bring our awareness away from the core of the body—away from where we tend to identify emotion as happening and toward a safe outer environment—can be very stabilizing. In fact, many of those practices are conventionally in trauma treatment called “grounding” practices because they create safety.

A Transtheoretical Mechanism

DK: It seems to me like everybody in our profession is talking about mindfulness these days. And approaches that I would assume are kind of strange bedfellows—CBT and mindfulness, psychoanalysis and mindfulness—are being paired together. If you go to Psychology Today and look at the profiles of psychotherapists, mindfulness is now a little bullet-point you can select as an orientation. I often wonder if most practitioners actually know what they’re talking about when they claim to work within a mindfulness framework. Like, are they saying that because they’ve been to a one-day meditation retreat or are they actually genuinely skilled in this approach?
RS: Well, I think it’s the same as with any psychotherapeutic model, theory or treatment system—people have very variable levels of understanding of what they’re doing. There are some people who have a great deal of wisdom, compassion and knowledge, who are saying that they’re doing mindfulness-oriented treatments, and there are other people who have a much more cursory exposure to it and may not have much depth of personal experience, but are intrigued by the idea or see it as a useful concept to identify with because other people may be interested in it and looking for a therapist who has some expertise.

But I do think that the field is still in its infancy in terms of really understanding the psychological, as well as the neurobiological, effects of these practices.
The field is still in its infancy in terms of really understanding the psychological, as well as the neurobiological, effects of these practices.
It’s quite a complex field, with many different practices, each one affecting the mind, the brain and the body in different ways and in different ways for different individuals. So while we can make some generalizations and have some guidelines, I think clinicians are best served to see it as very complex.

To the other point that you made about various forms of treatment being incongruent with mindfulness, I actually don’t think most are. I think of mindfulness as a transtheoretical mechanism that is operating in virtually any effective psychotherapy, because virtually any effective psychotherapy is going to help people step out of irrational, unhelpful cognitive patterns. Virtually any effective psychotherapy is going to help people connect with, feel and embrace an increasingly wide range of emotions. Virtually any psychotherapy is going to try to help people to engage more fully moment-to-moment in their lives. Since these are cardinal features of mindfulness practice, you can see them as being helpful in virtually any form of treatment.
DK: So you don’t see it as its own model or approach, but more an attitude and set of practices that are brought into all approaches.
RS: Very much so. While we might choose to actually teach a mindfulness practice to a given client or a patient in a given psychotherapy, that could be done within the context of a cognitive behavioral treatment, a systemic treatment, a humanistic treatment, a psychodynamic treatment and many others as well.

When graduate students come to me and say, “I want to get trained as a mindfulness therapist. Where should I go to school? What kind of training should I have?” I tend to implore them, “Please don’t get trained as a mindfulness therapist. Please get trained as a therapist, first and foremost. Have some understanding of the complexities of the human mind and body, some understanding of the myriad forms of psychopathology that we can get stuck in, a good introspective understanding of your own issues and conflicts and how they get in the way of relating to other people, and get supervision from people who’ve been working with troubled folks for a long time; once you develop that foundation, then integrate mindfulness practices into psychotherapy.”
When graduate students come to me and say, “I want to get trained as a mindfulness therapist. Where should I go to school? What kind of training should I have?” I tend to implore them, “Please don’t get trained as a mindfulness therapist.”


Of course it’s very valuable all along in your training to be doing your own mindfulness practice, to maybe even have a meditation teacher that you turn to for advice. Extremely useful. But if I had a friend who was struggling psychologically and I had the choice of either sending them to a brilliant mindfulness practitioner with very limited clinical training or a reasonably good clinician with reasonably good training as a clinician, but who’d never heard of mindfulness, I would send that person to the clinician in a heartbeat.

We Are Hardwired for Misery

DK: That’s an interesting point. I live in the Bay Area, and there are a lot of people who are really into Buddhism and mindfulness practices, who kind of eschew psychotherapy for more spiritual practices of meditation and yoga. But at the same time, I know that the Buddhist teachers around here are often imploring people to get therapy, to not do the “spiritual bypass” thing and avoid the work of getting into the muck of our psyches and how they impact our relationships and lives.
RS: Yes, absolutely. Jack Kornfield, who teaches at Spirit Rock in the Bay Area and has written many books on the subject of integrating psychology and Buddhism, recently wrote an article about highly experienced mindfulness meditation teachers, Buddhist teachers, who needed to go into psychotherapy. Ultimately, it’s not that one is better than the other—they are both pathways toward sanity. There are so many pathways to insanity that we actually need a variety of tools to work toward sanity.

I would argue that our natural evolutionarily determined predilection is to be quite nuts and quite miserable.
I would argue that our natural evolutionarily determined predilection is to be quite nuts and quite miserable. As Rick Hanson, who wrote Buddha’s Brain: The Practical Neuroscience of Happiness, Love & Wisdom, puts it, “Our brains are like velcro for bad experiences and teflon for good ones.” It’s a total setup for human misery, not to mention the hardwired tendency toward self-preservation that makes us concerned with how we rank compared to the other primates in our troop, which results in endless self-esteem concerns.

We are hardwired for misery. It is a good thing that we have both Western psychotherapeutic techniques that can help us untangle our narratives and get in touch with our feelings and do that in a healing, interpersonal context, and also have access to mindfulness and compassion practices that can help us transcend our personal story to see existential reality, to face the reality of change and death, to face the reality of sickness and old age, and develop sanity through those practices as well.
DK: As mindfulness practices are becoming more mainstream in the psychotherapy community and the medical community, it’s also becoming more secularized. People might go to their primary care physician and be prescribed a mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) class for high blood pressure, and never even hear the word “Buddhism.” Is there a downside to that?
RS: Let me talk about the upside first and then the downside. The Dalai Lama was talking to a group of clinicians and researchers at Emory University about depression, and toward the end of the conference, I remember being quite moved when he said, “If you folks discover that some elements of Buddhist meditation practices are useful for alleviating depression, I really have only one request for you: please, please don’t tell people that it comes from Buddhism. My tradition is about alleviating suffering, and if you tell people that these are Buddhist practices, you’re going to miss huge numbers of people whose suffering could be alleviated. Don’t get hung up on that. Express this in whatever form is going to be useful in alleviating suffering.”

So my inclination is to tailor our psychotherapy practices to the cultural background, needs, and proclivities of whoever we’re working with. There’s no need to present mindfulness in a way that is going to be alienating. Not only do you not need to mention Buddhism, you don’t need to mention meditation. These practices can be presented simply as attentional control training. When we train our attention differently, we have very different psychological experiences and it helps us both gain insight and cut through all sorts of forms of suffering.

The first rule of psychotherapy is to meet the client or patient where he or she is, and this should not be forced upon people as some alien cultural system, and nor should people be forced to consider the implications of these practices for developing wisdom and compassion if all they’re hoping for at the moment is a little bit less anxiety. That may come later down the road, but we can help them with that anxiety first.

That being said, there are potentials to these practices that are very deep, very wide, and very rich. If a clinician learns mindfulness-based stress reduction and sees these practices primarily as a tool for helping people to relax, they will miss some of the depth and some of the breadth of what these practices can offer. I think it’s useful for clinicians to practice with some intensity themselves, so they can see personally how transformative these practices can be, in a way that goes far, far beyond any benefits that come from relaxation training. It can be very useful for clinicians to learn about Buddhist psychology. It is a very profound and helpful way to understand the mind and how we get caught in suffering.
DK: I think that there’s a lot of mystery and mystification around what mindfulness is, and one of the great things about this new video with you we’re releasing is that we get to see you doing meditation with clients, and modulating it to the specific needs of each client. In real life you don’t do meditation with everyone, but this gives psychotherapists a chance to see what it looks like to bring it into a session.

I think a lot of people are kind of scared to do it and I know that when I first started doing it in my therapy sessions—and I only do it occasionally—I was actually surprised at how profound an experience it was for people and that it had the capacity to stir up some really intense memories. It’s a powerful tool that we have to learn how to use. Can you say a little bit about how you modulate and decide to use meditation in therapy sessions?
RS: First I’d like to pick up on one thing you said.
Many people in our society are involved in states of distraction all day long. Google says we check our cell phone on average 125 times a day.
Many people in our society are involved in states of distraction all day long. Google says we check our cell phone on average 125 times a day. We spend hours watching television. We spend a lot of time chatting with friends. There’s nothing with that—all of these things can have wholesome aspects to them and can make for a rich and interesting life, but for many of us, they keep us from really noticing what’s happening in our minds and in our hearts in each moment. They help to insulate us from the hundreds of micro-traumas that most of us experience just going through the day. The little disappointments, the “I wonder what she meant by that,” the “I didn’t do that as skillfully as I would have,” or “I haven’t quite achieved what I wanted in my life.” Endless, endless reflections, each of which has a bit of pain in it and each of which we want to distract ourselves from with various forms of entertainment and engagement. When people start taking up these practices, all of the pain of those micro-traumas start to come into awareness, and they can indeed be unsettling. Of course they also offer the opportunity to integrate all of that, which is a wonderful potential. So I think we have to be very judicious about it.

My main criteria for whether to actually teach mindfulness practice in a session are twofold; one is, what’s the person’s cultural background and how weird are they going to think it is to choose an object of attention and bring attention to that and return to that object when the mind wanders? Because for some people, it’s like, “forget it, man, that’s not me.”
DK: Yeah, on of the clients in the video, Julia, is a bit like that.
RS: For folks like that, I’m going to be very judicious about it, but one can bring mindfulness into psychotherapy in many, many ways that don’t involve teaching meditation. I already spoke about the shift in our attitude and our capacity for presence as psychotherapists that occurs, as well as the shifts in our models for psychopathology and for what might help people out of psychopathology that might come from our own practice.

Let’s say we’re sitting with somebody and it’s clear that some feeling got triggered. The conventional way to respond to that in therapy is, “What are you feeling now?” A slightly different way to ask the question might be, “what did you notice happening in the body and the mind right now?” That little shift in phrasing starts to shift the conversation from the normal narrative about “my life starring me,” to an observational stance—to what the CBT folks would call “metacognitive awareness,” or what the analysts would call “observing ego.”

To begin to watch and to identify a little bit with awareness itself, rather than the contents of the process. Of course it might be skillful or it might be unskillful in any given moment. For one person at one moment, what they need is to feel your empathic connection to them and saying, “What were you feeling at that moment?” might feel more empathically connected. But for somebody else, they might need to develop some of this observing ego or metacognitive awareness, and if we’re phrasing it in a slightly more objective way, it might serve that purpose. That begins to develop a little bit of mindfulness, even though we’re not doing anything that looks like meditation.

The second criterion I use is, “What’s their capacity to be with their experience?” If they have very little capacity to be with their experience, I want to start with very small doses and very non-threatening contents. If they have more capacity to be with their experience, we can dive into larger doses and get at whatever arises in consciousness right now. It really depends on the person.

Lighten Up

DK: You mentioned CBT and metacognition and it seems like a lot of what’s happening in mindfulness interventions is “noticing.” In CBT, I tend to think of it more as not just noticing, but blocking or counteracting thoughts. Is there also a methodology within mindfulness training where you’re being more directive with the material that comes up in the brain, or is that off limits?
RS: That’s a very interesting question. Let me correct one thing. There’s noticing, and there’s also feeling in a wholehearted way. I think one mistake people make is they assume that this is a very cognitive kind of endeavor and that’s only one part of it. The other part is really opening to what’s happening on a heart level, in terms of really feeling feelings, as well as noticing what’s happening in the interpersonal field and our relationships and connecting in an alive and juicy way to experience. So I just want to mention that first.

Secondly, CBT folks have described it as the third wave of behavior therapy. The first wave was Skinner on one hand and Pavlov and Watson on the other hand. Operant and classical conditioning and working with modifying behavior. Then came the very important insight that human beings, unlike other laboratory animals, think a lot and our thoughts have tremendous impact on both our emotions and on our behavior. So maybe what we should be doing is using behavioral principles, learning theory, to modify thoughts.

The third wave is coming from a different direction:
What if we start to see all thought as essentially fluid, suspect, unreliable, and based on emotion?
What if we start to see all thought as essentially fluid, suspect, unreliable, and based on emotion? These acceptance and mindfulness-based approaches are all about lightening up in relation to thought, rather than trying to get rid of the bad and hold onto the good.

In my experience, that can be quite powerful, but it takes a while. It’s a much more subtle and in some ways sophisticated way to work with the mind than just replacing maladaptive irrational thoughts with adaptive rational ones. After all, one person’s adaptive, rational thought, is another person’s insanity. We all may agree about our zip code and whether it’s raining at the moment, but as soon as we get into more complex matters, humans differ a great deal and I think we’d do better to have a more relativistic approach toward different thoughts.
DK: So the third wave basically posits that we are all insane.
RS: Yes, we’re all insane. This is a little bit of a bold summary, but my impression of the last 15 or 20 years of advances in cognitive science is basically the realization that all the processes that we’ve thought of as rational are irrational, that bias, desire, cultural proclivity, those kinds of factors are really what determine how and what we think. The idea that we are rational organisms analyzing data for positive goals—yeah, occasionally, but that’s not mostly how we tick. So if we can lighten up generally in our approach to thinking, I think that’s quite helpful.
DK: That is a perfect place to end. Thank you so much for sharing the insights of your otherwise unruly mind.
RS: It’s been a pleasure.

The Book of Woe: The DSM and the Unmaking of Psychiatry

Editor's Note: The following is excerpted from The Book of Woe: The DSM and the Unmaking of Psychiatry by Gary Greenberg. Published by arrangement with Blue Rider Press, a member of Penguin Group (USA).

In 2002, the APA officially announced that [the DSM-IV] had had its day. In A Research Agenda for DSM?V, a book that kicked off the official revision effort, the APA acknowledged that the reification of the DSM?IV’s categories, “to the point that they are considered to be the equivalent of diseases,” had most likely “hindered research.” Nor was “research exclusively focused on refining the DSM-defined syndromes [likely to] be successful in uncovering their underlying etiologies.” Searching for the causes of the illnesses listed in the DSM was proving to be not unlike a drunk looking for his car keys under a streetlight even if that’s not where he dropped them. Scientists were unlikely to find the causes of Generalized Anxiety Disorder or Major Depressive Disorder or any of the other DSM categories­—as descriptive psychiatrists had been promising to do since Kraepelin—because it increasingly seemed unlikely that they really were the equivalent of diseases.

So the APA did what organizations everywhere do when they find themselves flummoxed. They convened a committee. To be exact, they convened thirteen committees that, beginning in 2004, held a series of “planning conferences” at APA headquarters. Because the conferences were explicitly devoted to finding that new paradigm—which, according to the Research Agenda, was “yet unknown”—the NIMH helped pay for them.

Among the people appointed to organize the conferences was a Columbia University psychiatrist named Michael First. First had been the text editor for the DSM?IV and the editor of the DSM?IV?TR. Since 1990, part of his salary at Columbia had been paid by the APA, for which he consulted on all matters related to the DSM. He’d already worked on DSM?5, editing the Research Agenda and writing its foreword.

When he’s not traveling around the world, lecturing on diagnostic issues or consulting to the Centers for Disease Control or the World Health Organization or teaching clinicians how to use the DSM, First can be found in a basement office at the New York State Psychiatric Institute, part of Columbia Presbyterian hospital on the northern tip of Manhattan. He’s bent over in his office chair when I arrive, searching for something amid the piles of papers that have spilled over from his desk and tables and onto the floor. Bearded and rumpled, he looks like a psychiatrist in a New Yorker cartoon. When he talks, thoughts tumble out like the papers in his office, one on top of another, but somehow usually making sense. So you’d be mistaken to think that he’s absentminded. If I hadn’t interrupted him, he would surely have reached into the mess and found just what he was looking for, just as he seems to be able to rummage around in his memory and retrieve the slightest detail of the DSM’s history.

“In a way, I was born to do the DSM,” First told me. But he didn’t always think so. “When I first saw DSM-III”—at the University of Pitts-burgh’s medical school in 1978—“I thought it was preposterous. I saw the Chinese-menu approach and thought, ‘This is how they do diagnosis in psychiatry?’ It seemed overly mechanical and didn’t fit my idea of what the study of the mind and psychiatry should be.”

First had a second love: computer science, which he had pursued as an undergraduate at Princeton. He’d almost chucked pre-med for computers, and during medical school, he continued his interest, working with a team using artificial intelligence for diagnosis in internal medicine. He took a year off to earn a master’s degree in computer science, working on a program to diagnose neurological problems. When he returned to medical school, he settled on psychiatry as his specialty, and his interest in using computers to aid diagnosticians made that Chinese-menu approach seem not quite so preposterous. “I thought, ‘Well, psychiatry is actually relatively straightforward. It’s got a book with rules in it already—an obvious good fortune if I was going to try to get a computer to be able to do this.” Which he was, and which is why he decided to go to the New York State Psychiatric Institute, the professional home of Bob Spitzer, where he planned to exploit his good fortune.

Spitzer had already flirted with computer­-assisted diagnosis in the 1970s, when he was first developing the criteria-based approach. He’d abandoned the attempt, however, and soured on the idea. First managed to negotiate a bargain: he could work on his program so long as he helped out with one of Spitzer’s—an old-fashioned paper-and-pencil test Spitzer was developing called Structured Clinical Interview for DSM Disorders, or SCID. The SCID, which is still in use, is straight forward to use. If you answer yes when the doctor asks you if you’ve been sad for two weeks or more, then he is directed to ask you about the next criterion for depression—whether or not you have lost interest in your usual activities. If you answer no, then he moves on to a criterion for a different disorder. This goes on for forty-five minutes or so, the questions shunting you from one branch of the diagnostic tree to the next until you land on the leaf that is your diagnosis.

First eventually did develop his own diagnostic program. He called it DTREE, but it was a commercial failure. “I learned a lesson,” First said. “Doctors don’t care much about diagnosis. They use diagnosis mostly for codes. They don’t really care what the rules are.” When a patient comes in complaining of pervasive worry and jitters, with a little dread thrown in, most clinicians don’t take the time to climb around on the diagnostic tree. They don’t bother consulting the DSM’s list of criteria to diagnose Generalized Anxiety Disorder. They just write the code, 300.02, in the chart (and on the bill) and move on.

“That was my first lesson in how people think about diagnosis,” First told me.

First doesn’t think the solution is more reverence toward the DSM. Indeed, there may be only one thing worse than not paying attention to the DSM and that is paying it too much heed. “I think people take diagnosis too seriously,” he said. The DSM may appear to be a master text of psychological suffering, but this is misleading. “The fiction that diagnosis could be boiled down to a set of rules is something that people find very appealing, but I think it’s gotten out of hand. It is a convenient language for communication, and nothing more.” The rules are important, but they should not be applied outside of a very particular game.

In this respect, First thinks, “the DSM has been a victim of its own success.” If it was merely the lexicon that gave psychiatrists a way to talk to one another, then it might live in the same dusty obscurity as, say, Interventional Radiology in Women’s Health or Consensus in Clinical Nutrition does. If it was treated as a convenient fiction fashioned by expert consensus, and not the embodiment of a scientific understanding of human functioning, then newspapers would not be giving psychiatrists valuable op?ed real estate to debate its merits. If it hadn’t escaped its professional confines, it would not be seen as a Rosetta Stone capable of decoding the complexities of our inner lives. If it had not become an epistemic prison, psychiatrists wouldn’t be languishing in it, trying to find the biological correlates of disorders that don’t really exist, that were invented rather than discovered, whose inventors never meant to make such mischief, and whose sufferers, apparently unreasonably, take medical diagnoses seriously enough to expect them to be real.

First is right about at least one thing. Most clinicians don’t care what the DSM’s rules are. I know I don’t. I rarely take it down off my shelf. I use only a handful of the codes and by now I know them by heart.

At the top of my favorites list is 309.28, which stands for Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood. Here’s how the DSM?IV defines it:

A. The development of emotional or behavioral symptoms in response to an identifiable stressor(s) occurring within 3 months of the onset of the stressor(s)

B. These symptoms or behaviors are clinically significant as evidenced by either of the following:

  1. marked distress that is in excess of what would be expected from exposure to the stressor
  2. significant impairment in social or occupational (academic) functioning

C. The stress-related disturbance does not meet the criteria for another disorder

D. The symptoms do not represent Bereavement

E. Once the stressor (or its consequences) has terminated, the symptoms do not persist for more than an additional 6 months

I’m sure you can see why 309.28 is popular with clinicians, and why insurance company claims examiners probably see it all the time. It sounds innocuous, which makes it go down easy with patients (if, as I do, you tell your patients which mental illness you are now adding to their medical dossier) and with employers or insurers or others who might have occasion to scrutinize a patient’s medical history and be put off by a more serious-sounding diagnosis. It offers all kinds of diagnostic flexibility. Take Criterion B1, for instance. It is easy to meet; it is easy enough to use the fact that the patient made an appointment as evidence of “marked distress.” And that lovely parenthetical in Criterion E makes it possible to re?up the patient even after the six months have elapsed.

But Adjustment Disorder also has a special place in my heart because it was my own first diagnosis, or at least the first one I knew about. I got it sometime in the early 1980s, when I was in my early twenties and the DSM was in its third edition. I don’t remember why I wanted to be in therapy or very much of what I talked about with my therapist. I do remember that my father was paying for it. He was probably hoping I would discover that my self-chosen circumstances—living alone in a cabin in the woods without the modern conveniences—were a symptom of something that could be cured. What I was being treated for, however, was not “Back to the Land Disorder” or “Why Don’t You Grow Up Already Disorder,” but rather, as I discovered one day when I glanced down at my statement on the receptionist’s desk, Adjustment Disorder.

I guess the tag seemed about right. I definitely wasn’t adjusting; and if it occurred to me that by calling my lifestyle an illness (if indeed that’s what he meant to do, as opposed to just rendering the most innocuous-sounding diagnosis possible), my therapist had passed judgment on exactly where the problem resided, I didn’t think much of it at the time. But I do remember that I noticed, for the first time, that I’d been going to these weekly appointments in a doctor’s office. It happened to be in a building adjacent to the office of my childhood pediatrician, but it did not smell like alcohol or have a white­shoed woman bustling about, nor did its business seem a bit related to the shots and probes I’d suffered next door, so the discord stood out. But still the fact of that diagnosis, right there in black-and-white, was undeniable. I was a mental patient.

I was eventually cured of my maladjustment—not by therapy, but by a family coup that resulted in my grandfather’s being relieved of the farm he’d inherited from his mother. That happened to be the land on which I’d built my home, and so I was evicted, my cabin eventually bulldozed and the land converted to McMansions, and it became necessary for me to earn a living. Of the many adjustments I have had to make, diagnosing people in order to secure an income was one of the strangest—not only because the DSM’s labels seemed so insufficient, its criteria so deracinated, the whole procedure so banal in comparison with the rich and disturbing and ultimately inexhaustible conversation that was occurring in my office, but also, and much more important, because of the bad faith involved. I didn’t mind colluding with my patients against the insurance companies; sometimes I actually enjoyed the thought. I brought them in on the scam, explaining exactly what diagnosis I was giving them, sometimes even taking out the book and reading the criteria and occasionally offering them a choice. But the fact that we were sharing the lie didn’t make our business any less dishonest.

I know therapists who diagnose everyone with Adjustment Disorder unless the insurance company limits benefits for its treatment on the grounds that it isn’t enough of an illness to warrant much treatment—at which point the patient often contracts a sudden case of something much worse, like Major Depressive Disorder. Myself, I prefer to mix things up a little. But mostly I prefer not to do business with insurance companies, so I often don’t have to bother with such dilemmas. Of course, that means I get paid less money, since not everyone can afford my rates without a little help from their friends at Aetna, so I end up giving people a break in return for steering clear of the whole unsavory business. Over the thirty years I’ve been in practice, I’ve probably left a couple million dollars on the table by avoiding the DSM. It’s an expensive habit, but I think of it as buying my way out of bad faith.

And it’s not just my rank­and-file colleagues and I who think of the DSM as if it were a colonoscopy: a necessary evil, something to be endured and quickly forgotten, and surely not to be taken seriously unless you have to. I once asked psychiatrist and former president of the APA Paul Fink to tell me how the DSM was helpful in his daily practice.

“I have a patient that I’ve been seeing for two months,” he told me. “And my secretary said, ‘What’s the diagnosis?’ I thought a lot about it because I hadn’t really formulated it, and then I began to think: What are her symptoms? What does she do? How does she behave? I diagnosed her with obsessive­ compulsive disorder.”

“Did this change the way you treated her?” I asked.

“No.”

“So what was its value, would you say?”

“I got paid.”

It is at least ironic that a profession once dedicated to the pursuit of psychological truth is now dependent on this kind of dishonesty for its survival. But I suppose that any system guided by the invisible­hand—financial markets no more than healthcare financing—is bound to be gamed. And the DSM, whatever its flaws, has proved to be a superb playbook.