CarlT
Policy Enforcement
I offer for discussion and feedback a possible technique for using negative plus positive beliefs in the context of EMDR or EMI therapy. First I'll describe the technique and then explain my theory for why it might be useful in certain cases.
It's widely accepted that some negative belief(s) is at the core of many mental health problems. How to mitigate that belief? Or, modify it to make it less destructive? Possibly replace it with a constructive positive belief?
There are endless published examples of negative beliefs, often with candidate countervailing positive beliefs. One may freely pick from existing lists or use them to inspire variations. It seems to me that it would be better to choose a positive belief statement that is incongruent - yet not mutually exclusive - with the negative belief. E.g., if the chosen negative were: "I am bad" then it would be better to compose a positive belief statement such as: "I am usually pretty good".
The idea is to dilute the negative belief with the positive; or, over-lay the negative with the positive. Not necessarily to persuade the mind to completely replace the negative with the positive. How to do so? Cognitively talking oneself into the change-of-beliefs is apt not to be very effective. EMDR and EMI therapy - i.e., a bilateral eye-movement or other bilateral stimulus is thought by those practitioners to be effective to alter neurological connections - pathways of thought or experience - to integrate a negative thought/sensation with other positive thoughts/sensations. Suppose this to be true.
Suppose one chooses a negative + positive-yet-incongruent belief statement pair for an EMDR / EMI session. Contemplate the pair of statements while following the bilateral movement (traditionally, a visual movement). If the foregoing suppositions are true, the statement pairs should integrate. The distinctive idea here is that one could pendulate swiftly between the positive and negative statements.
The orthodox EMDR and EMI approaches are to first become deeply in-touch with the problematic memory (belief, etc.) until it resonates somatically. Thereafter, install the positive alternative positive vision. OK, no objection to this technique. Only a question: Is it essential to segregate the positive from the negative experience/memory/vision/etc? This is an important question to comment/critique on.
What if rapid pendulation between positive and negative belief statement pairs were more effective than the orthodox segregating and becoming deeply connected with (first) negative (subsequently) positive statements in turn? This is pure conjecture, of course. What if this proposed technique were equally effective with the orthodox? (Conjecture.) And, what if the proposed technique were effective, but somewhat less effective than the orthodox?
If we assume that the negative belief is well-chosen, then the neural pathways are well-traveled, well exercised. Why should we presuppose that it is critical for the subject to first immerse him/herself deeply in the experience of this negative belief? We can admit that it might be very helpful to do so; but that's not the question posed here. Is it really critical? i.e., to so first and fully immerse deeply in the experience of the negative belief before pendulating to the positve?
Of all the available therapeutic techniques, what's the argument for any novel proposed technique?
Orthodox techniques mainly (from my limited observations) rely on confirmation of a candidate memory, feeling, belief by some somatic sensation. The subject is asked to contemplate a blue sky; is there any somatic confirmation? If not, then that's probably not a component of the subject's mental suffering. Contemplate a black sky; somatic confirmation? If so, then we're over the target! Orthodox techniques are very dependent upon a search for relevant events/memories which can be confirmed by somatic reactions to their contemplation.
How to proceed when there are few, if any, memories/cognitions/images/belief-statements with somatic effect?
When traumas were pre-verbal the subject has little alternative but to grope in the dark for guesses as to those memories. Best one could do is identify some feeling/belief which is vague such as “I’m not safe” or “. . . good enough”. Or, to imagine some traumatic experience such as being left to cry in a crib by an unresponsive mother; being spanked, etc. Whatever one comes up with probably won’t hit the target precisely. If "complex" there wouldn't be a single precise target. Even if there were a precise target as with a single traumatic event (e.g., being dropped) the present day triggers won’t pull that precise trigger exactly. E.g., the precise pre-verbal trauma probably isn't playing-out in the subject's adult life.
The rational for the proposed technique recognizes the imprecision about identifying original traumas and shaping inoculations against future triggering events. Identifying candidate negative beliefs is apt to be no less precise than trying to conjure-up pre-verbal memories with somatic content.
Moreover, it's widely believed that a popular infantile defense against trauma is to numb-out. What do the orthodox techniques offer the subject who has little or no somatic response to contemplations of candidate pre-verbal traumas? Ask the subject to contemplate being a baby crying in a crib with hunger, wet diaper, cold, lonely. What comes up in the way of a somatic response? Nothing!
The proposed alternative is to ask if any of such traumas are reasonable candidate possibilities. If so, what beliefs might have resulted? "I'm not worthy of being fed/changed/warmed/comforted!" Or: "I won't survive!". Do these - clearly negative - beliefs resonate with current - adult - triggering scenarios? If so, we have a candidate negative belief we might choose to work with.
Orthodox techniques which depend upon articulable memories and somatic response prove wanting when the traumas are pre-verbal. They can be fruitless when the traumas were numerous events, each not especially noteworthy in itself, and long ago. When the subject's defenses detach him/her from a confirming somatic confirmation signal the problem is compounded. It is in such a context where the proposed technique might find application.
Based on everything else we know about effective (and ineffective) therapeutic techniques are there any reasons to believe - whether from logical reasoning or empirical evidence - that the proposed technique:
1. is apt to be ineffective, or at least much less effective, than the orthodox alternatives? Or,
2. is apt to be counter-productive?
It's widely accepted that some negative belief(s) is at the core of many mental health problems. How to mitigate that belief? Or, modify it to make it less destructive? Possibly replace it with a constructive positive belief?
There are endless published examples of negative beliefs, often with candidate countervailing positive beliefs. One may freely pick from existing lists or use them to inspire variations. It seems to me that it would be better to choose a positive belief statement that is incongruent - yet not mutually exclusive - with the negative belief. E.g., if the chosen negative were: "I am bad" then it would be better to compose a positive belief statement such as: "I am usually pretty good".
The idea is to dilute the negative belief with the positive; or, over-lay the negative with the positive. Not necessarily to persuade the mind to completely replace the negative with the positive. How to do so? Cognitively talking oneself into the change-of-beliefs is apt not to be very effective. EMDR and EMI therapy - i.e., a bilateral eye-movement or other bilateral stimulus is thought by those practitioners to be effective to alter neurological connections - pathways of thought or experience - to integrate a negative thought/sensation with other positive thoughts/sensations. Suppose this to be true.
Suppose one chooses a negative + positive-yet-incongruent belief statement pair for an EMDR / EMI session. Contemplate the pair of statements while following the bilateral movement (traditionally, a visual movement). If the foregoing suppositions are true, the statement pairs should integrate. The distinctive idea here is that one could pendulate swiftly between the positive and negative statements.
The orthodox EMDR and EMI approaches are to first become deeply in-touch with the problematic memory (belief, etc.) until it resonates somatically. Thereafter, install the positive alternative positive vision. OK, no objection to this technique. Only a question: Is it essential to segregate the positive from the negative experience/memory/vision/etc? This is an important question to comment/critique on.
What if rapid pendulation between positive and negative belief statement pairs were more effective than the orthodox segregating and becoming deeply connected with (first) negative (subsequently) positive statements in turn? This is pure conjecture, of course. What if this proposed technique were equally effective with the orthodox? (Conjecture.) And, what if the proposed technique were effective, but somewhat less effective than the orthodox?
If we assume that the negative belief is well-chosen, then the neural pathways are well-traveled, well exercised. Why should we presuppose that it is critical for the subject to first immerse him/herself deeply in the experience of this negative belief? We can admit that it might be very helpful to do so; but that's not the question posed here. Is it really critical? i.e., to so first and fully immerse deeply in the experience of the negative belief before pendulating to the positve?
Of all the available therapeutic techniques, what's the argument for any novel proposed technique?
Orthodox techniques mainly (from my limited observations) rely on confirmation of a candidate memory, feeling, belief by some somatic sensation. The subject is asked to contemplate a blue sky; is there any somatic confirmation? If not, then that's probably not a component of the subject's mental suffering. Contemplate a black sky; somatic confirmation? If so, then we're over the target! Orthodox techniques are very dependent upon a search for relevant events/memories which can be confirmed by somatic reactions to their contemplation.
How to proceed when there are few, if any, memories/cognitions/images/belief-statements with somatic effect?
When traumas were pre-verbal the subject has little alternative but to grope in the dark for guesses as to those memories. Best one could do is identify some feeling/belief which is vague such as “I’m not safe” or “. . . good enough”. Or, to imagine some traumatic experience such as being left to cry in a crib by an unresponsive mother; being spanked, etc. Whatever one comes up with probably won’t hit the target precisely. If "complex" there wouldn't be a single precise target. Even if there were a precise target as with a single traumatic event (e.g., being dropped) the present day triggers won’t pull that precise trigger exactly. E.g., the precise pre-verbal trauma probably isn't playing-out in the subject's adult life.
The rational for the proposed technique recognizes the imprecision about identifying original traumas and shaping inoculations against future triggering events. Identifying candidate negative beliefs is apt to be no less precise than trying to conjure-up pre-verbal memories with somatic content.
Moreover, it's widely believed that a popular infantile defense against trauma is to numb-out. What do the orthodox techniques offer the subject who has little or no somatic response to contemplations of candidate pre-verbal traumas? Ask the subject to contemplate being a baby crying in a crib with hunger, wet diaper, cold, lonely. What comes up in the way of a somatic response? Nothing!
The proposed alternative is to ask if any of such traumas are reasonable candidate possibilities. If so, what beliefs might have resulted? "I'm not worthy of being fed/changed/warmed/comforted!" Or: "I won't survive!". Do these - clearly negative - beliefs resonate with current - adult - triggering scenarios? If so, we have a candidate negative belief we might choose to work with.
Orthodox techniques which depend upon articulable memories and somatic response prove wanting when the traumas are pre-verbal. They can be fruitless when the traumas were numerous events, each not especially noteworthy in itself, and long ago. When the subject's defenses detach him/her from a confirming somatic confirmation signal the problem is compounded. It is in such a context where the proposed technique might find application.
Based on everything else we know about effective (and ineffective) therapeutic techniques are there any reasons to believe - whether from logical reasoning or empirical evidence - that the proposed technique:
1. is apt to be ineffective, or at least much less effective, than the orthodox alternatives? Or,
2. is apt to be counter-productive?
