comments:
That's terrible. Do you think they expect you to have relatively minor issues due to your eloquence, and suddenly get spooked when they see what's underneath? I think it confuses them. Never happened with you? I'm not sure any of us have really seen what's completely "under the hood", the lights go out before then. One interesting framework that matches your presentation of intelligence and eloquence with very early trauma is Aline LaPierre's and Laurence Heller's Survival Connection Style, which I personally find highly relatable. It combines a core lack of specific types of (embodied) development with significant mind-based compensation. Thank you. I'm familiar with NARM (well its high level concept, I have not done a deep dive into the book you linked) - and yes it would probably be safe to say I am a Thinker connection style lol. Was the book helpful? I have tried NA Touch actually. Just the once. We didn't get to touch. Actually, my feet were cold and she put a blanket on them and that in itself pushed things right to the end where I seemed to be tittering between fainting and sensation haywire (so more activated than usual for me). But you know how these things go. Most of us have tried a range of modalities and tricks. Its complicated.
Rick Hanson on the Being Well podcast often makes the point that reality tends to work better with multiple frameworks. Personally, I find the process of producing frameworks to involve a lot of pruning of reality until you have a template that ditches a lot of reality in order to highlight some specific features of it. Ironically, when I first start engaging with a new clinic/therapist I’m told I’m very articulate. One interesting framework that matches your presentation of intelligence and eloquence with very early trauma is Aline LaPierre's and Laurence Heller's Survival Connection Style, which I personally find highly relatable. It combines a core lack of specific types of (embodied) development with significant mind-based compensation. What makes it even harder is that different frameworks use different labels for what may be overlapping phenomena. Oh yeah. That's an issue even in mainstream psychology, never mind these tiny niches we exist in. Clinicians are extremely prone to making up their own terminology as they go along, sometimes because they aren't aware of other terms and at other times because they tend to have their own, specific preferences. Yet my biggest problem is that people in the MHCP's seem to be ill-prepared when they start to see symptoms in person. That's terrible. Do you think they expect you to have relatively minor issues due to your eloquence, and suddenly get spooked when they see what's underneath? My personal flavour of this is body-based, i.e. the stuff that comes out in therapy happens in the body, my mind doesn't really understand what is going on. I tend to find bodyworkers better at dealing with it than most psychologists, although the best have a bit of both worlds.