[sittingatwatersedge]

has your T ever just cut off discussion of some topic saying that you are being resistant?

what would be the harm in talking about it? If something is brought up & T feels client is resistant, does that mean that the subject can't ever be returned to another day with better success (from the T point of view)?

[Nightlight]

I went back to discussing it, as well as the way it felt to be called resistant.

[elliemay]

Originally Posted by sittingatwatersedge

has your T ever just cut off discussion of some topic saying that you are being resistant?

what would be the harm in talking about it? If something is brought up & T feels client is resistant, does that mean that the subject can't ever be returned to another day with better success (from the T point of view)?

Well, a recent incident with my psychiatrist convinced me that resistance is real, it should be named by someone, and, although the provider can help one through it, it's up to us to own it and deal with it.

I was being a total brat to my psychiatrist. He was just being himself, all meds all the time. I was just angry and defensive.

He looked at me and said "so this is how it's going to be. This cat and mouse." I just stared.

"no, really" he said "Have you always been a problem?"

I said "No!" then had to admit I was being a problem with him and I didn't know wh really.

He looked at me and said "I know I will never be your old psychiatrist, but I can help you" "You may not trust me, but that lack of trust is stopping me from helping you".

He was absolutely, positively, 100% correct. I'm big enough to admit it and told him as such.

We had a very productive discussion after that about a lot of things.

Resistance exists, it blocks the process. We have to get past it somehow.

I think the best way is for all parties to be honest about it.

Then, WE have to let it go.

Help IS on the other side of it.

[Wren_]

isn't being resistant a time when lots can happen if it is talked about like in elliemays illustration. I'm not sure why your t cut you off that way and yes my experience has been sometimes its good to return to a topic another time ... there are times for both but being cut off the way you describe sounds odd

Nope, I'd find that rude. Even resistance should be welcomed & worked with. Not shut off. What's your T's address I'll send some heavies round to sort her out.

[Anne2.0]

My T has never said I was being resistant but I certainly have been. It is me who refuses to discuss something, not the other way around. However, I think it is just basic courtesy to accept when anyone, including a T, shuts down a topic of conversation. Otherwise, it is overstepping boundaries, IMO. People have a right to refuse to discuss something if they don't want to.

I am confused, it must be context specific, because I have thought resistance is the client refusing to talk about something, or at least that is the way I've always run. I'm having trouble thinking of how it would work the other way, for a T to say that because of resistance, we can't talk about this. I suppose if you are in a disagreement about whether x is y or z and refuse to budge, then maybe T doesn't like banging her head against a brick wall. Sorry, just speculating here.

[feralkittymom]

I would have thought that working through resistances is a major task of therapy, but perhaps that is only true of psycho-dynamic oriented therapies.

Can't work through what can't be talked about.

[stopdog]

The one I see has said resistance is not always conscious and is not something the client necessarily does deliberately.
The woman used the term to me about my great terror and throwing up before appointments. She also did not seem to want to talk about it. She did not prevent me from doing so, but would simply change the subject. I quit telling her about it, but the great terror and throwing up has continued for over two years.

[Anne2.0]

I would find another T if the one I saw evoked terror and vomiting for more than two years. Unless it works for you, of course.

[stopdog]

It happens to me with all therapists. I have tried a good number of them. It is just a part of it for me. It does not prevent working for me as such.

[Anne2.0]

I am sorry that has been your experience. It sounds rough. I don't think I would have lasted two months, much less years of that.

And it occurred to me that it sounds like T is more dreadful for you than going to work with clients on death row is for me. I am actually fine with the clients, it's the entry process and the CO's and the setting that gives me the heebie jeebies.

[elliemay]

Originally Posted by stopdog

It happens to me with all therapists. I have tried a good number of them. It is just a part of it for me. It does not prevent working for me as such.

Not to totally derail this thread, but this anxiety seems to me somewhat incongruous with the occasional derision and resignation at which you appear to approach therapy.

There clearly is a profound struggle here, but I am not sure with whom or what.

[sittingatwatersedge]

Originally Posted by Nightlight

I went back to discussing it, as well as the way it felt to be called resistant.

yes I suppose this is the thing to do, if she is willing. When she cut off the topic, I said, please let me continue, and I kept going. When she cut it off again, I said, please, allow me to continue; I have to say this. And I did say what I had to say. If I had simply stopped, I was not sure I would have been able to get back to those thoughts again another day.

What i don't understand is why, if "resistance is expected" (which only seems reasonable), it seemed to be such a problem. Transference is expected and it's ****** unpleasant for the client; but it is a tool to work with. If resistance is expected, why wouldn't it be a tool, and not simply shunned. It seems to me that the same subject can be brought up any number of times.

[feralkittymom]

Exactly. Maybe I should have been more specific that I'm talking about resistance as the unconscious type. The only time I can see not talking about it is if the T believes the client isn't ready to have the resistance brought to the fore. But if the client brings it up, then I would think that's an indication that the client is ready to begin resolving the resistance.

[sittingatwatersedge]

Originally Posted by feralkittymom

The only time I can see not talking about it is if the T believes the client isn't ready to have the resistance brought to the fore. But if the client brings it up, then I would think that's an indication that the client is ready to begin resolving the resistance.

but she said that precisely because of resistance, it was not acceptable to talk about this topic, it had to be tabled.

I find it so hard to sign up to the idea that I am the one 'driving'; at times like this, I obviously am not. Sure I can decide to come in and talk about something - but only to a point, apparently? The brake, the steering wheel, don't really belong to me?

And that's OK... sort of... but only sort of. It sure is going to be a long week and a lot of dread for the next session, which I think is too bad. I don't think it is usually this way at all, and I don't want it to be this way.

[tinyrabbit]

Sounds a bit like simple reverse psychology to me.

[sittingatwatersedge]

Originally Posted by tinyrabbit

Sounds a bit like simple reverse psychology to me.

definitely not. I think I can say that for sure. the friendly light in her eyes died out after that, it makes me ache to think of it.

[sunrise]

Originally Posted by sittingatwatersedge

what would be the harm in talking about it? If something is brought up & T feels client is resistant, does that mean that the subject can't ever be returned to another day with better success (from the T point of view)?

No, it doesn't necessarily. So your T cut off conversation and then added that you couldn't ever talk about the subject at a subsequent meeting as well? That seems kind of strong.

In motivational interviewing, one of the first signs of change is that the client is willing to talk about whatever he wants to change. It is considered a good thing, and that there won't be action or change until the client starts engaging with the topic. This is called "change talk" and most T's encourage it. So if you are beginning to broach an issue you want to work on or change, even in the distant future, that would be encouraged. Is that kind of like what you are going through, SAWE?

If the conversation is some kind of ongoing "argument" and the T has expressed her point of view several times and the client keeps trying to argue her out of it (like regarding texting or email policy), then I can see the T cutting off conversation. This would be a boundary issue.

It might be easier to understand the situation if we knew, broadly, what the topic was?

[sittingatwatersedge]

(Sunny) >> So your T cut off conversation and then added that you couldn't ever talk about the subject at a subsequent meeting as well? That seems kind of strong.
no I didn't say that - apologies if I gave that impression. She didn't say that either; the message seemed to be, this is not the time to discuss because you are highly resistant. I don't know why that should make any difference.

if you are beginning to broach an issue you want to work on or change, even in the distant future[...] Is that kind of like what you are going through, SAWE?
I would say yes; I have no idea how T would answer that.

It might be easier to understand the situation if we knew, broadly, what the topic was?
I will PM you Sunny.

[stopdog]

I disagree that a client wanting to talk about something that the therapist does not is a boundary issue - no matter how many times the client wants to talk about it. The client should be able to talk about the same thing as much and as often as they wish. The therapist does not get to decide when I have talked enough about something.

[sittingatwatersedge]

Originally Posted by stopdog

The client should be able to talk about the same thing as much and as often as they wish. The therapist does not get to decide when I have talked enough about something.

really I agree. So I guess I try again.
She told me once (my big paraphrase) working to heal damaged emotions is not a matter of understanding - but I don't know any other way to work on them except to try to understand.

[sunrise]

Originally Posted by sittingatwatersedge

the message seemed to be, this is not the time to discuss because you are highly resistant. I don't know why that should make any difference.

I'm thinking maybe she meant you would be more open to hearing what she was saying at an other time. And that therefore she didn't mean "resistance" in the psychological sense, but more in the standard sense of the word: "Resistance=The refusal to accept or comply with something; the attempt to prevent something by action or argument." Could that be?

[feralkittymom]

Originally Posted by sittingatwatersedge

really I agree. So I guess I try again.
She told me once (my big paraphrase) working to heal damaged emotions is not a matter of understanding - but I don't know any other way to work on them except to try to understand.

This sounds like she's saying "understanding" meaning a cognitive approach? I could see that as making some sense. If you were intellectualizing about an issue that is emotionally- based, could she have meant that the resistance is about avoiding feeling the emotion in the moment by wanting to "understand" it instead?

[ECHOES]

Originally Posted by sittingatwatersedge

has your T ever just cut off discussion of some topic saying that you are being resistant?

what would be the harm in talking about it? If something is brought up & T feels client is resistant, does that mean that the subject can't ever be returned to another day with better success (from the T point of view)?

Yes, kind of, but in a gentle way. She's said something like "Well we aren't getting anywhere on this right now" or something like that. And/or point out that I seem to be rejecting my own thoughts, or try to explore what it is that keeps me from being able to look at something. I'm never offended. This is therapy I'm often feeling frustrated already, so it can actually be relieving. And hopefully enlightening. And we do return to things, often.

For any Yalom readers, he talks about "striking while the iron is cold" which we do sometimes, and other times we jump right in while it's hot

[sittingatwatersedge]

Originally Posted by feralkittymom

This sounds like she's saying "understanding" meaning a cognitive approach? I could see that as making some sense. If you were intellectualizing about an issue that is emotionally- based, could she have meant that the resistance is about avoiding feeling the emotion in the moment by wanting to "understand" it instead?

there's plenty of emotion in my sessions. but on my own time, I do a lot of reading and thinking, circling around the problem, trying to make sense of it, and if that's intellectualizing, i don't know how to not do that, or what to do instead.
I can't sit down and bring up the sobs, I can't yell and scream and punch pillows; not many opportunities to do that in my circumstances.