|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ABOUT SFAC - CONTACT |
...coming and outgoing... I
just wonder about usefulness of talking about some generalizations in spite
of some specific characteristics – like gender, when we have work with
individuals. So when I see a girl and remember in my mind about “who and how
are girls?”, what can I do with it that will be useful for her? She is also
tall, and she is 10 years, and she's got two sisters, .... etc. Does it all
matter? Maybe it does, maybe not. But … …I
meet a very particular girl, and if I want to be specific and find out how
she is and
all the necessary data I have to find it in her answers, in
her manner of behaving during the sessions, etc. What
can I do with generalizations during work with a specific client? # I'm
not sure I remember well (by Steve??) when it was said that … …techniques
means not theoretical description but
the way we use it in practice … –
than we can see useful scaling and not useful scaling, etc. It's the real
moment of existing of a specific technique. # “Yes
I'm 'expert' but before I'll tell you my stance in that case, I have to get
more info” - than let follow SFT questions - and you have knowledge you can
share with your clients [about all SFT stuff]. # Sometimes
I think that being empathetic often fix people to stay longer in therapy
while being in “warm distance” lets them go faster. I
watched on TV a program about a man who was helping small, injured bears to
get better and go back to nature. It was obvious that he loved them, but at
the same time he was in great respect for their wild nature, which was
required to survive. For me it was a very good example of “warm distance”. # In
moments outside the therapy room I put my hands into different activities of
work. I paint, repair etc ... And I teach myself what to do to stay simple in
that works. Simple means effective. I don't know how it works for me. But it
does. After such a work I have always better perspective on my therapy work.
Maybe it's the matter of reality. As
I understand, you know what and how it is “to be on track”? # I
want to be expert of the therapy field, and want to see my client as an
expert of his therapy and life. There's enough place for both of us –
experts! There's
enough place for both of us – experts! # My
way is to keep in mind that my client is talking to me about the trip through
his life's area, where I've never been and I'll never be. I call it on my use
“Report from life's trip”. So the only way is to listen how he describes me
that trip. And in every our meeting I need to treat him as someone who's got
the knowledge which I cannot have! So I need to ask him, and probably he
needs to hear answers on that questions. So
I need to be curious and look for every detail to have weak imagination about
that land which is for me behind my possibility of crossing. # you
say: “It seems that some people find it easier to focus on problems rather
than on exceptions.” Maybe it works better for them than solutions. We would
have to ask them to know it! # I
see I have many assumptions but not about that what works in my clients’
lives but about what works during therapy! And for me it’s a big difference! It
seems to me that it is impossible to use techniques without any assumptions,
because one of them is that you assume that it’ll be useful for your client
before you do. # someone
asked: “How important is it for the client to know the counselor is aware of
the life of the problem”. Since
there're no such a thing like general client, I find it quite difficult to
answer such a question. I think that answers would be as different as our
clients are. The only one thing I can state now is that for me it is not
important since I found that I can be useful for clients without being aware
of it. But some clients may need it and some don't. Maybe we should ask them
one by one. # When
it's happening in my practice that I think that something is not working,
than it's my use of SFBT , and maybe SFBT's style of my colleague would be
useful for that particular client. When I look around I see many situations
when someone is saying “that ‘tool’ is not working”, and short after that
statement someone another with that ‘tool’ is able to achieve this what was
not possible for someone another earlier. Shouldn't we say “I cannot use that
tool in a way I need!”? Take a car and try to drive on two wheels! Can you? I
can't! But some can! # I
have the impression, on the basis of my experience with working with other
therapists, that combining SFT with other approaches, as well as every
combining in clinical work, is much more a matter of therapist abilities,
history and preferences, than it is limited by approach or clients needs. If
complete means that it works for clients, I would say SFT is complete. # Much
more often in my practice I started to use homogeneous scales, i.e. such
scales where ends are not contrary: ‘problem – solution’, ‘wrong – good’,
‘sad – happy’ etc, but are about the same factor (wanted goal) in different
intensity: ‘a little bit of calm – sufficiently calm’, ‘a little bit of
required acting – sufficient level of required acting’, etc. I'm
finding it useful in a way that such scales are not building or showing
connections between problem and solution, and instead of that showing how
life can be multifarious. In my practice they are a good start to allow
people to change their view that life is not ‘black and white’, and that they
can choose many things which they saw previously as determined. If
client's perspective is focused on ‘solutions’ I see many other advantages,
but I’m stopping now ... # Observe
and check out the meaning |
|||
|
|
|
|||
