empathy as adversarial

This is one of the reasons given in the books although there are several reasons according to books for them to do it. I have none of the predicted responses to it. I did enjoy reading their sample client responses and each time going "how the eff did that be the answer or response to that thing that therapist just said?"
I am particulalry baffled by the "I feel heard and that helps me" type of responses. And the ones about how the therapists attempts at "normalization" is sometjing the therapists think a client will find useful. I don't care if what I am describing is normal or not, even if it is, I still don't like it, or find it upsetting or whatever. The fact that it is the human condition or whatever is of little use to me.

See, normalization helps me sometimes, stopdog, when I can get past knowing that it's a 'trick' that CBT therapists use. I feel like SUCH a freak so often, that someone stopping me and saying, no, no, other people feel that way also, helps me not to feel like a freak. I feel so alone and so weird and different, that it's helpful for me to have an 'expert' tell me that my response is 'normal.'

Really? That is interesting about seeing them as an expert.i am glad it helps you.

If someone would tell me that my responses were normal, I could see that helping too. In fact, I think I've been longing for that. I still can't shake that feeling that I'm totally alone in the universe and probably not even human though. It must be nice to actually be in therapy and have someone to bounce that sort of stuff off of...even if you do get annoying cookie cutter responses sometimes.

Wow. Interesting that others find it useful to be told their stuff is normal. I don't find it useful at all. Or perhaps I don't think of mine as all that not normal so being told it is to me like being told water is wet when I am drowning. True but not useful.

I do not react well to normalization. I usually make faces that make T laugh. One time I was explaining that I don't like being the weirdo that organizes the plastic binned animals at Target. He tried to get me to understand why it was "okay" and I got SOOoooooooo frustrated with him. I wanted to change the behavior, not accept that it was DANDY and that it was not hurting anyone. Of course it isn't hurting anyone. Who the hell cares? It's still a problem behavior. Normalization makes me cranky.

I don't want to be understood, I want to get help fixing stuff that isn't right. This is why I am wary of T2 - I can tell he gets me, but I need him to start helping me come up with plans for change. He's still in passive-get-to-know-you mode. This is why I whine that I have to leave T1. T1 will challenge me whenever he sees an issue. I will miss that.

So Stopdog, if T was to have a "real" or "honest" conversation or reaction to what you had told her, would you still have the same feelings?

How could T acknowledge what you've said so you would feel ok about what T says? What would that look like?

I think this is such an interesting subject. Certainly one I haven't really thought about, but, now that I'm thinking about it, my T doesn't do this too often an I believe she thinks I see those kind of response as corny and insincere.... and she's right.

I am a bit surprised when reminded my response to some things is not all that usual

I guess I start with why do they need to acknowledge it at all? How is that useful to me? For what it is worth, although the point of the thread is not me, but responses to empathy in general, for me - I don't really do it much or well when friends try either.

I totally dig that analogy.

NOW stopdog is back! what's got your dander up? what's different between now and when you were dying from pneumonia? your intellectual defenses are back up, they seem to be tied to your cootie immunity system. not letting any foreign bodies in?

It is not a doubting of sincerity for me all the time (although I could have that response depending upon the delivery)-it is a lot of "-and so how is that useful to me or what I am supposed to do with that info?"
And a great deal of irritation that they are not being useful in any fashion. Or willing to explain how it is supposed to be useful.

See, I'm still in the 'wait, WHAT?' stage, when he says something I'm feeling is normal (and I'm talking more about feelings than problem behaviors). And I do consider him something of an expert -- he has a doctorate in this subject, so he probably knows a little more than I do. I was arguing with him one time about something normal and his response was along the lines how the **** would *I* know whether it was normal or not, given how messed up my family is. I was like: [for you, stopdog, I'll translate that to: a little shocked, ticked off, followed by thinking it was funny.]

My T DOES NOT work with me on changing behaviors as much as I would like. He wants to address the underlying attitudes, thoughts and self talk. He says that the behaviors then improve without having to struggle with them as much. That made sense to me because I rehab abused animals. They often come to me with huge behavioral issues. I don't even bother with addressing ANY of their problem behaviors when I first get them. I work on getting them over their fear, and helping them trust humans again. By and large, once they trust me and know I'm not going to hurt them, the problematic behaviors disappear.

Sometimes I miss pneumonia.
Actually I am finding the how therapists communicate Books to be quite useful in not being as hostile to them as usual. Is that not coming through?

Sorry I was not clear about the expert thing. I kind of get the therapist can be an expert on therapisty things. It just does not change my reaction.

Nor do I mean useful in a concrete behavioral way. More as a concept. I do not find this Empathy stuff useful conceptually or physically etc.

Not speaking specifically to you, but people in general.....

maybe the acknowledgement piece of the puzzle is so that T can send the message that they are listening to what you said

and......

the empathy part of the puzzle in necessary so people know they've been heard.

Does that make sense?

Or is the idea of what you're getting at waaaaay above my head today?

I was trying to say I don't get empathy well with people who are not therapists either. It does not feel good to me when friends are empathic towards me either. I either still do not get what being heard means or how epathic staements mean one has been heard or how being heard helps.

Sorry I am not being very articulate-certainly not as I would like to be.

I know this seems random since there have been many more posts since this one, but it's where I am in reading...

You just need one INTJ (like me) in there to make sure that stuff gets set up.

You don't need an INTJ like me that says "Hell no, I am not going anywhere with ANYONE."

I do get crap done though. You wouldn't know that from the amount of time I've spent on this board today, but whatever.

I also get frustrated with the "being heard" thing. I think I might be starting to understand though. I have decided to try to let it happen and see if it is helpful.

But, being an "I", don't expect me to participate that much in the meeting!

I actually feel fortunate that my T doesn't respond to me telling her about something, "That must have felt terrible," because I would have the "No s**t, Sherlock" reaction. More often she will react to how I describe the way I feel; i.e. "That made me angry," with a "You should be angry; I'd sure be angry." It's a less condescending way to empathize IMO.

I relate to your version of INTJ too.

I'm at our satellite office about to reorganize 50+ client charts; I swear it will only take me 3-4 hours to do it. That's why I have the job I have; I get s**t done!

You found it good to have acknowledgement of your experience. Acknowledgement is at the heart of empathy. That's what others feel when their pain is acknowledged via an empathic response.

Stopdog, I think that if your T is using empathy statements and you regularly perceive them as pointless or adversarial, then she should get a clue and try something else. It does not sound like she is learning from her experience with you but keeps reacting to you in one, stock way. Isn’t she paying attention?

As sconnie said, I think empathy statements can be a way for the T to check if he understood correctly what the client is feeling. The client has a chance to correct. I am OK with the T checking to see if we are on the same page, because I want us to be communicating accurately.

I have a hard time believing any client actually used those words. Sounds like a therapist’s fantasy of the words a client would use.

My T sometimes tells me what is “normal” and it makes me feel alien or disenfranchised when I realize I feel differently than what is “normal.” It also makes me feel like T is trying to put me in a box to try to understand me. Like if he says, “usually when people get divorced, they feel X” or “women tend to react in such and such a way”, it makes me feel like “huh? I am divorced. [or, I am female.] And I do not feel that way at all.” T is trying to put me in the “female box” he has constructed in his head, and I do not fit. On the other hand if my T tells me I am normal because I feel X and it is true, it can help. Like if I am still grieving my father’s death after X months, and he tells me this is not uncommon, I am reassured.

Stopdog, this is a really interesting book on communication in therapy: Making Contact: Uses of Language in Psychotherapy by Leston Havens. He talks about the use of language to draw closer or farther away from a client, because the therapeutic distance is not the same for all clients. He seems very sensitive to this distance and described clients that he had to work with at a far distance and others very close, and he may vary this as therapy with them changes. I was impressed at his perceptiveness. It sounds like the books you have been reading are assuming that the distance would be the same for all clients. Who is this mythical, typical client, anyway?

I have therapy today and I am going to watch if T makes any empathy statements and what my inner reaction to them is.

AGain I seem to be unclear in what I thought was good. I do not feel good when my pain is acknowledged by an empathic response. I feel baffled and hostile.
It is different from the book than empathy in humans. I don't think the book was empathy - it just helped explain to me why the therapist and I do not make sense to each other. What I found valuable in the books is the explanation of what the therapist is trying to accomplish. What is still missing for me is how what they say leads to that conclusion. Not to mention the hurdle of do I WANT the same thing the therapist does - which often I do not.