Another look at Growth Psychotherapy

As clients talk with me about their behaviors, and perhaps more importantly, their desired behaviors, they reinforce the value systems that support the desired behavior. When the desired behavior is not carried out, the discrepancy between the two value systems increases. This results in an increasing degree of conflict internally. As the clients become more uncomfortable, their motivation to resolve the conflict increases, and the likelihood of changing their current behaviors to conform with the desired value system increases.

However, when the client has a limited repertoire of tactics with which to solve problems, the attempts to change behavior patterns often fail. Even with a very limited set of tactics (e.g. a client with a "personality disorder") if the tactics available are adequate to deal with the problem, the client can succeed in resolving the conflict fairly readily. But when the tactics available are inadequate to solve the problem, the discomfort rapidly becomes more acute.

In this latter case, the therapist must find ways to demonstrate or teach the necessary tactical skills to solve the problem The therapist cannot solve the problem directly, of course. But successful therapists are able to teach the techniques for competent problem solving so that the client can ultimately deal with the conflict.

Therefore it appears that this form of therapy has at least two stages: one in which the client becomes more uncomfortable with the discrepancy between their actual behaviors and their desired behaviors, and a second stage in which the client may have to learn new techniques with which to change their behaviors and find new solutions.

This approach to therapy is not aimed at symptom reduction, as cognitive-behavioral therapy is, for instance. In fact, increasing discomfort may be a sign of the efficacy of the therapeutic approach. Sometimes we have to become unhappy with ourselves to develop the desire to change who we think we are.

Presidential un-choices

There needs to be a way in which US voters can express their dissatisfaction with the choices they have been offered. Rarely has there been a better instance of this need than in the upcoming presidential elections.

Of course we can simply not vote. This, however, plays into the hands of the political machine, giving them even more power. The political managers would probably welcome our abdication from the machinery.

I would like to propose that we develop a system whereby we can responsibly express our unwillingness to accept the situation they present. For instance, ballots could have "None Of The Above" as a choice. Or a constitutional amendment could require that a majority of registered voters vote in the election and the election be declared invalid if that majority is not present. There are a number of ways this can be accomplished that would insure that elected officials really are the result of a majority of the electorate.

On the positive side, the political machine would have to pay attention to the voters in a new way. They would not want an expensive election to result in a recall. A new slate of candidates would have to be proposed and more importantly, a LOT of new "deals" made with the people who provide the money. On the negative side, the amount of time and money that a brand-new election would cost creates a real management problem. There's no way to predict how long the replacement/revote process would take.

Personally, I want to take a positively negative action. It's not enough to simply not vote. I want my discontent with my choices to register directly. I want to vote against inadequate or incompetent potential managers. I don't want a choice between kinds of crap. I want to directly reject it and force political parties to recognize how badly they serve the American people, and even for them to pay for their mistakes.

In other posts I have suggested the presidential process is corrupt from the onset, in that no candidate can possibly raise the funds for a winning campaign without taking money from organizations that have an agenda not in the interests of the general public.

When do I get to vote against and express my extreme dissatisfaction with the current process?

Another Modest Proposal

People are living longer, and they have more medical bills. This is generally a good thing, especially for older people like me. However, the funds for the available medical help are limited, and there are many instances in which people are denied medical help that might save their lives because there are simply insufficient funds.

I object to using public funds to provide medical assistance to people who don't deserve it. It seems to me that when people engage in behavior which they know will cause illness or death, they should not be covered for medical expenses by Medicare. Examples are easy: Smokers should not be covered for illnesses that are the direct result of smoking, such as emphysema or lung cancer. Motorcyclists who ride without helmets should not be covered for head injuries sufferred in a motorcycle accident. Drug abusers should not receive coverage for drug-related illnesses. And so on.

I don't object to people being irresponsible. I object to being required to subsidize the medical problems caused by their irresponsibility. I object to responsible people being denied medical services because the money that those services would cost have been spent on people who voluntarily undertook the risks of their behavior.

We are going to have to deny some medical services because of fund shortages anyway. I am only proposing that we handle this proactively and decide that we can't afford to subsidize self-destructive habits and hobbies.