Hi All.
Below is the link for the $139 deal for the 7.5 hour Assessment and Intervention with Suicidal Clients training video with Psychotherapy.net.
Please share this information with other professionals who might want or need to sharpen their skills for working with clients who are or might become suicidal. This is a hard topic and I hope this resource can help clinicians feel more confident and competent in their suicide assessment and intervention skills.
It’s political season.
Political season brings lots of things, including relentless television advertisings featuring creepy deep voices saying things that almost might be true, but are mostly unverifiable. One example, among many, accuses a candidate of “Voting against Montana.” Could that be true? It’s impossible to tell because it’s impossible to even know what voting against Montana even means? Obviously, the purpose of that sort of advertising is to mislead and influence.
Right now I’m on a bus from Missoula to Billings. It’s my birthday, which makes it a funny day for a bus ride. I could have stayed in Missoula, but today “he who shall not be named” is speaking there . . . and so I’m happily and anonymously riding this WiFi supplied Jefferson Lines Bus to Billings, where Rita will pick me up for a birthday dinner and poetry reading.
Political season always brings me fantasies of running for office. Today, while walking to the Missoula bus station, the fantasy was of me doing a political television advertisement. I might say something like this:
“Hey, I’m not featuring a creepy deep voice or attacking my opposition. All I want to do is look into this camera and talk directly to you. So let’s talk. Let’s talk about what you want in a Senator or Representative.
I grew up on the rural edge of Vancouver, Washington. My father owned a small business, installing window coverings. He was (and is at 92) the most honest person I’ve ever known. My mother was a traditional homemaker and worked along with my father in the family business. She was (and is) the kindest person I’ve ever known.
I’ve only got about 10 or 15 more years of a healthy active life left. And so, in honor of my parents and their values, I’d like to be a politician who will represent you with honesty and kindness. My parents also embraced the value of hard work. So let’s throw that in. I won’t be spending money on attack ads or misinformation. If you want to know where I stand on something, let’s talk. I’ll work hard to be an honest and kind representative of you and the whole state. In this advertising, all I’m asking is that you look at me, talk to me, compare me to my opponent, and then vote for the person who you think will be the most honest, kind, and hardworking person to represent you and this great state of Montana.”
Enough of the silly fantasies. My point is my birthday wish. I’m wishing today, for my birthday and for my birthday year, for a political takeover by politicians who are honest, kind, and hardworking. That’s all. They don’t have to be rich or powerful. They don’t have to have high IQs. Let’s just concentrate. Let’s just elect the honest and kind candidates and then see what happens.
Happy birthday to me.
This is Captain America, fighting with his younger sibling.
Yesterday, morning my phone pinged me about a new episode of the Practically Perfect Parenting Podcast (PPPP). At first I ignored it, realizing of course, that this ping was about my very own podcast, so why pay attention. But then I thought, I should pretend I’m not the podcaster and just click into the podcast and start listening. So I did.
Much to my surprise, I didn’t hate it. Maybe that sounds weird. If you’ve ever listened to an audio recording of yourself, you probably know what I mean. Typically, I feel uncomfortable and dislike the way I sound (on audio) and look (on video). But I actually sort of liked the opening sounds of the PPPP. I thought both Sara and I sounded pretty darn good. Then I realized, of course, that all the credit goes to Mike Matthews, our sound guy and his fancy microphones. Thanks Mike, for making us sound far more sophisticated and smart than we actually are!
I should also say thanks to Joey Moore, because he reviews the audio recordings, deletes some of our “Ums” and other verbal problems, and then posts the podcasts on Libsyn and iTunes. Thanks Joey!
But now I’m worried. I wonder if Mike and Joey might feel competitive with one another. Maybe they feel like siblings (even though they’ve never met). Maybe I should have said thanks to Joey first? Could I be stoking a sibling rivalry?
Speaking of sibling rivalry, that’s the topic of this, the latest episode of the PPPP. And here’s the blurb Sara wrote about this episode (Episode #26, just in case you’re counting).
Two brothers, ages 7 and 9, were arguing over an imaginary cookie. In a dramatic turn of events, the older brother brought the invisible cookie to his lips, and took an imaginary bite. Immediately, the younger brother fell to his knees, crying and wailing over the loss of this imagined—yet highly coveted and presumably scrumptious—cookie. In this Practically Perfect Parenting Podcast episode, Dr. John and Dr. Sara attempt to unravel the mysteries of sibling rivalry and discuss how it can serve an important purpose. They remind listeners that, although an understandable fantasy, eliminating conflict is not a reasonable goal. Instead, by accepting a certain amount of sibling rivalry, parents can help children adopt life-long conflict management skills.
If you want to listen to the PPPP click on whatever link below that fits your needs.
The Practically Perfect Parenting Podcast is a bimonthly podcast by Department of Counselor Education Professor John Sommers-Flanagan and Clinical Director Sara Polanchek. The PPPP is sponsored by the Engelhard Foundation, the National Parenting Education Network, the Department of Counselor Education, and listeners like you. The 26th episode, titled, “Sibling Rivalry and Relationships” was released last Wednesday. Subscribe or listen on: iTunes, or Libsyn and follow on Facebook.
Suicide rates in the U.S. are at a 30 year high. Beginning in 2005, death by suicide in America began rising, and it hasn’t stopped, rising for 12 consecutive years.
Worldwide (and at the CDC) suicide rates are tracked using the number of deaths per 100,000 individuals. Although the raw numbers listed above are important (and startling), calculating deaths per 100,000 individuals provides a consistent per-capita measure that allows for systematic comparison of suicide rates across different populations, geographic regions, sexual identity, seasons of the year, and other important variables. For 2000, the CDC reported an unadjusted death by suicide rate of 10.4 persons per 100,000. For 2016, they reported 13.7 suicides per 100,000 Americans. This represents a 31.7% increase over 16 years.
As suicide rates have risen, federal, state, and local officials haven’t been idly standing by, wringing their hands, and wondering what to do. To the contrary, they’ve been actively engaged in suicide prevention. In 2001, the Surgeon General established the first National Suicide Prevention Strategy, revising it in 2012. All the while, there have been big pushes by federal and state governments, community organizations, schools, private businesses, and nonprofits to fund and promote suicide prevention programming. For the most part, the suicide specialists who run these programs are fantastic. They’re dedicated, knowledgeable, and passionate about saving lives. In addition to all the prevention programs available today, currently there are more evidence-based psychotherapies for suicidal people than ever before in the history of time.
But even in the face of these vigorous suicide prevention and intervention efforts, suicide rates continue to relentlessly rise . . . at an average rate of nearly 2% per year.
At this point it’s clear that prevention efforts may not have a direct influence on overall suicide rates. It’s tough to move the big needle that measures U.S. suicide rates. Some solutions may be more sociological and political. Of course, that doesn’t mean we should stop doing prevention. But, given the numbers, it’s important for us to try to find alternative methods for reducing and preventing suicide.
All this leads up to an announcement. Today, Psychotherapy.net published a three volume 7.5 hour video training titled, Assessment and Intervention with Suicidal Clients. This project was a collaboration between Rita, me, and Victor Yalom (along with his amazing staff at Psychotherapy.net). Although watching this video won’t automatically make suicide rates decrease, gaining awareness, knowledge, and skills on suicide assessment and intervention is one way counselors and psychotherapists can contribute to suicide prevention.
Psychotherapy.net is offering an introductory offer for the 7.5 hour video, with CEUs included. You can click here for details on the introductory offer and a sneak peek at the video.
I hope you find the video training helpful, and I look forward to hearing comments and feedback from you about how we can keep working together to help prevent suicide.
This weekend in Missoula is the Annual Montana Book Festival, so I’ve got books on my mind. In a stroke of good fortune (and thanks to Susan O’Connor and Rita), last night I got to meet David James Duncan, the author of my all-time favorite book, The Brother’s K. Talking with DJD was ALMOST as fun as reading The Brother’s K, which, if you haven’t read yet, should be on your reading list.
Speaking of Davids and books, several days ago one of our fantastic UM Doc students and I had a book review published in the Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy. The Doc student’s name is Ariel Goodman (not David), and I have the bragging rights (and honor) of being the co-author of her first (of many to come) publication.
Our review is of Trauma-Sensitive Mindfulness by David A. Treleaven. Ariel and I both liked the book. Although we take him to task a bit for less than perfect scientific rigor, overall the book is very well written and has many excellent ideas about how to safely employ mindfulness with individuals who have previously experienced trauma.
Here’s the review: Goodman-Sommers-Flanagan2018_Article_DavidATreleavenTrauma-Sensitiv
Also, thanks to James Overholser, editor of the Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, for giving us the opportunity to do this book review.
Unless you’re in my Counseling and Psychotherapy Theories class and studying for your first exam, you probably don’t know much about Alfred Adler. Hence, this post–which happens to simultaneously be part of a study guide for Counseling Theories and part of what we need more of in American discourse.
Adler was a popular psychiatrist in the early 1900s. He was Freud’s contemporary. He wrote about Gemeinschaftsgefühl. But like lots of Adlerian things, Gemeinschaftsgefühl has been overlooked. Adler believed humans were naturally predisposed to work together, cooperatively, in community, with empathy, and positive social feelings. Lydia Sicher, an Adlerian follower, captured his ideas with one of the best professional journal article titles of all time: A Declaration of Interdependence.
Interdependence and Gemeinschaftsgefühl are so natural that, unless we’re broken in some way, we cannot stop ourselves from experiencing empathy; we cannot stop ourselves from helping others in need.
If you know something about Freud, or if you read Chapter 2 of the textbook, you probably recall that Freud was rather competitive. From his conflicts with Janet to his “booting” Adler out of the Psychoanalytic Society, Freud seemed focused on proving himself and holding a dominant position over others. In Freudian psychosexual terms, we might think of this as a fixation at the phallic developmental stage. From an Adlerian perspective, Freud’s behavior represents an excessive striving for superiority. Think about that as you think about contemporary American politics. Might there be an excessive striving for superiority in politics? I often wonder, if you’re already in a position of dominance, why is it necessary to “put down” others as they strive to have their voices heard?
The explanations for this consistent phenomenon across all political parties might be Freudian or they might be Adlerian. Either way, it’s important to learn something about how Adler’s responses to competition and superiority issues were much different than Freud’s. Even as a youth, Adler didn’t obtain gratification from dominating others. Mosak and Maniacci (1999) described a story about what was perhaps Adler’s one and only physical conflict:
Adler became embroiled in a conflict with a classmate, and a fight broke out. Adler struck the boy, and hurt him. He vowed not to fight again (p. 2).
Consider this. It appears Adler won the fight. He hurt the other boy. But instead of obtaining gratification from dominating or hurting someone else and wanting to repeat that behavior, he vowed never to fight again.
I share this story because it captures some of Adler’s theory of individual psychology. Perhaps because he already felt useful and as if he belonged, Adler obtained no additional gratification from having physical power over another. Instead, his aggressive outburst appeared to activate his social interest and compassion. He discovered he did not want to hurt other people. We could all use a little more Adler in our psyches. Not wanting to hurt others would generally be helpful in friendships, romantic relationships, and when conflict occurs. We can always argue and debate over ideas—but how about if we do that with respect and without any intent or motivation to hurt the other person?
In the anecdote about his fight, Adler is clearly not motivated or pulled toward proving his superiority. In another Adler anecdote, his biographer, Phyllis Bottome, described him as “very ordinary.” She wrote:
[He was] a very ordinary 57-year-old man who simply possessed a deep and abiding interest in the lives of ordinary people (Bottome, 1962 #234).
On that note, let’s review the theory and practice of Alfred Adler, an ordinary man who had an interest in ordinary people like you and me.
Theory Review: Dr. John’s Study Tips on Adlerian Theory
Adlerian theory is a little like an iceberg. It’s seems simple and manageable on the surface, but gets more complex as you dive down and try to explore it more completely. As a consequence, I recommend that you stay with the basics; if you decide to go the Adlerian path, there are many ways to explore the theory in greater depth. The following statements about people will help you get in touch with your inner Adlerian—at least for now.
This is probably enough Adler for now. But if you’re interested in more, you can find it on a new and exciting website called AdlerPedia: https://www.adlerpedia.org/
Due to my poor time management skills, I ran out of time for comments during my Tuesday internship class. This error provided a sudden inspiration to continue making comments to my students via email. I asked their permission and they seemed interested. It reminded me of a technique Rita used to use when running groups. Following every group, she would write her own insightful reflective comments and send them out to the group members.
Here’s what I shared with me students . . . with . . . of course . . . all identifying information removed.
***********
In class I mentioned that I wanted to email you some ideas I didn’t have time to share . . . so here we go.
Based on the small amount of recording we listened to together, it sounded like our rock star counselor-in-training (aka “Rocky”) has established an excellent “relationship” or working alliance with her client. That being the case, many things are possible.
The first thing is what I already mentioned at the very end of class. Using her relational connection as a foundation, Rocky can use any of a number of strategies to open up a discussion about her changing her approach to less listening and more engagement. This doesn’t mean I think Rocky “should” be more active, but because Rocky feels it to some degree and brought it up with us, it’s a signal to me that it might be an issue worth exploring. Here’s an example:
“I’ve been thinking about how I act during our counseling sessions. Sometimes I notice myself sitting back and listening as you tell me a story about your life. I think the stories are important, so I mostly just stay quiet and listen. But I’m also wondering if, because the stories are important parts of your life, if maybe I should be more active and engaged with you as you share your stories with me. It might be better for me to ask questions, make comments, or try to identify patterns. If it’s okay with you, I’d like to talk a bit more. Would you be okay with that? If I try it and you don’t like it, we can always switch back.”
This way of bringing up the issue places the focus on Rocky’s behavior and it models how part of counseling involves self-reflection/analysis. It also introduces the idea as an experiment that both Rocky and her client can comment on.
The second issue I wanted to discuss more is the client’s reluctance to “get into her emotions.” Of course, this is a very common reluctance. If we look at it through a motivational interviewing lens, it’s very possible for her to be ambivalent about getting emotional. Part of her can see the value and part of her is afraid or reluctant.
One possible strategy, among many, is for Rocky to affirm that it’s okay to avoid talking about emotions (at least for now), but that in the meantime, it might be helpful to explore what makes talking about emotions feel so challenging. The point is to focus on “what gets in the way” of talking about the emotions directly first, and only then, after greater understanding is obtained, possibly move forward and experience the emotions.
Using this strategy, the assumption is that there are negative expectations (cognitions) linked to directly feeling/experiencing emotion. One of the following could be possible: (a) “I’m afraid once I open the emotional box, I won’t be able to stop” (then you explore if this has happened and examples of how she has recovered after being emotional in the past); (b) “I’m worried that you’ll judge me” (then you explore the possibility of that happening; (c) “I feel weak when I get emotional” (this might inspire a discussion about whether facing emotions directly is an example of being weak or being strong, or something else).
These are just some examples of the thoughts/expectations that can interfere with emotional processing. Many other unique scenarios are possible. In my experience, if you use collaborative empiricism to explore negative expectations, sometimes the expectations can be managed . . . and sometimes clients will spontaneously start talking about the benefits of emotional expression.
My last idea is related to a component part of EMDR. When clients have an image or situation linked to a specific trauma, EMDR practitioners employ two questions that are IMHO quite powerful. Here they are, using a made up scenario:
You might have to repeat that question because it’s complicated. The assumption here is that the trauma memory is linked to a core negative belief about the self.
Then you move to the opposite question:
You don’t have to be using EMDR to find your client’s answers to these questions very useful. The first answer is the disturbing or dysregulating belief. It needs desensitizing or disputing or something. The second answer is a new belief about the self that may constitute a major therapeutic goal. It needs supporting; it needs to become a possibility.
So . . . how do you get there? Well, I’d go on, but we need to have something to talk about next week:).
Have a great evening.
John
