Quote:
Originally Posted by KLL85
I’ve had a similar conversation about the situation in Ukraine with my T.
His response was as follows: ‘you’re right there are so many uncertainties, nobody knows what is going to happen and that in itself can be frightening. I don’t want to sit here and give you false reassurance that everything is going to be ok and you’ve got nothing to worry about. That wouldn’t be fair as I have no idea what the future holds and overall that reassurance won’t be enough to counteract everything else that you are hearing on the news anyway. But what I can do is tell you that what you’re feeling is completely understandable, worry and fear when something like this is happening are emotions that lots of people will be experiencing and we can talk through them and explore them together. I know this response falls short because you want reassurance from me and perhaps guarantees about being safe, so I’m sorry I can’t give you what you need but it wouldn’t be fair for me to tell you something that I have absolutely no idea is going to be correct or not.’
|
This is some awesome in-depth empathy about the perspective of some people asking for reassurance. This therapist really seems to make all effort to empathise. I personally would very much appreciate that.
I think I personally would just be annoyed though if I was told about the very end "I have absolutely no idea is going to be correct or not". I mean, it feels like, still a lack of groundedness there. Sure, you can't literally predict the future, but you can have a sense of probabilities and it does matter if something has a probability of 99% or 50% or 0.00001% to happen. So to me what wouldn't be helpful at all is being told that it's a 50/50 (i.e. "absolutely no idea") when it's maybe just a 99/1.
Also I would be annoyed being prompted to explore fear and worry. I don't even know what that is supposed to look like, explore such things.... I do always take the focus off such things as soon as I recognised them and placed them like "oh ok that's just a random feeling next to the real situation, let me move on" or "oh ok I have this feeling because of my past making me feel like things could suddenly turn upside down, ok let me move on". So like I move on instantly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliviab
In addition to the excellent points above about not being able to offer reassurance because it would be false reassurance, many Ts won't offer reassurance because of the belief that it offers short-term relief but actually reinforces anxiety in the long run. The theory as I understand it is that anxiety has a cycle. If left alone, it will rise and then peak and subside. Any attempts to avoid the anxiety (like reassurance-seeking) interrupt that cycle instead of allowing it to peak naturally and subside. And there is relief in that, but the theory is that it reinforces the notion that you were right to be anxious in the first place by sending the message that whatever you were anxious about is indeed dangerous and that action must be taken to avoid it. And so, by taking action to avoid your anxiety, you inadvertently strengthen/reinforce it. I don't know if there is solid research to support this notion, but I think it's a theory that a lot of therapists subscribe to.
|
And so I wanted to say that I don't believe that this theory applies universally, for everyone in every situation. When some feelings work like this then sure? But when they don't work like this then no?
Some people don't even *experience* anxiety (or other emotions) as *waves* like, "it will rise and then peak and subside". So obviously it's worth a look at revising the theory in such cases.
Just my input.
Also! What's wrong with moving on, which I suppose you termed as avoidance? (Let me know ofcourse if you don't mean that by avoidance, but I assumed you meant avoidance of the *emotional experience*.)
And the most interesting part to me: where you said that if you decided you needed to take action about whatever you were concerned, worried, anxious or fearful or feel terror about, that would send the message that the thing is actually dangerous and that this would strengthen or reinforce the feeling. Why would it have to be that way? Why can't the action be seen as a solution that would then actually have the opposite effect, i.e. it would decrease intensity of the feeling?