Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Wed, 7 Oct 1992 09:50:25 EDT
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         "Matthew Simpson" <054340@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
              7 Oct 1992 09:33:11 EDT from <gerri@WATSON.IBM.COM>

>What is the difference between looking at it as a behavioural patterns
>and looking at it as different personalities??

Good question.  I find that behavioral patterns change more quickly than
personalities do.  The difference is semantic. I agree.  However, there
is a critical difference in utility.  If my purpose is to change a
person quickly during a single psychotherapy session, it is more useful
for me to achieve that purpose if I coach the client on changing his or
her behavior patterns than trying to tackle an entire personality.
To me, personalities do not exist.  That construct is not useful in
helping me accomplish what I want to.

>Wouldn't the person in
>either case be, shall we say, Truly Unique anyway?

yes

>If one says Multiple
>Personalities, without the word Disorder, would that be satisfying to
>you? Or how about Multiple Personality Syndrome?

No.  Use what you want, if it is useful in helping you to accomplish
what it is that you do.  I would be satisfied if we all did just that.
I don't want to condemn anyone's legitimate use of the constructs
"personality" or "disorder" or "syndrome."  However, the more I learn
about psychotherapy, the more I find that they are useless constructs
regarding what I want to accomplish.

>I think that Mulitple
>Personality brings to mind a pretty clear image of what's going on,
>whereas Changing Behavioral Pattern is more vague.. Why be vague?

You are absolutely right.  MP brings an incredibly sharp image into mind.
That image is not useful in my psychotherapy.  It may be very useful
in your psychotherapy.  Why would I be vague?  I'm not sure that I
agree with the assertion the behavioral patterns are vague.  They may
be conceptually more vague than personalities.  You see, if I want a
person to change, I first define clearly what the person wants to do.
Then the client and I outline what gets in the way of the person doing
just that.  After discovering what the person does when she or he is
not doing the thing that gets in the way, the client practices doing
that thing.  During that practice, all of the client's attention is
on that behavior.  I find that by paying attention to "personalities"
only acts as a barrier.  And I do not to pay attention to a barrier
like that, a barrier that is so static and sharply in focus.

>When the therapist
>asks if "the little boy" has a name, does the client provide a name? If
>so, why does the client provide a name? What does that mean? If the
>client is willing to go along with "the little boy who has a name" to
>get some handle on the change in behavior, why is this not a good
>approach?

I would not say that this is not a good approach if the client and the
therapist use the little boy (complete with his personality, name,
character, etc.) in doing what is desired in psychotherapy.  For example,
if the purpose of therapy is the change a person who has been labeled
"multiple personalities" into a person who is labeled "single personality,"
then I would recommend that the client and the therapist focus all of
their attention on the single personality.  Help the person achieve
the desired end.  Focus all of the attention on the desired end.
Looking at the problem, once the final personality has been discovered,
I think, would be distracting.  Michaelangelo had all of his attention
on the figure inside of the rock.

O======================================================================O
 | _  l  _  * Matthew Simpson          * BITNET:                      |
 |  \_l_/   * School of Psychology     * 054340@uottawa.bitnet        |
 |    l     * 145 Jean Jacques Lussier * INTERNET:                    |
 |    l     * Ottawa, Ontario K1N 8P5  * 054340@acadvm1.uottawa.ca    |
O======================================================================O