Forum Message

Topic: Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics
Posted by: matt
Date/Time: 18/10/2003 22:49:40

Thanks Todd,

I'm eating it up.

I would expect Grinder to come down at least equally as hard on Erickson as he does on Dilts.  In my office I have the "collected papers of MHE" and, my gosh, almost any page I open to I can find a grand example of Erickson introducing gobs of content to his client.  Yes, erickson was always attending to process as well and utilizing process, but if you follow the strict requirments of WITW, ethical behavior in therapy would not include to introduction of such content. 

I agree that you don't have to introduce your content as a therapist and it is very wise to do so only with much circumspection.  At the same time, even doing content-free (as if that really exists) therapy is loaded with content.  I think it is very very important to keep in mind what Dr. Grinder and Mrs. St. Claire say about content/process; it is merely a question of puncuation in that process is content from a higher level, and, as content it reflects the biases/perspectives/contexts of he/she who introduces it. 

Even a format like six-step reframing that allows you to work with a problem without knowing the name of the problem and without knowing the way it is being addressed by the unconscious is EXTREMELY content loaded.  A theraputic process like six-step reframing could only have come out of a very specific historical/cultural/intellectual/etc. context.  As such, by simply having a person 'run through' such a process you introduce and embed them in the presuppostions which the process contains.  Of course, they won't walk out consciously and be able to write an essay on those presuppositions, but that is not the point. It's like walking into another culture; everything takes on a new shift in meaning, even the simple acts of everyday life are somehow changed even if you can't articulate it intellectually.  When JOhn Doe walks in your room and ten minutes later he is watching his fingers rise up and down as you talk to his unconcsious about postive intentions and finding solutions, John Doe is experincing your content. 

But all of that is just ramble, don't worry about it. What do you think of Erickson's work when he would slam the client with various content? I don't think it's fair to say it is different because Erickson didn't always actually believe the content he introduced.  Plus, the authors of WITW would not care what is 'believed' by the practioner; they use language itself as the main way of determining the content/process distinction in therapy, as far as I can tell.  If I say, "How is your shame doing today" that's content to WITW, but if I say, "How is your experience doing" that's process. But remember, it's process only in relation to not mentioning a member of the class of 'experience'.

I agree with your clear distinctions in the context of dependence. Thanks for making them.

And because I don't have my book on me, I'm wondering if anybody can tell me if the authors explain why the ethics criteran does not apply to sales or medicine. I can't imagine the reason it doesn't apply to medicine would be because Dr's are 'experts' in that field and so should be allowed to introduce a content filled treatment, but I'd like to know how they motivate that distinction.

My grief work could be viewed as cars I've developed.  If people want a car I think it's ok to sell it to them as long as you do so in an ethical manner.  If people want my grief model I think the same. But I'd love to know why it's unethical for me to share a content filled grief model with an interested party. 


Entire Thread

TopicDate PostedPosted By
ethics17/10/2003 16:41:45Matt Ross
     Re:ethics17/10/2003 16:56:56Michael Carroll
          Re:Re:ethics18/10/2003 01:10:09Matt
               Re:Re:Re:ethics18/10/2003 04:12:58Todd Sloane
                    Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics18/10/2003 13:10:13Matt
                         Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics18/10/2003 16:42:58Todd
                              Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics18/10/2003 22:49:40matt
                                   Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics19/10/2003 03:56:33Todd
                                        Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics20/10/2003 23:42:57matt
     Re:ethics17/10/2003 18:26:11nj
          Re:Re:ethics18/10/2003 13:14:00Matt
               Re:Re:Re:ethics18/10/2003 17:01:52Todd
                    Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics18/10/2003 20:41:21matt
               Re:Re:Re:ethics20/10/2003 22:38:54nj
                    Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics20/10/2003 23:41:42matt
                         Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics20/10/2003 23:53:04nj
                              Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics21/10/2003 15:59:14matt
                                   Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics21/10/2003 19:51:25nj
          Re:Re:ethics18/10/2003 13:26:11matt
               Re:Re:Re:ethics22/10/2003 00:30:08John Grinder
                    Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics22/10/2003 04:26:57matt
                         Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics22/10/2003 13:33:34Tim Bray
                    Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics22/10/2003 14:44:38Eric Bollinger
                         Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics22/10/2003 16:09:03Lewis Walker
                              Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics22/10/2003 16:59:15Jon Edwards
                                   Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics (metaphor)23/10/2003 03:13:46Todd
                                        Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics (metaphor)23/10/2003 03:56:16carrie
                                             Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics (metaphor)23/10/2003 22:07:33nj
                                        Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics (metaphor)23/10/2003 13:56:46Jon Edwards
                                             Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics (metaphor)23/10/2003 16:35:58carrie
                                                  Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics (metaphor)23/10/2003 17:35:48John Grinder
                                                       Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics (metaphor)24/10/2003 00:21:58carrie
                                                            Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics (metaphor)24/10/2003 08:27:37John Grinder
                                                                 Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics (metaphor)29/10/2003 02:23:16matt ross
                                                                      Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics (metaphor)29/10/2003 21:33:46Dan
                                                  Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics (metaphor)24/10/2003 03:33:31Todd
                                                       Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics (metaphor)24/10/2003 13:47:49carrie
                                             Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics (metaphor)24/10/2003 03:47:34Todd
                                                  Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics (metaphor)24/10/2003 14:32:05Jon Edwards
                                                       Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics (metaphor)25/10/2003 04:33:59Todd
                                                            Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics (metaphor)25/10/2003 04:47:06nj
                                                                 Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics (metaphor)25/10/2003 12:07:31Jon Edwards
                                                                      Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics (metaphor)25/10/2003 13:26:19Oscar Logieas
                                                                      Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics (metaphor)25/10/2003 18:38:44nj
                                                                 Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics (metaphor)26/10/2003 01:09:05Todd
                                                                      Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics (metaphor)27/10/2003 08:11:18nj
                                                                           Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics (metaphor)06/11/2003 06:12:16Todd
                                                                                Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics (metaphor)06/11/2003 12:07:36Pete West

Forum Home