[sorter]

to find a comfortable and effective way to deal with unwanted involuntary responses/reactions.
Period. If all involuntary responses were comfortable and wanted, psychotherapy for emotions would have nothing to do.
There would be no neurosis.

Please feel free to debate this point whether you disagree or not. I'm looking for points I might be blind to since I completely agree with the above at this point.

[lonelyBchoice]

Deleted my first response. Looking forward to other posters, who may have a brain that´s actually functioning. Sigh

[Perna]

Originally Posted by sorter

to deal with unwanted involuntary responses/reactions.

I have found that understanding myself better makes the "unwanted" less so; I don't get negatively surprised as often, don't have to just "deal" with my unconscious responses/reactions but welcome them as helpful information for me.

[pbutton]

I think some of my reactions are voluntary but very maladaptive.

[sorter]

Thanks but I'm looking for debate. I want to see if there are any holes in my assertion.
I know this site is generally about "support", but in this case, debate (argument even),
is the support I looking for.

[mixedup_emotions]

You might want to consider posting this on ufeud . com. It's an online debating site that was formed by a therapist. It might turn into something really informative!

[Crescent Moon]

Originally Posted by sorter

to find a comfortable and effective way to deal with unwanted involuntary responses/reactions.
Period. If all involuntary responses were comfortable and wanted, psychotherapy for emotions would have nothing to do.
There would be no neurosis.

Please feel free to debate this point whether you disagree or not. I'm looking for points I might be blind to since I completely agree with the above at this point.

I think there's a lot more to therapy than what you're saying here. A lot. And I think it varies from person to person, influenced by the type and extent of their trauma, the state of their support system, and their own personality strengths and weaknesses. There's no one size fits all when we're talking about the goals of therapy.

[stopdog]

I do not believe there is one core goal that crosses all types of therapy or types of clients.

[BlessedRhiannon]

Originally Posted by sorter

Thanks but I'm looking for debate. I want to see if there are any holes in my assertion.
I know this site is generally about "support", but in this case, debate (argument even),
is the support I looking for.

I think where the argument falls apart is in the absoluteness of the statement...the core goal of ANY...etc...

It might be the goal of some in psychotherapy to find a way to deal with unwanted or uncomfortable responses, but it does not follow that it is a core goal of ALL people in psychotherapy. If that is YOUR specific reason for being in therapy, then the statement is true for you, and that is the goal you can work towards. Others may have different goals. Some may wish for help in dealing with grief or trauma or a specific mental disorder. Some may wish for help in dealing with completely voluntary, but maladaptive behaviors or thoughts. Their goals might not be to become comfortable with involuntary responses or reactions, but to understand why they have particular voluntary reactions or responses. Or, the goal might be to understand, accept, or process a specific event which is troubling to the client.

Debate of such a statement is difficult, because what rings true for one client may not for another. Each of us has our own goals, and to try to convince someone that their goal is flawed is unrealistic without knowing the entire history and circumstances of that person.

Originally Posted by sorter

to find a comfortable and effective way to deal with unwanted involuntary responses/reactions.
Period. If all involuntary responses were comfortable and wanted, psychotherapy for emotions would have nothing to do.
There would be no neurosis.

well...if the person experiencing these involuntary responses/reactions from inside or outside stimuli is okay with them, then that person probably would not seek treatment for them. and that's fine, as long as it's not affecting others negatively.

it's when those "okay for the originator" actions begin negatively affecting other people that the actions would no longer be accepted in society, and thus would be deemed a problem for which therapy might be needed. or intensive care. or something like that.

this is where you get into the deeper stuff. the people who need help but won't accept or acknowledge their need.

[stopdog]

Originally Posted by DreamAddiction37

the people who need help but won't accept or acknowledge their need.

Why would anyone else get to make this judgment for another person?

[sorter]

Originally Posted by mixedup_emotions

You might want to consider posting this on ufeud . com. It's an online debating site that was formed by a therapist. It might turn into something really informative!

Thanks! Interesting site.

[sorter]

Originally Posted by BlessedRhiannon

I think where the argument falls apart is in the absoluteness of the statement...the core goal of ANY...etc...

It might be the goal of some in psychotherapy to find a way to deal with unwanted or uncomfortable responses, but it does not follow that it is a core goal of ALL people in psychotherapy. If that is YOUR specific reason for being in therapy, then the statement is true for you, and that is the goal you can work towards. Others may have different goals. Some may wish for help in dealing with grief or trauma or a specific mental disorder. Some may wish for help in dealing with completely voluntary, but maladaptive behaviors or thoughts. Their goals might not be to become comfortable with involuntary responses or reactions, but to understand why they have particular voluntary reactions or responses. Or, the goal might be to understand, accept, or process a specific event which is troubling to the client.

Debate of such a statement is difficult, because what rings true for one client may not for another. Each of us has our own goals, and to try to convince someone that their goal is flawed is unrealistic without knowing the entire history and circumstances of that person.

@Crescent Moon and stopdog also

Can you give me an example an emotional issue that doesn't involve unwanted involuntary experience a psychotherapist might treat?

I'd say you're talking about (reading your mind a bit) stated goals.
I'm talking about "real" core goals whether we (including the therapist) are aware of them on not.
No matter what the stated goal, the real issue (and goal), is dealing with unwanted internal experience (impulses, responses, habits, etc)

I might want a therapist to get rid of my anger. (hopefully no therapist would help me do that)
If the therapist told me I could learn how
to make my anger a comfortable useful tool, I'd probably change my mind.

[sorter]

Originally Posted by DreamAddiction37

well...if the person experiencing these involuntary responses/reactions from inside or outside stimuli is okay with them, then that person probably would not seek treatment for them. and that's fine, as long as it's not affecting others negatively.

it's when those "okay for the originator" actions begin negatively affecting other people that the actions would no longer be accepted in society, and thus would be deemed a problem for which therapy might be needed. or intensive care. or something like that.

this is where you get into the deeper stuff. the people who need help but won't accept or acknowledge their need.

Good point but I'm not sure a (pure) sociopath's murderous acts involve involuntary responses, unwanted involuntary responses, or any responses.
So no, they wouldn't seek help. It's mostly a political issue.
I'm not sure that exactly relates to my question but pondering the incomprehensible world of a sociopath is always interesting.

[stopdog]

I don't get why it really matters one way or the other.

[BlessedRhiannon]

Originally Posted by sorter

Can you give me an example an emotional issue that doesn't involve unwanted involuntary experience a psychotherapist might treat?

Well - where you get in to room for interpretation is "unwanted involuntary." So, for most people, one of my OCD behaviors might be unwanted, and some might consider it involuntary. For me, it's neither. Well - more accurately, I would prefer not to exhibit this particular behavior, but I felt I needed it to cope with anxiety, so in that respect, it was "wanted." It's also not involuntary. I'm fully aware and voluntarily choosing to engage in the behavior, because it seems necessary to me. Even the anxiety which leads to the behavior is not wholly involuntary, there is some aspect of allowing the anxiety, because of a lack of other coping skills. So, for your argument to be valid, the emotional issue would have to be both unwanted and involuntary, and I'm not sure you can make a definitive statement that all such issues which people see therapists for fall under both of those categories.

Originally Posted by sorter

I'd say you're talking about (reading your mind a bit) stated goals and "real" goals.
No matter what the stated goal, the real issue (and goal), is dealing with unwanted experience (impulses, habits, etc)

Why? Why can't the real issue (and goal) be whatever the client and/or therapist has stated. Why is that not a real goal. I could state that my goal in therapy is to learn how to be happier. After discussion, I might learn that being happier would mean changing my job or relationships or something. I've figured out how to meet my stated goal by changing environmental things that were contributing to my unhappiness.

Originally Posted by sorter

I might want a therapist to get rid of my anger. (hopefully no therapist would help me do that)
If the therapist told me I could learn how
to make my anger a comfortable useful tool, I'd probably change my mind.

But, what if your anger was unjustified, and you wanted help working through that anger and doing so actually got rid of it. Instead of being made comfortable with the anger, you've managed to change the anger to something else. It may not always be necessary to become comfortable with or accept a particular emotion. If I were angry about something in my past, it might not be healthy to hold on to that anger and learn to be comfortable with it. It might be more healthy to learn to let go of the anger and accept the events that happened, and find health ways to deal with what happened.

Your argument holds as long as you assume that ALL emotional responses which might be worked on in therapy are both unwanted and involuntary. If an emotional response becomes voluntary or wanted, it negates the argument, even if one is seeking help in therapy to deal with that response.

[BlessedRhiannon]

Originally Posted by stopdog

I don't get why it really matters one way or the other.

I'm bored...don't feel like working...it's a decent way to pass a bit of time. Otherwise, it doesn't matter

Whatever goal helps you get through therapy is what's important!

[sorter]

Originally Posted by BlessedRhiannon

Your argument holds as long as you assume that ALL emotional responses which might be worked on in therapy are both unwanted and involuntary.

Yes. Both unwanted and involuntary.
Your OCD impulse is involuntary in that it activates automatically.
You can't (I assume) do anything that prevents the initial impulse.
After that, you can react to it anyway you want.

Originally Posted by BlessedRhiannon

If an emotional response becomes voluntary or wanted, it negates the argument, even if one is seeking help in therapy to deal with that response.

I'd say all emotional responses are involuntary. I can't directly feel any emotion.
If we could voluntarily feel anything, there would be no psychotherapists.

Actors spend a life time practicing how to evoke an emotion.
They don't just tell themselves to feel this or that and it happens.
They need to do something that simulates the involuntary response.
I can go to a movie I know will probably scare me but I can't just be scared.
Although, most of our emotions happen without our planing or expecting them.

I meant getting rid of anger in general. Not a specific anger.
In general, I think unwanted anger tends to build into unwanted and unjustified
anger responses.
The more one can find uses for their anger, the less odd outbursts occur.
But that's a different issue.

[BlessedRhiannon]

Originally Posted by sorter

Your OCD impulse is involuntary in that it comes to awareness automatically.
After that, you can react to it anyway you want.

But, how can you claim that without knowing me, my mind, my reactions. You can't. The need to perform the action may be involuntary, but actually doing so, for me, is a decision I choose to make - thus, voluntary. I can feel the need without performing the action, sometimes. So, if my goal were to stop performing the action, that's a voluntary response. If my goal were to work on the need to perform the action, that might be classed involuntary.

If you need to define all emotional responses as involuntary, that's fine. I disagree, and I doubt any amount of debate will change that on either side.

[sorter]

Originally Posted by stopdog

I don't get why it really matters one way or the other.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean but ...
If resolving unwanted involuntary experience is the only real reason we go to
therapy, then going to therapists who aren't working on that is a waste of time
and money. And I'm pretty sure many therapists aren't doing that just from reading the posts here.

I suspect resolving unwanted involuntary experience is the only real reason we go to therapy.
I'm just trying to investigate that suspicion.

[sorter]

Originally Posted by BlessedRhiannon

But, how can you claim that without knowing me, my mind, my reactions. You can't. The need to perform the action may be involuntary, but actually doing so, for me, is a decision I choose to make - thus, voluntary. I can feel the need without performing the action, sometimes. So, if my goal were to stop performing the action, that's a voluntary response. If my goal were to work on the need to perform the action, that might be classed involuntary.

If you need to define all emotional responses as involuntary, that's fine. I disagree, and I doubt any amount of debate will change that on either side.

I'm not saying your reaction to feeling the need is involuntary. I'm saying
feeling the need is involuntary. If you can willfully turn off feeling the initial need,
then by definition you don't have OCD.

[elliemay]

Originally Posted by stopdog

Why would anyone else get to make this judgment for another person?

I would feel quite comfortable making this judgement for those whose behaviour is criminal and harms others.

[stopdog]

That which is defined as criminal shifts. Being a homosexual who had relations with the same sex was labelled criminal and harshly punished, for example. Child rearing methods used on some of us were perfectly accepted at the time and now could get someone charged with abuse, as another.

[Anne2.0]

Originally Posted by sorter

I suspect resolving unwanted involuntary experience is the only real reason we go to therapy.

Resolving unwanted involuntary experience, if by that you mean something like child sexual abuse, then I can relate to this at least in part. I don't think it's the ONLY reason I go to therapy, though. The thing that troubles me most in my daily life is not being fully present in the sense of having "unwanted involuntary" reactions to people and events that are somehow tinged with negativity. For instance, if my H's behavior is leading me to feel angry and hurt because I feel he is not listening to me, then I want to work to develop skills to get to the place where I can both communicate with him more effectively so he has a better opportunity to listen, rather than shooing him away AND be able to moderate my feelings into something small (in this moment) and let them go.

There are other reasons I go to therapy, too, including getting the support I need to do the stressful work I do, with trauma survivors; and to better understand the impact I have as a parent on my pre-teen son.

I do not think you can distill everyone's reason for being in therapy into your box, though, even if it is a large shoebox and you have a really good shoehorn.

[sittingatwatersedge]

the proposition falls apart because it's too vague, IMO.

when you have said that you haven't said anything at all, really; it just sort of (vaguely) refers to motivation that one would rather not have, would rathern not own up to, even.

Hm That may be neurosis, but it's not psychosis. Are you saying that psychosis has nothing to do with emotions ?
what is yr point ?