Regress-to-Cause

I recently sent someone this reply to a question they had about my recent comments on Regression-to-cause.

I figure it will be a lively discussion so I posted my reply here also.

RTC is a holdover form Frued. Yes, there are plenty of personal stories of people who have been "successful" with this approach, but that is not becasue of RTC. The research shows, it is because when one person cares about, and invests in another, results are produced (the value of the therapeutic relationship).

What the peer reviewed journals show over the past 20 years, is the efficacy of combining the value of the therapeutic relationship with approaches based in "Contextual Psychology". These include cognitive-behavioral approaches, dialectical behavioral approaches, ACT Therapy, Mindfulness based-stress reduction, EMDR, and other outcome based tretment methods.

Although It would tlake far more words to explain than I can write in a short email,

ther traditional RTC approach makes some claims, not supported by evidence:

1.) That memory is reliable

2.) That a single cause produces todays behavior

3.) That reprocessing something solves the issue

and perhaps most importanly,

4,) that change cannot be made despite the past.

RTC makes the therapist the most important person in the room, and that is a backwards approach.

RTC is a longer process that third-wave approaches, a less effective process and is not supported by outcome studies.

All we have is this moment. The past is gone, yesterday is not here. One can make change today, without ever understanding the past. If I explore the past with clients, it is AFTER change has been made, and it become a learning process for relapse prevention.

If you are having results, it is not because of the therapy you are doing, but despite the therapy you are doing. In other words, people respond the the wonderful you, and the therapeutic relationship; but if you combined that with "Third-wave psychology" approaches, you would be an even more effective therapist.

Terms to google for more information:

RFT: Relational Frames Therory

DBT: Dialectical Behavioral Therapy

MBSR: Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction

ACT Therapy: Acceptance and Committment Therapy

Third- Wave Pychology or Third-Wave Behavioralism

Contextual Psychology

OBT: Outcome- Based Treatment in Psychology

EBTP: Evidenced Based Treatment Protocals in Psychology

When the hypnosis industry finally gives up the idea that the past must be reprocessed or understood (Fruedianism) - Then it will finally be viewed postively by the scientific and academic community.

For hypnotherapy to survive as a serious profession, it must integrate the academic research into theapeutic approaches that many universities and academic institutions are researching - the key being Outcome Based Treatment, Contextual Psychology, Mindfulness.

Favorite

6 members favorited this

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Kevin- www.NLPTrainingQuest.com on February 23, 2012 at 4:17pm

I had pretty much left this thread alone, but in an attempt to help Graham out with possible ideas of his Phobia E-Book that he's working on, I posted a rather lengthy post that some here may/may not find value in. If you do- awesome. If not, I'm confident that most- if not everyone on this thread still does excellent work with their clients- and has no need for a methodology like this. **By the way, there's probably a typo- or 10. I've got a super busy month ahead of me...

------------------------------------
Although the steps I'm about to describe are reasonably simple, I do want to state that I strongly recommend they are ONLY used by those with sufficient live training in Time Line Work and or other forms of regression. Also note that these "steps" are of course condensed but should be reasonably understood by most with a strong enough back ground in hypnosis and or NLP. **When in doubt- refer your clients out...

First, before doing any kind of regression for "negative" past events- include phobias, you assist the client in learning & experiencing how to feel good. Really good. I'm a big fan of assisting them in feeling Self Love & Forgiveness as you've probably heard me say before.And as you've probably heard me say before as well... Although I don't require science to do amazing work with clients, and sometimes it just gets in my way of assisting a client because supposed "scientific studies" say that something isn't supposed to work- making it that much more challenging to work with a client because of their belief system, based on whatever study(ies) they've read- making them a "statistic".

That said, when I find the science to back up what I've already been doing with clients, it can be a great convincer for people. In this case, I use it as an aid to help convince people of the power behind helping our clients experience strong feelings of love- specifically for them self- but I don't necessarily explain this to my clients. (And Yes... Of course the power is in our clients- not the technique... For those that get caught up in Semantics)...They get to experience it- they don't need as much "convincing" as those that question the methodology and feel a need to understand more about "Why" it works before they will attempt to use it...

You see, science has now started to recognize that when we feel strong feelings of love- we release oxytocin. In addition to this, science also recognizes that when an individual is releasing a great deal of it, they are also shutting down the more judgmental and analytical part of their brain. In "hypno-talk", their critical faculty is being bypassed.

So I use this- often. And I will often anchor it.

In addition, when dealing specifically with phobias, I also have them associate fully to a time that they felt incredibly safe and totally secure and stack that anchor on top of any other very pleasant ones that we've established.

Next, when I have assisted the client in feeling these wonderful feelings at at least a 10 on a scale of 1-10 (Yes, I often have them get these feelings past a 10) then I have them imagine them self inside of a protective bubble and continue to use the affirmation "You are inside of this protective bubble- totally safe and totally secure... Nothing and no- one can possibly harm you" and other such verbiage... **You may or may not think that having a client imagine them self inside of a "Protective Bubble" seems a little silly. Silly or not- it helps tremendously. I once had a student think the "bubble" was silly, and proceeded to work with a fellow student without it, and the student ended up having a very strong ab-reaction from a memory of being spanked by her uncle.

After I walked in and was able to help her change the way she felt about the situation and everything was great- she said to me "I don't know how that happened. I know my uncle loved me and I love him. He's a gorgeous guy (for those not in the UK, this was a training I did in the UK, and they often refer to individuals as being "gorgeous" when they are very likeable)- I guess it just shocked me because when I was a kid, I wasn't expecting him to do that."

Again, she was great by the end of it, but I refused to certify the student working with her, because one of his comments after was "I still don't see what's so important about this "silly" bubble"...

So, now that you see the significance of the bubble- what I do next is teach the client how to dissociate by floating up- above their "Time Line".

Next, I make sure they know how to float up, down, backwards in time and forwards in time. This of course is completely new to a lot of people- so I take my time with making sure they understand and feel comfortable with it. Ideally, even have fun with it.

Next, I guide them back to the very first time they felt the fear they used to have about __________ (and yes, I'm using language as an additional tool at this point. You want to remember, they are in trance and their critical faculty is being bypassed all over the place at this point- if you've done everything correctly up until this point). **Note that I continually remind them to stay ABOVE the event. Remember, this is about being Pain Free Change-- Not painful revivification.

Next, I will may do a number of different things, including possibly the fast phobia "cure", EFT, or other modalities if I find them needed. Then, once I can tell the client is "above" the situation (In their mind) still feeling very safe and happy, then I ask them if they feel comfortable stepping inside of them self at that time so that they can allow them self to "over flow" with all of these wonderful feelings they have been allowing them self to feel (yes- I say *over flow*) and there's a reason for that. This "memory" is simply something they've been storing in their mind that may or may not be accurate- but they've been storing it that way. This is a way to help the client completely change the way they feel about it- without changing the memory.

Next, I have them imagine stepping in front of them self- and say a number of things to them self that I just don't have time to write out here- but it helps the client tremendously to have this opportunity to do so.

Next, I often times will ask them if they feel comfortable doing he same thing with what they are phobic of (if it's an animal/insect etc.). I don't do this particular step for a fear of driving for example- but I will have them do the same thing for anyone that they feel was significantly effected by the specific memory. **Such as a car accident for example.

Then I test to see how they feel-- While having them imagine being above that time. In my experience, 95% of the time they'll be feeling great. If not, then we continue to work with it, in that moment.

Next I future pace them and bring them back to the present.

And finally, I test again... "IF" they still have some residual fear (which is very rare at this point), there are a number of different things I may do including, but not limited to EFT to "tap away" the "remaining fear", and or help them discover if there's another significant memory that is attached to the phobia. **This does happen sometimes- but again, I find it very rare.

Obviously this isn't for every practitioner to use- and it's just one of MANY other tools for working with any issue. It just happens to be one I find very useful for many issues, but I don't use it for everything. As I've said before, my intentions are to help my clients overcome personal issues and or achieve their specific goals with...

1. As little pain as possible

2. As much pleasure as possible

3. As quickly as possible

4. As efficiently as possible

Hope that helps- and or at least educates some in the fact that regression work does not have to involve painful revivification- and can be extremely helpful to clients.

Oh, and I think it's also very important to note that I always inform them that their memories may or may not be entirely- if at all- accurate, and discovering whether or not it is, is not the point of our work together- since there is no way of knowing. But that the point of our work together is to assist them in changing the way they feel about their "perception" of those "memories", not change them- or attempt to discover the "truth", since discovering the accuracy is practically impossible...

-Kevin

Live NLP, Life Coach & Hypnosis Training

Permalink Reply by Walt on February 23, 2012 at 6:16pm

Kevin,
Thank you for that presentation .
I really enjoyed it.
Walt

Permalink Reply by Kevin- www.NLPTrainingQuest.com on February 23, 2012 at 6:41pm

I just realized, that the copy/paste cut out half of my post. Here's the second half:

2. As much pleasure as possible

3. As quickly as possible

Permalink Reply by Don G. on February 24, 2012 at 2:08am

Hi Connor,

The people where I presented are familiar with the phenomenon of false memories, and there wasn't a peep out of them. Here, IMHO, is the reason why.

If we send a person to jail for committing a crime, we are implanting the memory of a new experience in the hope that he will not commit another one. But it is certainly not a false memory, because it is based on what happenes to him. If we look at hypnosis as a form of experiential theater, on the other hand (and if the client knows it), then we are implanting a memory of a theatrical experience, and that is all.

If that's all it is, we can even take them on a voyage to a parallel universe without the danger of starting yet another suggestion-cult that has plagued the acceptance of hypnosis by the general public since the days of Mesmer -- and still does! There's a woman up the road from me, for example, who hypnotizes people and tells them the name of their guardian angels. (How the heck does she know?) But she still brings 'em in.

Don

Connor Wyatt said:

Ah I see, so the experiences are never implanted as memories, they are just experienced by the client?

Connor Wyatt

Permalink Reply by Walt on February 24, 2012 at 1:54pm

Hi Don and All,

I don't disagree with what's being said here. My understanding of the mind is too weak for me to make such a statement. However, I'm worried that we're possibility using definitions and/or unspoken assumptions as we talk about real and false memories. In our society it's important for us to believe that we can somehow tell the difference.

One of the hallmarks of sanity is the ability to tell the difference between reality and illusion. Especially if we're in the proximity of lawyers and judges.

Sometimes my wife and I will disagree about the nature of some past event. She'll say 5 and I'll say 3. At least one of us in a little insane. We've realized that it doesn't really make much of a difference. [Lots of real there.]

Likewise, I'm not sure that the difference between real and false memories can discovered. Does it make a real difference beyond our beliefs?

After all,

"All the world's a stage."

Walt

Permalink Reply by Don G. on February 25, 2012 at 4:34am

Hi Walt,

Psychoanalysis is alive and well in New Jersey, regardless of the status of the debate over false memory syndrome. But, with only a few exceptions, regression to a single first cause as the sole explanation for a client's problem is a sacred cow which has long since been slain and barbecued.

With best regards,

Don

Permalink Reply by Michael Ellner on February 25, 2012 at 5:03am

@ Walt-

It can make a huge difference if the therapist/hypno believes in a single cause and knows what he or she is looking to uncover.

Hi Don,

Do you agree that modern psychiatry is focused on diagnosing and treating mental illness with medication and modern psychotherapy is mainly offered by psychologists, MFTs, CSWs, etc.? If not, have you read Mojtabai R, Olfson M: National Trends in Psychotherapy by Office-Based Psychiatrists. Arch Gen Psychiatry.2008;65(8):962-970)?

On one hand, you seem to be saying that modern psychiatry no longers utilizes the "classic" find the single cause" psychoanalytic theory and methods? And on the other hand you seem to be saying that psychoanalysis is alive and well in NJ? It seems to me that "talk therapy" by psychiatritsts has been on life-support in the US for decades. Question: If modern psychodynamic theory and practice no longer includes "regression to cause" why is it still called psychoanalysis?

Warm regards,

Michael E.

Don said:

Hi Walt,

Psychoanalysis is alive and well in New Jersey, regardless of the status of the debate over false memory syndrome. But, with only a few exceptions, regression to a single first cause as the sole explanation for a client's problem is a sacred cow which has long since been slain and barbecued.

With best regards,

Don

Permalink Reply by Don G. on February 26, 2012 at 3:08am

Hi Michael,

I believe that everything you have said in your posting is true. Psychiatrists are mainly concerned with treating mental illness with medication, because they (along with psychiatric nurse-practitioners) are the only ones who can write prescriptions. Because there is so much more money in prescription-writing, talk therapy of any kind by psychiatrists has been on life-support for decades. Most therapy, as a consequence, is practiced today by psychologists, social workers, marriage and family counselors, and the like.

Psychoanalysis, a small branch of psychiatry, is alive and well in NJ. People who practice modern psychodynamic theory still call themselves psychoanalysts for historical reasons, even though they do not practice what is historically referred to as psychoanalysis, just as we still call ourselves hypnotists for historical reasons, even though we do not put people to sleep. But except for a few holdouts here and there, they do not use the "classic" and "single cause" approach to treatment.

The cognitive-behavioral approach, which is the dominant theory nowadays in all the mental health professions, got its start in a book entitled Cognitive Therapy of Depression, by Beck, Rush, Shaw, & Emery in 1979. I don't know about the other authors, but Beck was a classically-trained psychiatrist and I suspect that they were too. (In actual practice, most of us are eclectic, not bound by any single theory but will individualize our method to fit the needs of each client.)

No matter how we may re-arrange the furniture, alas, there is still an elephant in the room. And that elephant is simply the fact that we have given up on regression to cause as a means of therapy in favor of other, more effective and more efficient approaches. I am fond of quoting Dr. Irvin D. Yalom, Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry at the Stanford University School of Medicine and author of The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy, which is currently in its fourth edition: "It's the relationship that heals. It's the relationship that heals. It's the relationship that heals. My professional rosary."

"Yalom" aleichem,

Don

Permalink Reply by H.Y.P.N.O.S.I.S. on February 28, 2012 at 7:52am

Being drawn into this discussion from another link provided by Michael Ellner, I must first briefly address (before even reading other replies) this portion of the discussion and expand upon my remarks later:

Although It would tlake far more words to explain than I can write in a short email,

the traditional RTC approach makes some claims, not supported by evidence:

1.) That memory is reliable

Irrelevant to process

2.) That a single cause produces todays behavior

Inconclusive and therefore moot

3.) That reprocessing something solves the issue

Possibly yet not necessarily

4,) that change cannot be made despite the past.

A half truth, however slanted

Permalink Reply by H.Y.P.N.O.S.I.S. on February 28, 2012 at 2:00pm

The process of purging repressed and processing that which is being (or has been) suppressed is multifold. They are alike yet dissimilar. No matter how we slice it, the negative and the positive are interwoven. Thus releasing the underlying tension will net the same end result, a release of discomfort and pain which is the restoration of ease and joy.

Leshem Yosef said:

I'm also not a fun of Regression so I'm open to this new idea's

I prefer the gentle positive approaches and I see amazing result

Regression go down to the negativity of the person and he need to go thru the pain

But if we can bring light to the subconscious the darkness will disappear

also to give the client new tools to change most be in count

Some probably will attack - and Regression does have its own power when we have deep issue

But still it can be change by positive reframing without touching the darkness within

Great topic

And good luck under the fire or not ;-)

your friend

Yosef

Permalink Reply by H.Y.P.N.O.S.I.S. on February 28, 2012 at 2:09pm

Modern methods that can be employed readily meet this list of criteria:

1. As little pain as possible.
2. As much pleasure as possible.
3. As quickly as possible.
4. As efficiently as possible.

Kevin Cole-NLPTrainingQuest.com said:

Hmm...

A couple of things I don't agree with right off the bat:

1. "RTC makes the therapist the most important person in the room, and that is a backwards approach." I believe that SOME practitioners may make themselves the most important person during RTC- but I also believe that SOME practitioners do the same with a simple Swish Pattern as well. I don't believe the problem is the modality- it's the practitioner.

2. Although I do not do RTC in the traditional manner, I speak from experience both as a practitioner- and as a client at one time, that helping a client take present resources (simply put-- the feelings of feeling really- really good) and having them imagine going back to a past event to help themselves experience those positive feelings (in their mind) can take any other work to an entirely greater level.

As many of you are aware- I've had my share of traumas in my childhood. I was able to get to a very good place WITHOUT any form of RTC, but I was able to get to a much greater place with modified forms of RTC. **Again, I say Modified... Meaning, I am not a fan of the traditional methods-- Simply because in my opinion they do not fulfill *my* specific criteria of helping a client achieve their goals and or overcome specific traumas with...

1. As little pain as possible.
2. As much pleasure as possible.
3. As quickly as possible.
4. As efficiently as possible.

That said... I believe very strongly that it depends on the Practitioner. One of my many teachers Gil Boyne used traditional RTC with exceptional results, Milton Erickson used RTC with exceptional results, Roy Hunter uses RTC with exceptional results, and Jerry Kein uses RTC with exceptional results- just to name a very small few.

I was actually speaking with Roy recently in regards to the fact that sometimes a phobia needs more than just a "Fast Phobia Cure" or "Swish Pattern" and we both shared experiences of sometimes needing to help a client discover what was REALLY going on with their phobia by addressing past issues. I happen to consider myself pretty excellent with assisting most clients with most phobias with simple NLP techniques that address things in the present- and at the same time, sometimes addressing the past is crucial to long term success with certain issues.

There's my $2 worth for now... I've gotta run- but good topic. I think it's very important for people to understand all sides to this non black and white- but more multi-colored Bypyramid of a topic.

-Kevin

Permalink Reply by H.Y.P.N.O.S.I.S. on February 28, 2012 at 2:16pm

You came to your conclusions because 1) it wasn't working with your methods, 2) your methods were revealing severe reactions in your clients, including re-traumatizing which you did not efficiently address, and 3) you did not get properly trained by someone who knows what he's doing in this area so you still have many unanswered questions

Susan French said:

Oh thank you Richard, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you and then some. I have battled this battle for so long, saying exactly what you suggest the latest research says.

I came to my conclusions because 1) it wasn't working with my clients, 2) it was causing severe reactions in my clients, including retraumatizing, and 3) whenever I asked a question of anyone who was supposed to be an expert in this field, I got a non-answer or a rebuff. It's clear that the reasons I couldn't get my questions answered adequately is because there were no valid answers.

So thank you again. I've spent a lot of money trying to chase down answers and trying to find what part of these ideas could be valuable and safe (like, perhaps, some version of affect bridge).

Perhaps in time, someone will create some good techniques for identifying related feelings and identifying the kinds of situations that trigger them (and the automatic reactions) that are safe and valuable.

In the meantime, in case I wasn't clear: Thank you!

Susan

PS: and yet another warning about rigid dogma of any kind....

Once again, I will say: the only thing that I know for sure is that I don't know anything for sure....