I’ve spent the better part of the past two weeks doing presentations in various locations and venues. I did five presentations in Nebraska, and found myself surprisingly fond of Lincoln and Kearney Nebraska. On Thursday I was at a Wellness “Reason to Live” conference with CSKT Tribal Services at Kwataqnuk in Polson. Just now I finished an online talk with the Tex-Chip program. One common topic among these talks was the title of this blog post. I have found myself interestingly passionate about the content of this particular. . . so much so that I actually feel energized–rather than depleted–after talking for two hours.
Not surprisingly, I’ve had amazingly positive experiences throughout these talks. All the participants have been engaged, interesting, and working hard to be the best people they can be. Beginning with the Mourning Hope’s annual breakfast fundraiser, extending into my time with Union Bank employees, and then being with the wonderful indigenous people in Polson, and finally the past two hours Zooming with counseling students in Texas . . . I have felt hope and inspiration for the good things people are doing despite the challenges they face in the current socio-political environment.
If you were at one of these talks (or are reading this post), thanks for being you, and thanks for contributing your unique gifts to the world.
For your viewing pleasure, the ppts for this talk are linked here.
Today, Dr. Bossypants (aka Rita) offered me a coauthor opportunity. Thanks Dr. BP!
Problems, like trees, have roots. As Alfred Adler (and many others) would have said, problems are multi-determined, meaning: There’s always more than one root. Most of us agree that the United States has big problems. But what are the roots of our troubles?
One side insists that the roots of our troubles include unworthy and illegal immigrants, burdening the rich with taxes, satanic trans folk, welfare fakers, and bleeding hearts. The media picks up this messaging, repeating these highly questionable theories until they sink into our psyches as if they were true.
But we are being played.
As they said back in the Watergate era, follow the money.
The rare transgender athlete is not to blame for your low wages or the price of food and shelter. Tending to the disabled and disadvantaged is not breaking the bank. Social Security makes us a strong, compassionate society—providing for all of us as we age. Social Security isn’t going broke. It’s being dismantled and privatized so the wealthy benefit.
We’re chopping off our noses to spite our faces. USAID greatly contributed to the health of the poor, the planet, and developing societies trying to recover, survive, and grow. NPR and PBS cost about $1.50 per person per year. Although their coverage has been leaning right, they work toward being objective, balanced, and accurate. A free press is at the heart of democracy.
Hiding the contributions of people of color from American history involves rewriting reality. What might be the purpose of excluding honorable actions and voices of diverse individuals and groups from our history? There’s an African proverb: “Until lions have their historians, tales of the hunt shall always glorify the hunter.” Preserving real history doesn’t make us less safe. Massive salaries, bonuses, and advantages given to those mismanaging and/or dismantling our social and financial safety nets is a real danger.
Billionaires have lied so well for so long that many Americans blame poor people and the middle class for government waste and fraud. As everyone admits, government waste and fraud exist, and there are effective strategies for minimizing waste and fraud. One billionaire strategy is this: Get the American people to blame each other for their financial woes. Then, through their tax loopholes, billionaires walk right into the henhouse and steal the country’s eggs.
Most billionaires don’t become billionaires because of their compassion and generosity. They’re billionaires because of miners, farmers, mill workers, steelmakers, refinery workers, teachers, servers, nurses, doctors, social workers, inventors, and small businesspeople: THESE are the people who make becoming a billionaire possible.
Balanced budgets are possible. Giving billionaires MORE money will not balance the budget. Taxing them more will. A graduated income tax is not the same thing as socialism. Anyone who tells you that taxing the rich and providing a social safety net is socialism or communism either (a) wants YOUR money, (b) is lying, or (c) is ignorant.
Socialism is a political and economic theory advocating that the means of production, distribution of goods, and trade/exchange be owned by the collective. Taxing the wealthy in a proportionate manner is not the same as having the collective or the government take over ownership of their businesses. In a capitalist system, taxes and government regulation function to reduce power imbalance, abuse of the poor by the wealthy, and the development of social safety nets and public health systems that benefit the whole.
The ugly fights we’re in now were started purposefully and fueled by lies, phony moral outrage, purchased bots and paid “news” outlets. We’ve been duped into “culture wars.” As if a gay marriage is why you aren’t paid fairly. As if God needs guns to defend holiness. As if basic health care for everyone will cost more than our broken system. As if we cannot share bathrooms. We share bathrooms all the time in our homes, while camping, at outdoor sporting events (think porta potties). Our economic and social problems are NOT ABOUT BATHROOMS.
We would say “wake up,” but the billionaires have cleverly stolen that concept. They want us asleep. They want us less educated, less compassionate, and more frightened.
Those in power twist science, scripture, economics, virtue, common sense, and the idea of community. But they can’t take your soul; they can’t eliminate your deep awareness of right and wrong. Only you can do that.
Ask yourselves:
If climate change caused by humans is wrong, why not clean things up anyway? Powerful people can say “drill baby drill” and it sounds aggressively American, but really, who’s pro-pollution? Denying climate change will cost us our planet.
All religions, including Christianity, advocate for taking care of the poor. Yes, it costs a few shekels. But do we want the alternative? Shall we harden our hearts and let others suffer and die?
If you believe YOU should have control over your own body and your own sexual decisions, maybe YOU can let others own their bodies and make their own choices as well?
Science is not a simplistic fact-finding mission. Science is a disciplined process of inquiry. Scientific knowledge has saved millions of lives. Funding science is about progress and having a higher quality of living. Superstition, politicizing, and irrational attacks on science is regressive, ignorant, and dangerous.
Do you think the Creator expects YOU to force your version of morality onto others? Should you enforce thou shalt not kill with weapons? Aren’t you busy enough just finding the time and resources to love your neighbor? Care for the poor? Offer your coat to anyone who needs it? It takes a lifetime to remove the log in your eye, so you can see well enough to help someone with a splinter? Isn’t God, by definition, omnipotent? We should all stop confusing our will, our interests, and our greed, with God’s will.
We need the rule of law. When people in power disregard and disparage the courts, they’re not acting for the common good. If we lose the rule of law, we’ll be ruled by outlaws.
Over our long history, humans have been conned, cheated, manipulated, and enslaved many times by the rich, powerful, and depraved. Trusting billionaires and others who are energized by the pursuit of power, greed, and revenge does not end well.
This past week I had the honor and privilege of offering four presentations, one each on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday.
Monday was a Zoom date with a counseling class at West Virginia University.
Tuesday was an exciting in-person presentation for the University of Montana MOLLI program, kicking off our small group experiential Evidence-Based Happiness course for older adults. It was phenomenal. The older adults always bring it. One–among many–highlights was an 88 -year-old guy who, in the midst of the Three-Step Emotional Change Trick, shared about how he “Honored” his emotions by joining a grief group after his wife died (3 years ago). His sharing was beautiful and perfect.
Wednesday was my annual visit to Dr. Timothy Nichols’s Honors College course on LOVE. Dr. Nichols happens to be the Dean of the Honors College and one of the coolest and kindest and most enthused people on the planet. Mostly I go every year just to hear him introduce me. In truth, I also go because the topic and the students are INCREDIBLE. I think it may have been the best LOVE lecture EVER. I’d post the ppts here, but my computer crashed yesterday, and the U of M IT people (who are always very nice) are now attempting “data recovery.” Argh!
Thursday I got to hang out for two hours with the Graduate Students of the University of Montana Psychology Club. This was yet another fun experience with a group of students who are all simply brilliant. To top it off, a couple of my favorite people (and Psych faculty), Bryan Cochran and Greg Machek also attended. . . providing the precise level of sarcasm and humor that made the experience practically perfect. Here are the Psych Club’s ppts, which I happened to have on a flash drive:
I’ve been in repeated conversations with numerous concerned people about the risks and benefits of suicide screenings for youth in schools. Several years ago, I was in a one-on-one coffee shop discussion of suicide prevention with a local suicide prevention coordinator. She said, more as a statement than a question, “Who could be against school-based depression and suicide screenings?”
I slowly raised my hand, forced a smile, and confessed my position.
The question of how and why I’m not in favor of school-based mental health and suicide screenings is a complex one. On occasion, screenings will work, students at high-risk will be identified, and tragedy is averted. That’s obviously a great outcome. But I believe the mental health casualties from broad, school-based screenings tend to outweigh the benefits. Here’s why.
Early identification of depression and suicide in youth will result in early labeling in school systems; even worse, young people will begin labeling themselves as being “ill” or “defective.” Those labels are sticky and won’t support positive outcomes.
Most youth who experience depressive symptoms and suicide ideation are NOT likely to die by suicide. Odds are that students who don’t report suicidal ideation are just as likely to die by suicide. As the scientists put it, suicidal ideation is not a good predictor of suicide. Also, depression symptoms generally come and go among teenagers. Most teens will recover from depressive symptoms without intensive interventions.
After a year or two of school-based screenings, the students will know the drill. They will realize that if they endorse depression symptoms and suicidal items that they’ll have to experience a pretty horrible assessment and referral process. When I talk to school personnel, they tell me that, (a) they already know the students who are struggling, and (b) in year 2 of screenings, the rates of depression and suicidality plummet—because students are smart and they want to avoid the consequences of being open about their emotional state.
About 10-15% of people who complete suicide screenings feel worse afterward. We don’t really want that outcome.
There’s no evidence that school-based screenings are linked to reductions in suicide rates.
For more info on this, you can check out a brief commentary I published in the American Psychologist with my University of Montana colleague, Maegan Rides At The Door. The commentary focuses on suicide assessment with youth of color, but our points work for all youth. And, citations supporting our perspective are included.
Here are a few excerpts from the commentary:
Standardized questionnaires, although well-intended and sometimes helpful, can be emotionally activating and their use is not without risk (Bryan, 2022; de Beurs et al., 2016).
In their most recent recommendations, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (2022) concluded that the evidence supporting screening for suicide risk among children and adolescents was “insufficient” (p. 1534). Even screening proponents acknowledge, “There is currently little to no data to show that screening decreases suicide attempt or death rates” (Cwik et al., 2020, p. 255). . . . Across settings, little to no empirical evidence indicates that screening assessments provide accurate, predictive, or useful information for categorizing risk (Bryan, 2022).
This post is a continuation of my focus on kindness, positive psychology, and becoming the best possible versions of ourselves. Lyrics from Katharine Lee Bates’s America the Beautiful are part of my underlying inspiration. Buried in the 3rd verse, she wrote, “Till all success be nobleness.” We all should be seeking to be our best and noblest selves, but there are forces in the world pulling in less noble directions. Be forewarned that this post can be interpreted politically or through an historic religious lens. That’s not my intent. The point is simply that we should resist darker impulses and join together to elevate virtuous well-being for as many of us as we can muster. (Here’s Keb Mo singing my favorite version of “America the Beautiful” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcUx3I0k_Fw):
***********************************
In 2015, at a family dinner, I told my sister that if then-candidate Donald Trump were caught in a strong headwind, his hair would fly up, revealing the number 666 (the mark of the Beast) on his forehead. My sister said, “John, you’re being overly dramatic.” She was right.
And so was I.
So many scenes and statements over the past month have been nauseating and shameful. When Trump, along with his #1 sycophant, JD Vance, berated Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy (the only courageous person in the room), it was like a bad episode of an already failing reality television show. Trump likes to use the word disgrace to describe his adversaries. Trump was, is, and always will be a disgrace. As with most of his insults, “disgrace” is a projection that he pulls out of his own psyche and pastes onto others.
Musk and Trump are firing civil servants and dismantling government services. They have no concern for the lives of people they are destroying. One of their first targets was USAID. Why? Because USAID does kind, generous, and nice things for people across the globe who are in need and suffering. USAID does not promote crypto or cater to the well-heeled. For Musk and Trump, the suffering of others is sometimes collateral damage; other times being cruel is their point.
My new measure for politicians and other humans is kindness. USAID was doing more kind, generous, and compassionate things in one day, than Musk and Trump have done in their combined lifetimes. Marco Rubio recently announced that over 80% of USAID programming is cut. This is not a noble path.
If you don’t believe me, that’s fine. Do the research. Check it out. But don’t believe them. Mega-wealthy people who tell you they’re looking out for your best interests are nearly always lying. Trump and Musk didn’t get rich off their compassion; they got rich using, abusing, and scamming others.
My list of republican sycophants is long and boring. I’m thinking of Lindsey Graham and Rubio, but there are so many others. Most republicans don’t have Zelenskyy’s courage, so they insult him, or imply that he didn’t read the room. Seriously? He read the room with precision. His first option was to get screwed by Trump and Vance while acting like their lap dog. His second option was to stand strong in the face of their theatrical insults to fight for his country and his people. He chose the latter. There never was an option that was in Ukraine’s best interests. The situation was a set up; Zelenskyy took the only respectable option.
Many republicans recognize our democracy is at stake, but they cave to Trumpian bullying anyway. Spineless, led by their fear, they capitulate, even when they know that unpredictable tariffs are reaping chaos on the economy. They capitulate even when they know that pardoning January 6 rioters who attacked the police is wrong. They remain quiet and demur while a legal protester and recent graduate from Columbia University is arrested.
I’m in a fevered state. I may regret putting my thoughts into words, but what I’m saying is coming directly from the burning in my heart for noble causes. I love America. I love the goals and hard work of organizations like USAID. I love civil servants. I stand with them, with Zelenskyy, with peaceful protesters, with the Department of Education, to push back against the big gangsters in their big, imaginary thrones.
If Evil had a plan, it might be this: Make the tired, hungry, and poor the enemy. Sow fear and distrust; grow it into jealousy and hate. Once the hate sprouts, attack the poor and disenfranchised. Cut federal education because of its great value to the poor and uselessness to the rich. Eliminate environmental protections for marginalized communities; let them breathe monoxide and drink brown water because their voices are easy to ignore or dismiss. Destroy USAID, because what wealthy person ever benefited from aid to the hungry or medicines for the sick? Convince the gullible to distrust medicine and question life-saving vaccines; only the affluent deserve to live long and healthy lives.
If Evil had a plan, it might be happening—even as you read these words. And the plan is profoundly Un-American.
But Evil is not a thing or a person. Evil, and all things we call Evil, are conceptual. The great Evil makes us all fall from grace. Evil plays the news cycle, promotes hate, stokes division, and makes us all less good, less happy, angrier, and less compassionate. I was wrong in 2015. If you look closely at Donald Trump’s forehead, you won’t see the numbers 666. He’s no concrete embodiment of Evil. Instead, if you look and listen closely, you’ll see and hear a large vacuous ego that seeks to fill itself with power, and by inspiring everyone to hate more and be less humane, because, quite frankly, that’s how “Evil” works.
Now is the time to put Evil in the rear-view mirror. We will need all our combined strength to make this happen. We need to reach out in kindness and compassion. We need to push back against messages of hate and division and policies that further decimate the poor and disenfranchised. We need to listen to the small, still voice in the night, the voice that knows our name, the voice beckoning us to embrace our better selves and noble natures.
This week I had a chance to do a couple presentations for a couple awesome groups.
On Monday, along with Victor Yapuncich, I presented a talk at Fairmont titled “Why We Should Be in Pursuit of Eudaimonia (Not just “Happiness”)” to the Rural Medical Training Collaborative of the Family Medicine Residency of Western Montana. The group was amazing, and we even got Evelyn and Shilo to sing with us at the end. Here are the ppts for the Fairmont talk:
Today, I had the honor to deliver the closing talk for Tamarack Grief Resource Center’s annual Grief Institute. Thanks Tina . . . for the amazing opportunity. It was fabulous to be with such an incredibly dedicated and compassionate group of professionals who are using their gifts to help people through the journey of grief. Here are the ppts for the Grief Institute:
Author Note: As simple and naïve as this may sound, my new subversive social message and political metric is kindness. The social message is intentional kindness. Kindness everywhere; kindness as often as we can muster. The political metric is, “Who is acting with kindness?” Let kindness be our judge.
Occasionally in my life, I’ve seen the future. This moderately delusional belief is related to my love of prediction. Right now, I see tomorrow’s opportunities unfolding. I’m sharing my vision here as a strategy for nudging these opportunities forward. The future I’m seeing is all about, “A Declaration of Independence.”
You might view this post as political. I’m sure it is. That said, my intent is humanitarian. I want people to be treated with respect and compassion. Again, think of kindness.
Donald Trump has begun his presidency at a manic pace. This is a planned mania. He needs mania now, because his days are numbered; his days are numbered due to his age and the forthcoming midterm elections—when he could and should lose substantial power. He and his team can feel the clock ticking.
His mania is a confession of vulnerability. Approximately half the republican party lie in wait for their moment of emancipation . . . the moment to make their declaration of independence from Donald Trump.
************************************
Dear Moderate Republicans,
This is your moment.
Now is the time to seize the day.
You have an unprecedented opportunity for heroism.
I know you can feel and sense this opportunity. You’re too smart and savvy to be ignorant of political opportunity. You must know that now is the time for you to stand up and do what’s right and good for the country and for the world.
Heroism requires self-sacrifice; it involves risk. You cannot achieve hero status without engaging in risky, humanitarian, and possibly sacrificial acts.
But you have a rare heroic opportunity to benefit OTHERS while simultaneously benefiting YOURSELF. Yes, there is still risk.
The risk involves standing up to Donald Trump. And, while that is a risk, most of the country and most of the world are waiting and hoping for someone to emerge who represents wise leadership. You know it’s not Elon Musk or J.D. Vance. It could be you.
Risk is frightening. Risk is also invigorating. Incredibly invigorating.
But why take a risk when you can—in poker terminology—stand pat, take no risk, and continue to experience a modest gain from remaining a status quo supporter of Donald Trump.
Here’s why.
You know in your heart how good it will feel to honor what you know to be true. To live your life with a clear conscience; to look yourself in the mirror and say, “I did something amazing.”
If following your heart and conscience needs a nudge, here are a few actions you’ve been asked to lie about—to yourself and to the American people:
Allowing a vaccine-denier to serve as Secretary of Health and Human Services, a Fox News analyst as Secretary of Defense, a potential Russian asset as Secretary of Intelligence, and a professional wrestling executive for Secretary of Education. You know America deserves better.
Replacing traditional federal oversight mechanisms (like Inspectors General) with Musk and his DOGE crew to cruelly eliminate what they judge to be waste in the federal system. You know the depth and breadth of Musk’s conflicts of interest. You know that giving him more power will not satiate his voracious hunger for even more power.
Ignoring the dangers of reaching out to Putin and turning our backs on Ukraine.
Pretending that creating a Gazan coastal resort to further the Trump/Musk empire is a just and viable road to peace in the Middle East.
Giving the go-ahead to illegal and unregulated mass deportations and the repopulating of an unaccountable Guantanamo Bay.
Acting as if the U.S. can unilaterally annex Canada, grab Greenland, and steal the Panama Canal.
Trusting that global tariff wars will improve relationships with our allies or reduce the cost of eggs.
And finally, you cannot give up your critically important constitutional responsibilities to rein in a power-hungry executive branch. The founding fathers created a system with separation of powers for times like these. Don’t let them down.
Now is the time to pick one or more of the preceding issues and stand firm in the face of the Donald Trump-Musk bloviating firestorm. You risk threats, name-calling, and manipulation; but, the majority of Americans (and global citizens) are waiting, hoping, and longing for YOU to step up and stand strong.
People will shower you with praise, affection, and much more power and attention than you’ll ever get by playing it safe as a quiet member of the Trumpian order.
By standing up for truth, you will be revered.
Honor your conscience. Be honest with yourself. Make Americans proud.
This post is for my Chinese friends, or my friends who speak Mandarin . . . or anyone who wants to read about the process of self-evaluation, the pain of self-reflection, and personal/professional growth.
Last year I was asked to participate as a psychotherapist for the One-Way Mirror Project. The project was inspired by the old and now classic “Three Approaches to Psychotherapy” videos. Not surprisingly, I was honored to be asked to participate, and said yes despite a number of challenging factors, including doing therapy late at night with a Chinese woman via Zoom. I share this because this post is about transparency and so I’m transparently beginning by making excuses for not being the best therapist I imagine myself to be.
Here’s the scenario: One session. Minimal pre-meeting information. Post-session viewing (by me) and commentary on my performance. One other therapist also met with the same client. I get to watch his session; he gets to watch mine. We then have a Zoom meeting to debrief and share our thoughts about our respective sessions (mine was in English; his was in Mandarin).
This was a super-interesting process.
Below, I’m sharing my written self-reflection comments. There’s also a video version . . . which is similar to, but not verbatim from, these notes. The comments are numbered sequentially.
I hope you enjoy this self-reflection/analysis. Thanks for reading.
John S-F – Commentary on His Session with Evelyn
My first reaction to watching this video of myself was embarrassment. I’m sharing this reaction because it’s true. I don’t want to pretend that I think this is a particularly good session.
That said, I also don’t think it was a particularly bad session. I did some things well, and some things less well. In this commentary I will try to describe: (a) what I’m doing (or trying to do), especially from different theoretical perspectives, (b) how Evelyn is responding, (c) what I’m doing well and what I’m doing that’s much less good.
In critiquing my own work, I’m also hoping to connect with all of you. Whether you’re a beginning student or an experienced professional psychotherapist, watching ourselves and hearing ourselves can be humbling and embarrassing. It’s natural for all of us to make mistakes and be imperfect . . . and in this session I do an excellent job of being imperfect😊. . . so much so that while watching the video, during several points I kept shouting at myself to “shut up!” So, that’s a glimpse into one thing I would change about MY behavior in this session. Although I’m okay with being imperfect, I’m not very comfortable with being as imperfect as I was in this session.
How I Work – 0:10 – This explanation has three main goals. First, I’m showing transparency, which is consistent with person-centered and feminist therapies. Second, I’m explaining the process of our session, which is a role induction designed to help clarify expectations. Third, I’m including an invitation for collaboration.
SFBT Opening Question – 1:30 – “If we have a useful meeting, what will we accomplish?” This is a goal-oriented question to help me be more aware of Evelyn’s vision of a successful session.
Evelyn’s Goal – 1:50 – Evelyn says she wants a “different perspective” of what she’s worried about.
JSF’s Goal – In a single session treatment, and maybe most therapy sessions, it’s best to begin with what the client wants. Evelyn’s goal is a “cognitive goal.” In this moment, I decide to go with George Kelly’s “Credulous approach to assessment,” which essentially means “believe the client.” That could be a variation of Carl Rogers’s assertion that we should “Trust the client, because the client knows what hurts and where to go.” JSF – Your goal is my goal, as long as it’s legal and healthy.”
What I Know – 2:25 – This is another effort to be like Carl Rogers and show transparency.
Feelings and Thoughts Around That – 3:00 – Here, I’m trying to prompt her to explore feelings and/or thoughts. She says, “So many worries overwhelming” and talks about not knowing what is overwhelming and then references social media, and four main issues/worries: (a) Fitness/body image/comparison, (b) feelings of unfairness related to gender issues, (c) she loves her partner, but “he is a man” (with sarcasm, implying he therefore cannot understand), (d) humiliation linked to breasts filling with milk involuntarily.
A Broad Summary/Paraphrase – I respond with an accurate summary of her four “feelings and thoughts”
“You can choose; I cannot” – 7:10 – Evelyn focuses on the inherent sex/gender unfairness as related to having a baby. In response, we discuss the burden of social responsibility and how she has internalized societal expectations around being a woman.
May I Share an Observation? – 8:30 – At this point, I try to be a mirror that reflects back to Evelyn what I’m experiencing as one of her positive attributes or strengths. When working across cultures, it’s especially important to be affirming of client strengths. I end this reflection using first-person pronouns—which is a language skill that Rogers used and called “Walking within” – 9:10
Evelyn Continues – 10:45 – to talk about feeling powerless and influenced by her age, generation, societal expectations, and then notes that she wants to “make peace with what she wants to be and what she can be.” The thought of having a baby is a particular trigger for her anxious thoughts and fears. – 11:15
An Intellectual Grasp – 12:15 – I observe that Evelyn has a good intellectual grasp of feminism and of her internalized expectations about how women should be.
A Reflection and SFBT Question – 12:35–13:29 – Using too many words, I finally get out a “Unique outcomes” question: “How have you dealt with internalized fears and conflicts before?”
I Love That Question – 13:35 – Evelyn reflects on a story from age 24 and provides examples of how she felt time running out, dated like crazy, was very brave, and fought back toward her goal of a loving relationship even after having her heart broken.
How did you manage? – 15:03 – I continue to pursue Evelyn’s pre-existing strengths and insights around, with a bit of a focus on what motivated her to “fight back.”
As a Good Therapist – 15:35 – Evelyn expresses motivation to be a good therapist and that requires expansive live experiences.
Anything Else Pull You – 16:54 – Evelyn shares an early fear of death, noting, after an anecdote, that her class presentation on death left her feeling “more lonely (or different) than ever.” – 17:54. [not psychoanalytic]
I Reflect – 18:30 – Being a better therapist and fear of death motivate her to live a life full of experiences.
Imagine self at end of life – 19:00 – Found someone I love and would like to have a child. I want to try it. That would complete my experience. – 19:30
Values vs. Anxieties – 19:55 – Still feel anxieties. “I have to carry a child” etc. . . walking within. Amplifying expectations so she can hear them.
That’s my barrier –
Fought those off those expectations before – 20:45 – And yet . . . you have fought off expectations before. What makes you think you will be a victim to those expectations in the future? Here, I’m trying to identify what CBT people might consider an “irrational” or “maladaptive” thought/belief that doesn’t have much evidence to support it. Also, exception. . .
Focus on the Physical/Somatic – 22:25 – Evelyn notes this task is “harder” and supports that with physical changes she’s experiencing with aging. . . and I interpret that as “Anticipatory grief” regarding her physical decline [this is likely death anxiety too]
Self-Disclosure – 23:40 – May I share something? “I have a 35-y/o daughter with similar issues.” [Too many words! Should have stopped when Evelyn laughed and put her hand to her face and then explored her initial reaction]. I finally get to “What’s your reaction?” [Late, but I got there]. She says . . . and this is potentially central to “one” therapy goal: “I feel, like, less lonely.” [Again, I should just stop there or repeat it back. . . or “What’s it like inside to feel less lonely?”].
Curious about what I could learn from her – 25:35 – I turn this around. Why? Because I want her to value herself as a source of wisdom.
When I share with my partner – 26:25 – She notes “he can relate” and that “men are limited.” [This could have been good transference exploration or Adlerian basic mistake]
Session shift to “so much feeling” – 27:16 – Evelyn is talking about her emotionality, I’m reflecting ok. More on unfairness, but notes BF is pretty accepting. I do a strength-based reflection, “Openness, strength, do not run from feelings!” This is a little CBT as I want her to “perceive” herself with more strengths to cope with her future challenges.
Thoughts about yourself? – 31:00 – I’ve been working on some CBT stuff and now am shifting back to the important self-evaluation process. Her response is constructive as she describes lots of planning she has already done for this coming year.
I want to hear out my fears – 32:10 – This is a great insight on her part. It prompts me to have her listen to her fears in the here and now. Evelyn responds [33:10] that she likes that question and explores, perhaps with a tiny bit of surprise, that her fears are not harsh, but more of a gentle reminder to not have regrets. [Here, I could and probably should have had her get deeper into here and now processing. “Let’s have you hear the gentle voice of your fear right now. What’s it saying to you? Say it as if you are the fear. Also, could have used repetition.]
Reflections and WW – I stay with the themes and use WW to keep bringing them back. Why? In part, desensitization. Hearing her anxiety-producing words in a potentially trusting/comforting setting can take some edge or power out of them [MCJ – 1924]. She says, somewhat conclusively, “Sounds like fear just wants me to get prepared and not critique.” [One thought, I could have been her child and asked her to tell me what she has learned.]
Evelyn asks JSF Q – 36:28 – This is one place where I fall off the rails. She asked me a question and my obnoxious, intellectual, professor-self emerges. . . for far too long. [I could have said, “I have some thoughts about that, but I’d like to hear yours first.”] Instead, JSF blah, blah, blah, and to compound the error, I do not check in on her reaction.
Evelyn continues exploring – 40:52 – She notes Yuval Harrare and feminism as a new way to resolve conflicts without war. I do manage to shift back to listening with a pretty good paraphrase: “Communication with your partner may be your best way to grow and develop and maintain your feminist identity through childbirth and your relationship.”
Evelyn recognizes perfect equality not possible – 42:35 – JSF “Love what you said. What do you think? How does it feel?” [2 Qs, boo, but my focus on her self-evaluation is still pretty solid.] I continue with “What’s your assessment of yourself and your communication skills?” I’m hoping she can express trust in her communication skills.
Non-violent communication as restraint – 46:00 – This is an interesting side road where E says, “Sometimes I just want to be violent and like a child” and notes that she prefers “emotionally charged communication.” She finds emotions and aggressive communication to be helpful. [Note: at this point I’m beginning to feel time pressure. No time to go deeper. If more sessions, I’d earmark this and close. Instead, I ask, “Is it ok to have both” (nonviolent and emotional communication) as a quick prompt toward integration.
Moving toward closing – 49:00 – I’ve lost track of time because of early tech problems. I’d like to think that’s my excuse for ending poorly. First, I begin a summary. This isn’t good. It’s MY summary . . . and I should be asking for HER summary before offering mine. I’m far too verbal. The content isn’t terrible.
Thank-you so much – 52:45 – She’s tracking time, and this should be it. I’m not. And do another disclosure and ask for her summary.
Just before the big news about our $9.4M gift from the Dennis and Phyllis J. Washington Foundation, I had a chance to sit with Flora McCormick as a guest on her very cool podcast, “Sustainable Parenting.” I’ve known Flora for at least 15 years, and she is a focused, dedicated, knowledgeable, kind, and EXCELLENT parenting educator. Talking with her was, as usual, fun and insightful.
In this podcast, we cover three big ideas about parenting. You’ll notice, as in the attached video clips below, Flora is very good at getting me to talk. . . and at zeroing in on what’s the most important information for parents.
We have more good news for 2025. At long last, we’ve published a research article based on Dr. Dan Salois’s doctoral dissertation. Congratulations Dan!
This article is part of growing empirical support for our particular approaches to teaching positive psychology, happiness, and how people can live their best lives. As always, I want to emphasize that our approach is NOT about toxic positivity, as we encourage people to deal with the deep conflicts, trauma, and societal issues that cause distress — while also teaching strategies for generating positive affect, joyspotting, and other practices derived from positive psychology.
One of the big takeaways from Dr. Dan’s dissertation is that our happiness class format may produce physical health benefits. Also, it’s important to note that this publication is from early on in our research, and that our later research (currently unpublished) continues to show physical health benefits. Exciting stuff!
John Sommers-Flanagan 