Forum Message

Topic: Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics
Posted by: matt
Date/Time: 22/10/2003 04:26:57

Dr. Grinder,

When I say that I introduce massive amounts of content in therapy I am thinking of examples that are no different than many of Milton Erickson's patterns.  Have you read some of the stuff that Milton told his patients about processes like grief and depression?  You must have.  I know that I've never come across you speaking about his unethical work. You always only point to his ability to track process, which is, undoubtably, excellent.  But unlike your work with six-step reframing which is almost completely content-free, Milton introduced concepts and practices to his patients that were anything but six-step reframing.  Perhaps you are right and that Milton did destroy many people's lives, but I always get the impression that you consider his therapuetic work as a shining example of excellence as well as ethics. Although, come to think of it, I've never read you saying anything in regards to his ethics.  Maybe you are equally disgusted by his ethics.

Look,  if you don't want to say any more about your
concept of ethics in therapy, that fine, just tell me that all you want to say is in the book.  I've read it and I have questions. Is that ok?

I don't have the book on me, but I remember you briefly mentioning that the ethical guidline you propose does not extend to other disiplines. Am I remembering correctly?  Maybe the reason you didn't spend much time explaining that was because it is self-evident. But then please don't be mean about it; you can tell me why it's obvious or that you don't want to go  into it.  That would be fine.

If you are willing, the two points I'd appreciate hearing about are, number one, what is your opinion on Milton's introduction of content.  Considering what you have said about 'beliefs' in other posts, I'd assume that it doesn't matter if the therapist 'believes' in the content or not; it is the introduction of the content, as such, that you oppose. So often Milton 'taught' his clients all about the 'true' nature of feelings, emotions and behaviors.  Like you say, he was positively intended (and very flexible), but it sure as hell wasn't anything like six-step reframing. In fact, whereas in six-step reframing it is vital that the therepist not suggest the content of the solution (leave it to the unconscious), Milton would often tell the patient exactly what to do. And no matter how tricky he was being or how focused he was on deeper process, he seems to be clearly violating your ethical standard.

My other question is just what exactly is the difference that makes the difference so that therapy and sales require different ethical standards. If it has somthing to do with the saleperson having 'important' or 'necessary' information (content) that must be a part of the picture, I question this.  Although, at this point I don't think I have any reason to assume that that is the reason you make the distinction. 

If I have a problem with my kidney's I want the docter (if I trust her) to introduce whatever content into our relationship that she thinks will help my kidneys. There is no reason to assume that whatever content (medication or procedure)she introduces is the only one or the only type. Hell, in a different culture it could be entirely different, and I'm sure it is.  But the docter has a certain practice that I might be interested in participating in, right?  And in therapy, I can see a similiar analogy. We might not be talking about biological processes, but let's not focus on content, right? I go in with a complaint, X, and the therapist makes a decision as to whether she can help me with whatever her model of X entails. 
I agree to the procedure and away we go.  No doubt, that in medicine, sales and therapy the therapist could easily take advantage of the situation, but that seems to exist equally in all cases.

But to answer your question; it is not that I, at this point, care to extend your ethical principal into other areas, but I am just trying to learn more about it and one way is to understand better the reason why it is absolute in one context but not in the other.  I'm not trying to upset you and I don't think I necessarily have.  But your response could be taken a few different ways and one of them is that you are, to some degree, annoyed, upset or ....Anyway, I've enjoyed your book and was just looking for the type of conversation you speak of intending to promote via it. 


p.s. what does 'get your numbers' mean?

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