Below you can find some of my (Tomasz Switek) quotes I’ve written some time ago!
You can find much more going to our facebook page and find quotes titled „TSR NA DZIS” (SFT FOR TODAY)
It’s in Polish so you can use translation option to read it in your language!
Our facebook page you can find at LINK
…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