Nice piece of writing Paul. I'd not heard about the Goldwater Rule, but appreciated your investigation into the potential challenges and contradictions there. As another therapist, I face this when clients discuss another person in their life, especially one that is causing them a great deal of distress. In the interests of 'better the devil you know', and 'keep your enemies closer', it can be very helpful for the client to gain a better understanding of the likely psychological dynamics of the person they are dealing with. However, of course, we are gaining information on that third party through the filter of our client's experience, and not, as the Goldwater Rule points out, through direct contact or clinical examination of that person. Thanks for the thought-provoking piece. I look forward to what more is to come!
You raise a really interesting point about the ethical issues involved in talking about other people a client knows in therapy. It's a subjective account of their lived experience and as therapists, we're sometimes called upon to suggest possible 'blind spots' to our clients, in the interests of increased self-awareness.
That said, I've found it so useful to the trauma healing process for people to understand how abusive relationships 'work'. In fact, I agree with psychoanalyst Daniel Shaw that it's actually necessary for alleviating the shame of being victimised by another. This is especially true for people who have joined cults or high control groups, but an abusive relationship is a cult of one - the dynamics are the same - and this is something I plan to write about.
For anyone who is grappling with that right now or wanting to read more before I get around to it, I recommend Daniel Shaw's book "Traumatic Narcissism and Recovery: Leaving the Prison of Shame and Fear"
Does this rule apply to us amateur psycholo-iatrists?
Only on Tuesdays. The rest of the week, you're free to "get down with your bad self".
Or rather selves since I don't personally (or professionally) subscribe to the idea that we have a single unitary self.
Nice piece of writing Paul. I'd not heard about the Goldwater Rule, but appreciated your investigation into the potential challenges and contradictions there. As another therapist, I face this when clients discuss another person in their life, especially one that is causing them a great deal of distress. In the interests of 'better the devil you know', and 'keep your enemies closer', it can be very helpful for the client to gain a better understanding of the likely psychological dynamics of the person they are dealing with. However, of course, we are gaining information on that third party through the filter of our client's experience, and not, as the Goldwater Rule points out, through direct contact or clinical examination of that person. Thanks for the thought-provoking piece. I look forward to what more is to come!
Thanks, Beth.
You raise a really interesting point about the ethical issues involved in talking about other people a client knows in therapy. It's a subjective account of their lived experience and as therapists, we're sometimes called upon to suggest possible 'blind spots' to our clients, in the interests of increased self-awareness.
That said, I've found it so useful to the trauma healing process for people to understand how abusive relationships 'work'. In fact, I agree with psychoanalyst Daniel Shaw that it's actually necessary for alleviating the shame of being victimised by another. This is especially true for people who have joined cults or high control groups, but an abusive relationship is a cult of one - the dynamics are the same - and this is something I plan to write about.
For anyone who is grappling with that right now or wanting to read more before I get around to it, I recommend Daniel Shaw's book "Traumatic Narcissism and Recovery: Leaving the Prison of Shame and Fear"
https://www.amazon.com/Traumatic-Narcissism-Recovery-Relational-Perspectives/dp/0367775328