Last week I shared my 2025 predictions with you. This week, I’ve got another prediction . On Friday, January 10, I’ll be doing an online, two-hour workshop (title listed above) for the Cognitive Behavior Institute. I predict that if you sign up, you’ll be happy you did.
The other good news about this workshop is that it’s ALMOST FREE. Only $25. Here’s the link to register:
If you’re interested in this topic and can’t make it (or even if you can make it), here’s a pdf of an article I wrote about suicide assessment for a Psych journal in 2018:
Whatever the influences, while in grad school, I got slightly obsessed with predicting human behavior. My four roommates were an inspiration. They were wonderful, and, they provided entertaining signs of four different DSM personality disorders. Although not officially “diagnosable,” they each had distinctive “features” of compulsive, histrionic, narcissistic, and dependent personality disorders.
I was convinced I could predict the behavior of my roommates based on their personalities. As one example, during a group therapy session involving nickname-sharing, my so-called “narcissistic” friend shared that his nickname was “Lord.” As another, my “dependent” friend took to following me around and calling me his “hero.” I could go on, but this blogpost is about the future and not the past.
But first, four more historical reflections: (1) I developed my own totally bizarre personality test (the Sommers-Circles), (2) I did my thesis and dissertation on personality and prediction, (3) I discovered, as it turns out, personality is a rather poor predictor of human behavior, and (4) I also discovered that nothing is a very good behavioral predictor, and humans are more unpredictable than not.
Now, with my thesis 40 years behind me, and despite scientific evidence against anything being predictable, I still believe—as the famous/infamous social psychologist Daryl Bem wrote in 1974 (paraphrasing here), “That my predictions are right and the research is wrong.”
In honor of my lifelong prediction obsession, here are my Predictions for 2025.
On January 8, I, along with the Montana Happiness Project, will announce big, luscious, and wonderful news.
In early 2025, we will rediscover once again that, in fact, the body does NOT keep the score, but that the brain and body keep the score together, just as nature and nurture work together, despite annoying efforts by the misinformed to keep them apart.
To rebalance our collective worldwide preoccupation during the first half of the 2020s with TRAUMA as being at the root of everything and everything being TRAUMA, the second half of the 2020s will be about growth and resilience in the face of stress and oppression.
After January 20, Trump will continue to be Trump. What will that mean, specifically? First, he won’t suddenly become “presidential” (although the media will continue to expect him to). Second, he will lie about nearly everything, nearly all the time. Third, he will take credit for positive local and world events, and avoid or deflect responsibility for anything negative. Fourth, he will be cruel toward anyone he views as (a) beneath him or (b) unloyal. The corollary to this is that he will not be cruel toward Elon Musk or Vladimir Putin, but people like Laura Loomer will be left out to dry like laundry in the wind. Fifth, cracks will form within his circle of influence, which liberals will gleefully interpret as signs of his imminent fall, but he will carry on halfheartedly with his public agendas, and full-heartedly with his private agenda of making as much money as possible, while stomping on the poor, needy, and vulnerable.
Other than a few rogue reporters here and there, the press will continue to snuggle up to Trump in ways that make many of us feel sad about journalism.
Similar to #3, other than a few rogue republicans, when it comes to Trump, the GOP will continue to be unable to find their voices, souls, and morals. . . in ways that make many of us discouraged about the future of the country. This charade of cooperation with emperor trump will begin deteriorating in the run-up to the midterm elections, unless the so-called emperor coalesces power in ways that allow him to destroy the constitution and democracy.
The Buffalo Bills will defeat the Detroit Lions 36-30 in Super Bowl LIX.
Around the time of the Super Bowl, Trump will fire someone from his cabinet. Although Ramaswamy would be likely, his position will only ever be pretend, and so his squeaky voice will only fade into the background.
Auburn will defeat Duke, 80 to 76, for the NCAA basketball championship.
The price of groceries will NOT come down. If anyone in the media has the courage to mention high grocery prices, Trump will blame it on Biden, Harris, Obama, “Crooked” Hillary, fake news, or whomever is most convenient.
Global and local temperatures will continue to rise. Politicians and businesses with corporate interests in fossil fuels will continue to question climate science . . . just as they have since the 1950s, when Edward Teller and others began warning the world about carbon.
The New York Mets will defeat the Los Angeles Dodgers in the World Series, in six games, partly due to Dodger’s manager Dave Roberts continued affinity with his “gut” over analytics.
Suicide rates in the U.S. will remain stable, at or near modern highs.
Taylor Swift will marry her boyfriend.
The rate of worldwide species extinction will continue at unprecedented rates, matched only by the collective denial of politicians and corporations (which, as it turns out, are not people).
Jennifer Lopez will marry Michael B. Jordan, resulting in J-Lo-Jo.
At some point, someone will make the obvious point that even though the media loves rich people, most (not all) rich people have gotten rich through selfishness and greed, and consequently, putting rich people in charge of the country will not work out well for anyone other than the rich people.
Like other predictions by famous pundits, no one will remember this blog, and consequently, I’ll be free to boldly, irresponsibly, and confidently make predictions for 2026, despite having no successful track record or credibility for making predictions.
But one thing is certain: January 8th will be big news day here. . . on this blog, and elsewhere. . . so stay tuned.
Happy New Year,
John
P.S.: Here’s a copy of the 1974 (Bem and Allen) article that inspired me to pursue the science of prediction.
Every day, I keep getting older. I can’t seem to stop myself. And every day, I keep running into dialectics. They’re everywhere. My aging experiences of ubiquitous dialectics seems consistent with the fact that yesterday, Merriam-Webster declared “polarization” their word of the year (https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/word-of-the-year).
Boo, Merriam-Webster! I would have chosen dialectics. Here’s one of the definitions for dialectic listed in the online M-W dictionary: “the Hegelian process of change in which a concept or its realization passes over into and is preserved and fulfilled by its opposite.” TBH, I have very little understanding of what the heck Hegel was talking about, but I’m pretty sure it’s happening ALL. THE. TIME.
This morning I find myself plagued by the idea that although most mental health professionals advocate mindfulness, many mental health professionals (including myself, sometimes), aren’t very mindful when using basic counseling skills in practice. Today’s topic is questions. I’m polarized inside a dialectical and thinking, “We should all be more mindful and intentional in our use of questions in counseling and psychotherapy.” At the same time, I’m sure, “we should all relax and be more of ourselves.”
With these confusing caveats in mind, today, tomorrow, and maybe the next day, I’m posting about the very basic use of questions in counseling and psychotherapy. This content is excerpted from our Clinical Interviewing textbook.
Here’s our opening section on questions, which is conveniently found in Chapter 5 of Clinical Interviewing, which I’m continually surprised that not everyone has read (but really not at all surprised).
**************************************
Questions
Imagine digging a hole without a shovel or building a house without a hammer. For many clinicians, conducting an interview without using questions constitutes an analogous problem: How can you complete the interviewing task without using your most basic tool?
Despite the central role of questions in clinical interviewing, we’ve avoided discussing them until now. Similarly, when teaching clinical interviewing skills, we usually prohibit question asking for a significant portion of the course (J. Sommers-Flanagan & Means, 1987). Our rationale includes several factors: Questions are easy and often misused. Also, because questioning isn’t the same thing as listening, our goal is for students to develop alternative information-gathering strategies. Asking questions can get in the way of gathering important information from clients. The Little Prince expresses a fundamental problem with excessive questioning.
Grown-ups love figures. When you tell them that you have made a new friend, they never ask you any questions about essential matters. They never say to you, “What does his voice sound like? What games does he love best? Does he collect butterflies?” Instead, they demand: “How old is he? How many brothers has he? How much does he weigh? How much money does his father make?” Only from these figures do they think they have learned anything about him. (de Saint-Exupéry, 1943/1971, p. 17)
The questions you ask may be of no value to the person being asked. Ideally, your questions should focus on what seems most important to clients.
Despite our reservations about excessive questioning, questions are a diverse and flexible interviewing tool; they can be used to
Stimulate client talk
Inhibit client talk
Facilitate rapport
Show interest in clients
Show disinterest in clients
Gather information
Confront clients
Focus on solutions
Ignore the client’s viewpoint
Stimulate insight
There are many forms or types of questions. Differentiating among them is important, because different question types produce different client responses. In this section, we describe open, closed, swing, indirect, and projective questions. Chapter 6 covers therapeutic questions. Although we distinguish between general question types and therapeutic questions, all questioning can be used for assessment or therapeutic purposes.
Open Questions
Open questions are used to facilitate talk; they pull for more than a single-word response. Open questions ordinarily begin with either How or What. Sometimes questions that begin with Where, When, Why, and/or Who are classified as open, but such questions are only partially open because they don’t facilitate talk as well as How and What questions (Cormier, Nurius, & Osborn, 2017). The following hypothetical dialogue illustrates how using open questions may or may not stimulate client talk:
Therapist: When did you first begin having panic attacks?
Client: In 1996.
Therapist: Where were you when you had your first panic attack?
Client: I was just getting on the subway in New York City.
Therapist: Why haven’t you tried to ride the subway again?
Client: Because I’m afraid I’ll have another panic attack.
Therapist: How are you handling the fact that your fear of panic attacks is so restrictive?
Client: Not so good. I’ve been getting more and more scared to go out. I’m afraid that soon I’ll be too scared to leave my house.
As you can see from this example, open questions vary in their openness. They don’t uniformly facilitate depth and breadth of talk. Although questions beginning with What or How usually elicit the most elaborate responses from clients, that’s not always the case. More often, what’s important is the way a particular What or How question is phrased. For example, “What time did you get home?” and “How are you feeling?” can be answered very succinctly. The openness of a particular question should be judged primarily by the response it usually elicits.
Questions beginning with Why are unique in that they commonly elicit defensive explanations. Meier and Davis (2020) wrote, “Questions, particularly ‘why’ questions, put clients on the defensive and ask them to explain their behavior” (p. 23). Why questions frequently produce one of two responses. First, as in the preceding example, clients may respond with a form of “Because!” and then explain, sometimes through detailed and intellectual responses, why they’re thinking or acting or feeling in a particular manner. Second, some clients defend themselves with a “Why not?” response. Or, because they feel attacked, they respond confrontationally with “Is there anything wrong with that?” Therapists minimize Why questions because they exacerbate defensiveness and intellectualization and diminish rapport. In contrast, if rapport is good and you want your client to move away from emotions and speculate or intellectualize about something, then a Why question may be appropriate and useful.
Closed Questions
Closed questions usually begin with words such as Do, Does, Did, Is, Was, or Are and can be answered with a yes or no response. They’re useful if you want to solicit specific information. Traditionally, closed questions are used later in the interview, when rapport is established, time is short, and efficient questions and short responses are needed (Morrison, 2007). Questions that begin with Who, Where, or When also tend to direct clients toward talking about specific information; therefore, they should be considered closed questions (see Practice and Reflection 5.1).
Closed questions restrict verbalization and lead clients toward details. They can reduce or control how much clients talk. Restricting verbal output is useful when working with clients who talk excessively. Closed questions are used to clarify behaviors and symptoms and consequently used when conducting diagnostic interviews. (For example, in the preceding example about a panic attack on the New York subway, a diagnostic interviewer might ask, “Did you feel lightheaded or dizzy?” This question would help confirm or disconfirm one symptom possibly linked to panic disorder.). As compared to open questions, closed questions usually feel different to clients.
Sometimes, therapists inadvertently or intentionally transform open questions into closed questions with what’s called a tag query. For example, you might start with, “What was it like for you to confront your father after all these years,” and then tag “was it gratifying?” onto the end.
Transforming open questions into closed questions is fine if you want to limit client elaboration. When asked closed question, clients will likely focus solely on the answer (e.g., whether they felt gratification when confronting their father, as in the preceding example). Clients may or may not elaborate on feelings of fear, relief, resentment, or other thoughts, emotions, and sensations.
If you begin an interview using a nondirective approach, but later change styles to obtain more specific information through closed questions, it’s wise to use role induction to inform your client of your forthcoming shift. You might say,
We have about 15 minutes left, and I have a few things I want to make sure I’ve covered, so I’m going to start asking you more specific questions.
Beginning therapists are usually advised to avoid closed questions because closed questions are frequently interpreted as veiled suggestions. For example:
Client: Ever since my husband came back from active duty, he’s been moody, irritable, and withdrawn. This makes me miss him terribly, even though he’s home. I just want my old husband back.
Therapist: Have you tried telling him how you’re feeling?
We usually boldly tell our students to never ask, “Have you tried. . .” We believe have you questions are advice-giving in disguise. We’re not against advice; we’re just against asking questions that imply clients should have already tried what you’re recommending. In the preceding interaction, the client might think the therapist is suggesting she should open up to her husband about her feelings. Although this may be a reasonable idea, therapists and clients are better served with an open question: “What have you tried to help get your old husband back?” Our advice—which is not disguised in the least—is that when you feel an impulse to ask a “have you” question (and you will), simply stop yourself, and add the word “What” to the beginning to make it an open question. Closed questions are a helpful interviewing tool—as long as they’re used intentionally and in ways consistent with their purpose.
Swing Questions
Swing questions can function as either closed or open questions; they can be answered with yes or no, but they also invite more elaborate discussion of feelings, thoughts, or issues (Shea, 1998). Swing questions usually begin with Could, Would, Can, or Will. For example:
Could you talk about how it was when you first discovered you were pregnant?
Would you describe how you think your parents might react to finding out you’re leaving?
Can you tell me more about that?
Will you tell me what happened in the argument between you and your daughter last night?
Ivey and colleagues (2023) believe swing questions are the most open of all questions. They note that clients are empowered to decline answering a swing question by saying something like, “No. I’d rather not talk about that.”
For swing questions to work, you should observe two basic rules. First, avoid using swing questions unless rapport has been established. Without rapport, swing questions may backfire and function as a closed question (i.e., the client responds with a shy or resistant yes or no). Second, avoid using swing questions with children and adolescents, especially early in the relationship. This is because children and adolescents often interpret swing questions concretely and respond accordingly (J. Sommers-Flanagan & Sommers-Flanagan, 2007b). For example:
Counselor 1: Would you tell me more about the fights you’ve been having with your classmates?
Young Client 1: No.
Counselor 2: Could you tell me about how you felt when your dad left?
Young Client 2: No.
Counselor 3: Would you like to come back to my office?
Young Client 3: No.
Swing questions with young clients (especially if you don’t have positive rapport) can produce awkward and unhelpful interactions.
Indirect or Implied Questions
Indirect or implied questions usually begin with I wonder or You must or It must (Benjamin, 1987). They’re used when therapists don’t want to directly ask or pressure clients to respond. The following are examples of indirect or implied questions:
I wonder how you’re feeling about your upcoming wedding.
I’m wondering about your plans after graduation.
I’m curious if you’ve given any thought to searching for a job.
You must have some thoughts or feelings about discovering your child is transgender.
It must be hard for you to cope with your wife being shipped out to serve overseas.
You can use other indirect sentence stems to gently imply a question or prompt clients to speak about a topic. Common examples include “I’d like to hear about…” and “Tell me about…”
Indirect or implied questions can be useful early in interviews or when approaching delicate topics. Like immediacy, they can contain a supportive self-disclosure of interest. They’re noncoercive, so they may be especially useful as an alternative to direct questions with clients who seem reticent (C. Luke, personal communication, August 7, 2012). When overused, indirect questions can seem sneaky or manipulative; after repeated “I wonder…” and “You must…” probes, clients may start thinking, “And I’m wondering why you don’t just ask me whatever it is you want know!”
Projective or Presuppositional Questions
Projective questions are used to ask clients to imagine particular scenarios and help them identify, explore, and clarify unconscious or unarticulated conflicts, values, thoughts, and feelings (see Case Example 5.5). Solution-focused therapists refer to projective questions as presuppositional questions (Murphy, 2023). These questions typically begin with some form of What if and invite client speculation. Projective questions can trigger mental imagery and prompt clients to explore thoughts, feelings, and behaviors they might have if they were in a particular situation. For example:
What would you do if you were given one million dollars?
If you had three wishes, what would you wish for?
If you needed help or were really frightened, or even if you were just totally out of money and needed some, who would you turn to right now? (J. Sommers-Flanagan & Sommers-Flanagan, 1998, p. 193)
What if you could go back and change how you acted during that argument (or other significant life event): What would you do differently?
Projective questions are also used to evaluate client values, decision making, and judgment. For example, a therapist can analyze a response to the question “What would you do with one million dollars?” to glimpse client values and self-control. Projective questions are sometimes included as a part of mental status examinations (see Chapter 9 and the Appendix).
CASE EXAMPLE 5.5: PROJECTIVE QUESTIONING TO ELICIT VALUES
Your use of projective questions is limited only by your creativity. John likes to use projective questions to explore relationship dynamics and values. For example, with a 15-year-old male client who had an estranged relationship with his father and was struggling in school, John asked, “If you did really well on a test, who’s the first person you would tell?” The client responded, “My dad.” After hearing this response, John used the fact that the boy continued to value his father’s approval to encourage the boy and his father to meet together for counseling to improve their communication and relationship.
[End of Case Example 5.5]
And . . . here’s a pdf of the Chapter 5 Table describing the different question types.
I’m virtually in Vermont tomorrow doing an all-day-long workshop on working with so-called challenging youth in counseling and psychotherapy. We start at 8am Mountain Time . . . and 10am on the East coast. Here’s the link to register for the workshop for anyone who suddenly has found themselves with a wide open day. The cost is: $195.
Tomorrow, December 4, I’m doing a quick one-hour version of my “Integration” workshop. Obviously, my leaning is toward the strengths-based, constructive approach to suicide assessment and treatment, but sometimes we need to integrate strengths-based approaches with the traditional medical model. That’s what this workshop is all about.
The workshop is presented on behalf of the Professional Counseling Association of Montana — the brainchild of Cynthia Boyle, a Ph.D. student in the University of Montana’s counseling and supervision program. Here’s a link to their website: https://pcamontana.org/
In case you’re attending . . . or interested . . . here are the slides:
Tomorrow is a celebrated holiday involving gratitude. Given the American history of mistreatment, oppression, and abuse of indigenous peoples, I have trouble saying the holiday name. You may think I’m being over-sensitive or politically correct, or you may find yourself seeking some other label to describe me. No worries, I’m here to help. My current labels (which switch with considerable frequency) are grumpy and discouraged.
I know better than to dwell too long on my grumpy and discouraged thoughts, feelings, and somatic complaints. Those of you who know me well know that it makes me grumpy to even use the word somatic, and so the discouragement is deep. While I’m drilling down into my negativity, I’ll add that it also makes me grumpy to hear the words “fight-or-flight” and “brain shut-down” and “amygdala hijack” and “PHQ-9 or GAD-7” and “mental illness” and the mispronunciation of “Likert” and everything else our culture is using to push us into negative mental and emotional states—and keep us there.
I also know that some of the preceding linguistic pet peeves may seem cryptic. That’s okay. I like being mysterious. I’ll just say that I would prefer “amygdala hijinks” over “hijack,” and leave the mystery unsolved.
Not surprisingly, the bigger laments are what give the smaller laments most of their negative power. My bigger laments are probably obvious, but here are a few: How did we develop into a culture where the voices and opinions of people like Andrew Tate and Joe Rogan shape the psychology, emotions, and behavior of so many young men? How did we become a nation that could elect a convicted felon, rapist, racist, sexist, reality television star as the next president? When did Christianity take a turn and become a narcissistic, nationalist, anti-immigrant movement? How did our mainstream media become an entity that gives voice to social media posts from the president elect? And, because the president elect is a well-known serial and pathological liar, how did the media decide they should center their reporting around his likely dissembling bloviations as potentially truthful statements?
I do have to admit that it makes me a little bit happy to use the word bloviations. That was fun.
Now that I have you (my six faithful readers) grumpy and discouraged along with me, maybe I should pause to take stock of the many things and people toward whom I feel gratitude. If, by chance, you’ve also been feeling your share of doom and gloom, I hope you’ll consider joining me in a gratitude activity.
First in line is Rita. Only minutes ago, while planning a few Turkey Day dishes, I offered up one simple suggestion that may have required only one or two brain cells and could easily have been brought forth during a so-called fight-or-flight brain shut-down. Her response of, “That’s a REALLY good idea!” made me laugh out loud (even amidst my gloomy mood). This small interaction reminded me of the many ways that I am lucky to be supported and inspired by Rita every day.
Our children (and son-in-law) are basically overachieving geniuses who work every day to make the world a better place. I won’t go into details here, but this is more good fortune on a rather magnificent scale.
This past weekend I hung out with my sisters, attending a Bat Mitzvah with my Jewish cousins who welcomed us into their celebration with open arms and hearts. We mercilessly teased each other, laughed together, played games, and did what family does. My sisters and I often marvel at our mutual family experiences . . . as given to us by our amazing parents. More big gratitude.
First thing this morning, I got to lightly supervise a few interns who are facilitating a group for dads, prepping to present to classrooms of 8th graders, and being coached by Dylan Wright, who just might be the most dynamic presentation coach of all time. These young people are smart, capable, and committed to being therapeutic forces in the world. . . and I get to work with them.
Tomorrow Rita and I will have dinner with a long-time friend who, having already made substantial contributions to the mental health of a multitude of Montanans, invited us over to help her eat up a frozen turkey that she surprisingly found in her freezer. We have gratitude to her for the past, present, and future.
Just in case you’re wondering, the empirical research on gratitude is pretty fantastic. Focused and intentional gratitude will not immediately transform your life, but in general, gratitude practice is linked to improved mood, increased positive communications with others, hope, and improvements in physical exercise. That last one is as cryptic as my linguistic pet peeves. How could gratitude make you exercise more? Nobody knows. All I can say is this: How about you practice gratitude tonight, tomorrow, and into the future and then see if it helps you exercise more? As B.F. Skinner might say, we should all experiment with our experiences.
Given all the world-wide and local reasons to be grumpy and discouraged, my plan is to counter those feelings by spending more time being grateful. I know it won’t fix the world . . . but I know it will create nicer feelings . . . and that, I suppose, is plenty good for now.
My wife (Rita) and I used to argue over who came up with the catchy “Tough Kids, Cool Counseling” title for our 1997/2007 book with the American Counseling Association. I would swear it was MY grand idea; she would swear back that it was HER idea. If any of you are in–or have been in–romantic partnerships, perhaps you can relate to disagreements over who has all the best ideas. I doubt that this dynamic is unique to Rita and me.
Years passed . . . and now I’ve come to very much dislike the title. . . leading me to give Rita ALL THE CREDIT! You’ve got it Rita! It was all you!
Despite my dislike for the title, I still sometimes use it for workshops. Why might that be, you may be wondering? Good question. I use it so I can make the point, early in the workshop, that we should NEVER use language that blames young people for their problems or their problem behaviors. In fact, we should never even “think” thoughts that assign blame to them for being “tough.”
My reasoning for this is informed by constructive theory and narrative therapy. When we assign blame and responsibility to young people for being “tough” or “difficult” or “challenging,” we risk contributing to them holding a tough, difficult, or challenging identity–which is exactly the opposite of what we want to be doing. Instead, I tell my workshop participants that we should recognize, there are no “tough kids” . . . there are only kids in tough situations . . . and being in counseling or psychotherapy is just another tough situation that young people have to face. Consequently, it’s NOT their fault if they engage in so-called tough or challenging behaviors.
All this leads me to share that I’ll be online all day on December 6, 2024, doing a workshop for mental health professionals. The workshop, anachronistically titled, “Tough Kids, Cool Counseling” is sponsored by the Vermont Psychological Association. You can register for the workshop here: https://twinstates.ce21.com/item/tough-kids-cool-counseling-131540
Even if I do say so myself, I’m proclaiming here and now that this will be a very engaging online workshop. If you work with youth (ages 10-18) in counseling or psychotherapy, and you need/want some year-ending CEUs, we’ll be having some virtual fun on December 6, and I hope you can join in.
Earlier this week I was asked to write a very brief stump speech for positive education. I’ve never written a stump speech. . . and mostly feel good about that. For this stump speech, I decided to stick with very basic facts or tendencies associated with positive psychology and positive education.
Here’s a hastily written first draft. Feel free to comment and make recommendations as you like.
*********
Positive education, as we define it at the University of Montana, is based on three essential psychological truths (or tendencies).
Most people are naturally compelled to focus on the negative, as captured by the question: “What’s wrong with you?”
The things and experiences that we pay attention to, will grow.
We are better at growing strengths than we are at getting rid of problems or symptoms.
These truths explain why current approaches to education unintentionally grow negative emotions and symptoms like anxiety, depression, and trauma. These truths also explain why we need to train all educators, counselors, and students to overcome their tendency to over-focus on the negative, and instead systematically focus on growing student, teacher, and administrator strengths, skills, resources, and virtues.
Positive education is the best path forward for education in Montana and beyond.
[I love the preceding photo because I’m doing a workshop on suicide in Billings, Montana, and despite the content, the participants are clearly having a good time]
Sometimes people ask me if I have presentations coming up. Other times they ask me about recent presentations. For reasons related to my own inability to be more organized and behave responsibly, I haven’t been very good at inserting “upcoming events” into my schedule, or at sharing links with readers about recent content that’s available online. Today’s post is my effort to address my irresponsibility.
September 11, 2024 – JSF presented a day-long ONLINE workshop, Conducting Parenting Consultations on behalf of Families First. Missoula, MT. Here are the ppts for the Parenting Consultation workshop:
September 26, 2024 – JSF presented a day-long IN-PERSON workshop, Tough Kids, Cool Counseling on behalf of Families First. Missoula, MT.
October 10, 2024 – JSF presented a day-long IN-PERSON workshop, Strengths-Based Suicide Assessment and Treatment on behalf of Tribal Health, Ronan, MT.
October 24, 2024 – JSF did an on-air guest interview on Evidence-Based Happiness for Teachers on a South Korean radio station. https://youtu.be/xYdJOInpAkE
November 6, 2024 – JSF presented on Let’s Pursue Happiness . . . Together (with our children) to the Washington Middle School Parent Teacher Association (PTA)
November 7, 2024 – JSF presented IN-PERSON on Why We Should Be in Pursuit of Eudaimonia (Not “Happiness”) for the University of Montana Alumni Association. Missoula, MT.
UPCOMING ACTIVITIES AND EVENTS
November 13 – JSF is presenting Let’s Pursue Happiness Together [In our schools . . . with our teachers . . . and for our children]ONLINE to the Montana Office of Public Instruction Montana Student Wellness Advisory Committee.
November 14 – JSF is presenting Happiness and You: Methods for Managing Your MoodsIN PERSON at the annual statewide Future Farmers of America (FFA) conference at MSU in Bozeman, MT.
December 4 – JSF is presenting a one-hour workshop on Strengths-Based Integrating Strengths-Based and Traditional (Medical Model) Approaches to Suicide AssessmentONLINE to the Professional Counseling Association of Montana. Link unavailable for now.
December 6 John Sommers-Flanagan is presenting an all-day ONLINE workshop for mental health professionals titled, Tough Kids, Cool Counseling, on behalf of the Vermont Psychological Association. Info is here: https://twinstates.ce21.com/speaker/john-sommersflanagan-2295709
January 10 – JSF is doing a 2-hour ONLINE workshop titled, Strategies for Integrating Traditional and Strengths-Based Approaches to Suicide, through the Cognitive Behavior Institute. You can register here for $25.00: https://www.pathlms.com/cbi/courses/77936#
Someone in one of my classes recently mentioned Hand, Foot, and Mouth Disease. This reminded me of my blog post on the topic, which made me realize that I’ve blogged about nearly everything!
John Sommers-Flanagan 