Have you ever sensed in therapy that the careful wording of your therapist tends to insulate them from failure while exposing you to the detriment thereof?

My therapist told me once that I was being resistant. I pointed out that I was merely being cautious. My therapist asked, "Why is it more important to use the word cautious rather than resistant?"
I simply argued that if we were in a court of law, the word 'resistant' would have a negative connotation to it and would not be supportive of me. In that setting, the word would be more supportive of you. The use of that word insulates you from failure and garners "White Coat Syndrome" support. Especially, when judges are very well acquainted with the idea of what it means to resist.
However, if the word 'Cautious' was used to describe my approach to therapy in that same court setting, it would provide a positive connotation in Association with my attitude. I could see the word being used to more positively support me.
If I am the one in this room who is the vulnerable one, I would appreciate language that bespeaks that.
My therapist still uses the word resistant.

I don't like language that insulates the one using it from failure, while exposing the person they are speaking with to the detriment thereof.

Has anyone else sensed this subtle nuance in therapy? If so, any examples?

[unaluna]

Interesting. So you think it's "you" doing it. See I totally deny its even me. My t can't even get to me. The real me would love to do what he says but it's too dangerous for some reason or scary.

[Lamplighter]

Yes I get the nuance you are talking about. And it's endemic (not just in therapy) and it's very hard to argue against it in the moment itself - usually I experience a sense of negativity or criticism that is quite difficult to explain and only later can pinpoint it to semantics.

I think you are quite right - resistant has pejorative connotations while cautious is neutral or even positive. Resistant in any terms not just therapeutic, comes across as holding the meaning that one 'shouldn't' be resistant, and so definitely negative. Even 'overcautious' is better.

Having said that, in therapy at least, the term resistant often means an unconscious mechanism whereas being cautious would be seen as a much more aware and deliberate thing. So maybe your therapist wasn't meaning it negatively so much as trying to point up stuff going on in you of which you might not have been aware?

Whatever, it would piss me off to be told I'm resistant so yeah, I really like the way you explained it to your T. Wish I could be quick and smart like that.

Torn

p.s.

Have you ever sensed in therapy that the careful wording of your therapist tends to insulate them from failure while exposing you to the detriment thereof?

I meant to comment on this, and agree. I do think Ts can insulate themselves against failure (or mistakes) by their choice of words being intended to pathologize the client and allowing them to hide behind the facade of professionalism. As in, them all knowing doctors, you sicko patient type of defence...

My T told me he chooses his words carefully. I asked him to stop. If I were to be upfront anf honest then he should be too.

[Syra]

Originally Posted by nothingtolivefor

Have you ever sensed in therapy that the careful wording of your therapist tends to insulate them from failure while exposing you to the detriment thereof?

My therapist told me once that I was being resistant. I pointed out that I was merely being cautious. My therapist asked, "Why is it more important to use the word cautious rather than resistant?"
I simply argued that if we were in a court of law, the word 'resistant' would have a negative connotation to it and would not be supportive of me. In that setting, the word would be more supportive of you. The use of that word insulates you from failure and garners "White Coat Syndrome" support. Especially, when judges are very well acquainted with the idea of what it means to resist.
However, if the word 'Cautious' was used to describe my approach to therapy in that same court setting, it would provide a positive connotation in Association with my attitude. I could see the word being used to more positively support me.
If I am the one in this room who is the vulnerable one, I would appreciate language that bespeaks that.
My therapist still uses the word resistant.

I don't like language that insulates the one using it from failure, while exposing the person they are speaking with to the detriment thereof.

Has anyone else sensed this subtle nuance in therapy? If so, any examples?

I'm totally with you. I think. Maybe a somewhat different perspective. I don't think it matters if you are resistant or cautious, although I'm totally wiht you not wanting your therapist to be the "decider." Resistance isn't something that an be reduced by pressure, without forcing or breaking something. Labeling you, especially with something you don't agree with, doesn't breed trust and openness and curiosity, or safety, although it may (in some people) breed compliance. But complaince isn't trust, and compliance for acceptance isn't therapeutic. I've had something similar, and my stance looked a lot like yours.

[Anne2.0]

Well, I think there are two issues here. One is that resistance is unconscious (and therefore really not under the "control" of the client, unless he or she is willing to bring it into consciousness for discussion) and cautious implies intent, or the client's intent to hold back or not make changes or not move on in some way. I'm not sure this is the distinction you were intending to make. But as someone who works in the court system, I would tell you that I believe a change in wording in a report to the court would have the exact opposite effect that you might hope for. It would imply that you are well aware of what you need to do to change but you are refusing to do so. And although caution in making changes can certainly be a positive thing, it also requires risk taking. If you're not willing to take those risks in a reflexive way, then that's a problem.

The second issue is that this seems to just be about your figuring out who to assign "fault" to for a failure to make progress. Although it is certainly true that all professionals have a tendency to blame their clients/patients/students for a poor outcome, it is also true that in therapy, as with any other kind of professional treatment/education/training, clients or the subjects or whatever also fail to do their part or achieve what they are capable of. Of course, failures or a lack of progress can also be a complicated function of the nature of the problem, the therapist's skills or limits, the client's willingness or lack of capacity.

But I'm not sure I see the value in trying to assign blame. Wouldn't it make more sense to try to figure out with your T in a collaborative way how you can make the progress you want to?

[Syra]

Originally Posted by Anne2.0

Well, I think there are two issues here. One is that resistance is unconscious (and therefore really not under the "control" of the client, unless he or she is willing to bring it into consciousness for discussion) and cautious implies intent, or the client's intent to hold back or not make changes or not move on in some way. I'm not sure this is the distinction you were intending to make. But as someone who works in the court system, I would tell you that I believe a change in wording in a report to the court would have the exact opposite effect that you might hope for. It would imply that you are well aware of what you need to do to change but you are refusing to do so. And although caution in making changes can certainly be a positive thing, it also requires risk taking. If you're not willing to take those risks in a reflexive way, then that's a problem.

The second issue is that this seems to just be about your figuring out who to assign "fault" to for a failure to make progress. Although it is certainly true that all professionals have a tendency to blame their clients/patients/students for a poor outcome, it is also true that in therapy, as with any other kind of professional treatment/education/training, clients or the subjects or whatever also fail to do their part or achieve what they are capable of. Of course, failures or a lack of progress can also be a complicated function of the nature of the problem, the therapist's skills or limits, the client's willingness or lack of capacity.

But I'm not sure I see the value in trying to assign blame. Wouldn't it make more sense to try to figure out with your T in a collaborative way how you can make the progress you want to?

I wish to respectfully disagree with a few of your points.

I also work in the court system, and it depends on the issue and context whether "cautious" would be good or bad, but I suspect usually it would be okay, and rarely would resistant be better than cautious.

I also don't think all therapists blame their clients for failed therapy. I know many who agonize over what they could do, should do, should have done better. I think control-freak therapists probably blame the client as a general rule.

I dont' see the value in assigning blame either. And as I hear it, the therapist is trying to assign blame to the client, while the client is trying to put the behavior in context. I'm pretty sure, from experience, that I wouldn't like dealing with a therapist who told me I was resistant. I might entertain the notion, depending on how it was presented, but in the end I think I am in charge of me, and I won't turn over the job to the therapist. And good therapists don't want that job, in my opinion.

[0w6c379]

[quote=nothingtolivefor;2756712]Have you ever sensed in therapy that the careful wording of your therapist tends to insulate them from failure while exposing you to the detriment thereof?

My therapist told me once that I was being resistant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes. My therapist has told me that I'm resistant to another way of thinking about life. I am stuck in my negativity. I did not like the word resistant either but did not make the connections you clearly made here. Thank you - nothingtolivefor- for the post. Good to know that others have been told this too.

When T called me resistant I felt like he was saying, it is my choice to be this way. Like I could just flip it around if I wanted to. Like all my reasons for feeling hopeless were unfounded. However, on the other hand, he would also recognize and validate my unfortunate circumstances and be understanding of my situation. So, my reasons for feeling the way I do are real but I'm supposed to be open to accepting another line of thinking - which I'm not. Therefore, I"m resistant.

[unaluna]

Who is judging? Seriously was the OP raised catholic - that was my first impression, because I almost had the same argument. You're bringing a judging third person into the therapy room - why? Why do you need to defend yourself against the T? Have you never had anyone be on your side? My family of origin was not; I believe my t is; but I still fight against resistance. It's like trying to straighten scoliosis.

Originally Posted by Syra

I'm totally with you. I think. Maybe a somewhat different perspective. I don't think it matters if you are resistant or cautious, although I'm totally wiht you not wanting your therapist to be the "decider." Resistance isn't something that an be reduced by pressure, without forcing or breaking something. Labeling you, especially with something you don't agree with, doesn't breed trust and openness and curiosity, or safety, although it may (in some people) breed compliance. But complaince isn't trust, and compliance for acceptance isn't therapeutic. I've had something similar, and my stance looked a lot like yours.

Very well stated. I couldn't agree more.

[Anne2.0]

Originally Posted by Syra

I also don't think all therapists blame their clients for failed therapy. I know many who agonize over what they could do, should do, should have done better. I think control-freak therapists probably blame the client as a general rule.

My post was badly worded with respect to this issue-- what I meant to say was that all professionals (as a group, not as all individuals within that group) have been known to blame clients/students/patients for failures. That is, doctors can blame patients for being "noncompliant", lawyers blame clients for testifying badly, T's blame clients for "resistance", teachers and professors blame students for not studying enough, etc. I didn't mean that every T blames every client for every failure, I meant to say that every profession has some folks in it who have a tendency to blame others for their professional failures, either consistently or on some occasions with some people-- at times it is surely justified, others it isn't, and most of the time it's probably really hard to tell whose "fault" it is.

[Syra]

Originally Posted by Anne2.0

My post was badly worded with respect to this issue-- what I meant to say was that all professionals (as a group, not as all individuals within that group) have been known to blame clients/students/patients for failures. That is, doctors can blame patients for being "noncompliant", lawyers blame clients for testifying badly, T's blame clients for "resistance", teachers and professors blame students for not studying enough, etc. I didn't mean that every T blames every client for every failure, I meant to say that every profession has some folks in it who have a tendency to blame others for their professional failures, either consistently or on some occasions with some people-- at times it is surely justified, others it isn't, and most of the time it's probably really hard to tell whose "fault" it is.

Thanks Anne. Perhaps I was a little sensitive. I had a therapist who blamed me for things that I don't think I did (and I think subsequent events have proved me right, I think. And so does the new T as best he can tell without having been there.). I have no problems with what you have said above.

[Anne2.0]

Originally Posted by hankster

Who is judging? Seriously was the OP raised catholic - that was my first impression, because I almost had the same argument. You're bringing a judging third person into the therapy room - why? Why do you need to defend yourself against the T? Have you never had anyone be on your side? My family of origin was not; I believe my t is; but I still fight against resistance. It's like trying to straighten scoliosis.

Well, the OP was court ordered into therapy, so he likely has a different relationship to his therapist and therapy than others who voluntarily go. It might not work the same in every country or every state or every county, but from what I know, when someone is ordered to go to therapy as a result of a criminal case (sometimes after conviction, sometimes as a deferment to being prosecuted), their T has to write periodic progress reports back to the court. Kind of turns client confidentiality on its head and it does turn the T relationship into something that includes, literally, a judging component. Even if it is the T not judging, then it's the judge judging if the client has made enough progress to continue to justify the person being in therapy rather than some other consequence, like going to jail.

[Anne2.0]

Originally Posted by Syra

Thanks Anne. Perhaps I was a little sensitive. I had a therapist who blamed me for things that I don't think I did (and I think subsequent events have proved me right, I think. And so does the new T as best he can tell without having been there.). I have no problems with what you have said above.

I appreciate the feedback that lets me know when I'm not communicating adequately or clearly. I am working on a couple of writing projects, so this is good practice for me (both the writing, and understanding the feedback).

We can still respectfully disagree about the other points

And it looks like you are new. Welcome to the psychotherapy board. Stick around.

Originally Posted by Anne2.0

Well, I think there are two issues here. One is that resistance is unconscious (and therefore really not under the "control" of the client, unless he or she is willing to bring it into consciousness for discussion) and cautious implies intent, or the client's intent to hold back or not make changes or not move on in some way. I'm not sure this is the distinction you were intending to make. But as someone who works in the court system, I would tell you that I believe a change in wording in a report to the court would have the exact opposite effect that you might hope for. It would imply that you are well aware of what you need to do to change but you are refusing to do so. And although caution in making changes can certainly be a positive thing, it also requires risk taking. If you're not willing to take those risks in a reflexive way, then that's a problem.

The second issue is that this seems to just be about your figuring out who to assign "fault" to for a failure to make progress. Although it is certainly true that all professionals have a tendency to blame their clients/patients/students for a poor outcome, it is also true that in therapy, as with any other kind of professional treatment/education/training, clients or the subjects or whatever also fail to do their part or achieve what they are capable of. Of course, failures or a lack of progress can also be a complicated function of the nature of the problem, the therapist's skills or limits, the client's willingness or lack of capacity.

But I'm not sure I see the value in trying to assign blame. Wouldn't it make more sense to try to figure out with your T in a collaborative way how you can make the progress you want to?

Two years ago I went to jail for something my wife did. I kept my silence because of her husband I wanted to protect her.( we divorced)
The entire duration of court appointed therapy, I was told I was being resistant to change. After disclosing the severe abuse I suffered as a child, I argued that when my abusers are forced to change then I'll consider their advice.
I see your point but I just don't see why it is necessary for someone who didn't do anything wrong to change.

I also believe that cautious and resistance can be both unconscious and conscience. Even if I am conscious of both, I will make my own choices to dis close or not disclose to change or not to . The way the courts handled me was like forcing a rape victim to forgive.
I choose.

I see the point you're making thougj and I appreciate it.

Originally Posted by hankster

Who is judging? Seriously was the OP raised catholic - that was my first impression, because I almost had the same argument. You're bringing a judging third person into the therapy room - why? Why do you need to defend yourself against the T? Have you never had anyone be on your side? My family of origin was not; I believe my t is; but I still fight against resistance. It's like trying to straighten scoliosis.

Lol yes I was...you are extremely insightful. You're great!

[ECHOES]

To me, resistance and cautious mean the same, although they sound kind of different.
Resistance sound like forcefully pushing back, and cautious sounds like quietly understating or holding back. But both are decisions, conscious or unconscious, to avoid something that seems unsafe, that would make us too vulnerable.

Originally Posted by Anne2.0

Well, the OP was court ordered into therapy, so he likely has a different relationship to his therapist and therapy than others who voluntarily go. It might not work the same in every country or every state or every county, but from what I know, when someone is ordered to go to therapy as a result of a criminal case (sometimes after conviction, sometimes as a deferment to being prosecuted), their T has to write periodic progress reports back to the court. Kind of turns client confidentiality on its head and it does turn the T relationship into something that includes, literally, a judging component. Even if it is the T not judging, then it's the judge judging if the client has made enough progress to continue to justify the person being in therapy rather than some other consequence, like going to jail.

Bingo...you got it.

Originally Posted by Anne2.0

My post was badly worded with respect to this issue-- what I meant to say was that all professionals (as a group, not as all individuals within that group) have been known to blame clients/students/patients for failures. That is, doctors can blame patients for being "noncompliant", lawyers blame clients for testifying badly, T's blame clients for "resistance", teachers and professors blame students for not studying enough, etc. I didn't mean that every T blames every client for every failure, I meant to say that every profession has some folks in it who have a tendency to blame others for their professional failures, either consistently or on some occasions with some people-- at times it is surely justified, others it isn't, and most of the time it's probably really hard to tell whose "fault" it is.

Anne, those are good examples that you gave where insulation from failure occurs on the professionals part. I think sensitivity to this nuance in therapy due to the nature of situational vulnerability is greatly increased.
I have to admit that although the examples that you gave should be obvious in some general sense, I may not have noticed them had you not pointed them out so clearly.
Thank you

Originally Posted by ECHOES

To me, resistance and cautious mean the same, although they sound kind of different.
Resistance sound like forcefully pushing back, and cautious sounds like quietly understating or holding back. But both are decisions, conscious or unconscious, to avoid something that seems unsafe, that would make us too vulnerable.

I see what you mean. Good point.

[~EnlightenMe~]

Here is a link that I think may be of interest to you

http://psychoanalyticmuse.blogspot.c...l-view-of.html

[wotchermuggle]

My therapist has commented that I'm cautious. There is a big difference between being cautious and being resistant. Cautious means you're still treading forward but looking out for falling apples. Resistant means you refuse to move.

[autotelica]

I guess I'm the only one who wouldn't want to be described as "cautious"?

I'm like Marty McFly. I hate the implication that I'm chicken. When my pdoc talks about me being riddled with anxiety, I want to punch him in his face. I don't see myself ever being scared. Tired and weary, yes. But not scared.

To me, resistance connotes opposition not based on fear, but on reason. Maybe I don't want to do something because it doesn't make any sense to me. Or I know it will be a waste of time, and I hate wasting time. Whatever it is, I have my reasons. They may not make sense to other people, but they make sense to me.

"Resistance" makes me think of non-conformity and righteousness. "Cautious" makes me think of over-conscientiousness and hypersensitivity. Perhaps in reality, I am more cautious than "resisting". I have, after all, voluntarily sought out therapy and I do consider myself a cooperative, compliant patient. But I wouldn't want my therapist to attribute my reluctance to cautiousness unless I explicitly indicate that I am afraid. "Resistant" would be more empowering for me.

Originally Posted by Antimatter

Here is a link that I think may be of interest to you

http://psychoanalyticmuse.blogspot.c...l-view-of.html

Thank you.
That post perfectly described resistance as a cautionary phenomena which makes me wonder why my therapist uses it in a negative sense when it is described as a naturally occuring psychological response for some people if not all to some degree or another.

[~EnlightenMe~]

I think that being aware of my inner processes is empowering. I think resistance is an effort to maintain self-continuity, an effort to avoid being retraumatized. To be truthful, when I am stuck, I can feel inside what feels like resistance, it feels like I'm running into a brick wall. However, the key here, is that the felt resistance is within, it's not a choice I am making to not change. I do think it is an enactment between the patient and therapist, and the answer lies in both parties figuring out what is going on.

It isn't that I don't want to move forward, it is that I don't yet know the way to move forward without damaging myself. To me, it is empowering to know that I have yet to find a way out of being stuck, and it is empowering to me to be okay with that. The day when I force myself to move forward without heed to my inner self's fears, without heed to my structural dissociation that was put in place by me in earlier years in order to protect myself, is the day that I become traumatized beyond repair.

I am not saying that I don't work hard to move forward, it is quite the opposite. I need to be accepted for who I am at the moment no matter what, because I need to accept myself and understand that I did not choose to be dissociated (consciously), I did not choose to be emotionally dysregulated. I could own that, but that wouldn't be the truth, and it wouldn't be empowering.

Once I don't have a fear of the parts of me being rejected when others see them, (imo, this is best done in therapy), then that is when I can stop the intense hypervigilance and begin to let my guard down. At this point, hopefully I will be able to show my therapist my real self without shame and without the fear of it never being good enough.

I do the work by analyzing things, by using this site to better myself in different ways including accepting the kind words of others and by trying to work on things that I need to work on, and by going to therapy. Just the other day on here, I had I guess a cathartic event (?) that was terrifying, humiliating, but necessary. My therapist has helped me release shame surrounding a certain part of me, he is very accepting of me, and he has similar views that I do so this works. My past therapist helped me learn to trust, and it took a long time, but if he had labeled that as me being resistant and really not wanting to trust, I would have gotten nowhere.

Acceptance of one's self by a trusted other and by one's self, respecting one's structure of self (dissociative) and being patient with this, and continuing to work on things that are troublesome to a point where it isn't scarring, are all in my experience key components to my healing.

This is my truth and my way to healing. Bromberg states that labeling a patient as resistant (or anything else that is perjorative, imo) provides one with an illusory advantage in a countertransferential emergency.