| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics |
| Posted by: | Matt |
| Date/Time: | 18/10/2003 13:10:13 |
|
Thanks NJ, Good stuff! I'm still left with my core question, but the clarity of your thought experiment helped me clarify my question. So Thanks! The proposition/belief/frame that goes something like, "the individual has the inner resources they need" is a content in and of itself. Whether or not it is being used simply in a utilitarian manner, it is clearly a content that can be juxiposed to other contents like, "people need to find their resources in their therapist" or "there are no resources"... I think for most NLPers believe there is, as you say, a 'tacit agreement that (the therapist) will help them access and utilize their resources', but clearly this is an opinion that many people seeking help do not share; it's not in there map. So to introduce this content into their map would be an ethical violation acorrding to the criteria of WITW. And you speak of dependence. Because I don't agree with the notion that 'communicaiton is the response you elicit' the following is not a criticism of the the people mentioned AT ALL. Over the years I have come across many many people who are dependent on Bandler and Grinder. They express this dependency by talking about the time they got to be a demonstration subject and much they wish they could work with them again so as to get help. I agree that six-step reframing is almost content free, but you can get just as dependent on it as you can cigarettes. Also, some people (therapist and clients alike) have maps of therapy that consider it to be product driven. The therapist has generated various models of grief that they have found provide support for their patients and the patient is looking for a therapist that has such a product. To suggest that the therapist is acting unethically is what I don't understand. Thanks for helping me out, NJ! Matt |