Steven N Gold, PhD is Professor Emeritus, Nova Southeastern University (NSU) College of Psychology, and was Founding Director of NSU’s Trauma Resolution & Integration Program (TRIP). He has served as President of the American Psychological Association (APA) Division of Trauma Psychology (56), inaugural editor of the Division’s scientific journal, Psychological Trauma from 2008 through 2014, recipient of the Division’s Award for Outstanding Service to the Field of Trauma Psychology in 2014, the Division’s Lifetime Achievement Award in 2022, and was a Div56 delegate to the APA Council of Representatives. In 2004 Dr. Gold served as President of the International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation (ISSTD); he received ISSTD’s 2020 Cornelia B Wilbur Award for outstanding clinical contributions to the treatment of dissociative disorders and ISSTD’s 2022 Lifetime Achievement Award. He is a Fellow of ISSTD and of APA. Dr. Gold has published and presented on abuse, trauma, dissociation, hypnotherapy and psychedelic-assisted therapy, and has been an invited speaker throughout the United States and in Canada, Colombia, Argentina, Spain, Switzerland, and Austria. He is Editor in Chief of the APA Handbook of Trauma Psychology, a Co-Editor of the second edition of the book Dissociation and the Dissociative Disorders, and author of the books Contextual Trauma Therapy for Complex Traumatization and Not Trauma Alone. Dr. Gold was founding co-editor of the Journal of Trauma Practice, and guest edited a special issue of the APA journal Psychotherapy on the treatment of trauma-related disorders. He is a Certified Traumatologist with the Traumatology Institute, a Certified Consultant in Clinical Hypnosis with the American Society of Clinical Hypnosis and sits on the Board of Directors of the Sidran Institute for Traumatic Stress Education and Advocacy and on the Advisory Board of the Leadership Council on Child Abuse & Interpersonal Violence. Dr. Gold maintains an independent psychology practice in Plantation, Florida and is regularly retained as an expert witness in legal cases in which trauma and dissociation appear to be relevant issues.

From the show notes this week…

Here are some other supportive podcasts for those exploring the intersection of their queerness and their faith, heritage, and/or culture:

Jewish:

Kosher Queers
The Queer Jew


Muslim:

Queer Muslim Stories
The Queer Arabs


Hindu:

Queer Kahani
Queering Desi


Catholic:

Queer Catholic Talk
Queer Theology


Evangelical:

How Gay Thou Art
The New Evangelicals Podcast


LDS:

Called to Queer
Questions from the Closet


General/Other:

Queer Religion Podcast
Queer Christianity
Queerology: A Podcast on Belief and Being
That's What She Said
Living Out Podcast
Our Loud: GLBT Stories of Faith


For LGBT help:

www.LGBTHotline.org

www.TheTrevorProject.org

Jessica Endres, LPC, MA, NCC is a Licensed Professional Counselor in her private practice in Texas called Red Oak Therapy, PLLC. In her practice, she provides individual counseling, virtual DBT group counseling, consultation for working with trauma and dissociative disorders, and training or speaking engagements. She works with adults who have experienced neglect and sexual, physical, or emotional abuse. Most of her clients are working to manage attachment issues, personality disorder symptoms, PTSD, complex PTSD, and dissociative disorders. Jessica has previous clinical experience in various settings including a psychiatric hospital, local mental health authority, rape crisis center, and domestic violence shelter. Her clinical training includes Dialectical Behavioral Therapy and Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (Basic, PRECI, ASSYT, Group). Additionally, she is a trained yoga instructor and integrates mindfulness and the various limbs of yoga into her practice. Presently she is also a doctoral candidate in Counselor Education and Supervision at Sam Houston State University. In her research, she focuses on the identification and treatment of dissociation and dissociative identity disorder (DID). Personally, she is an extroverted, social person who enjoys playing sports and spending time with her dogs and loved ones.

Dr. Raja Selvam, PhD, a licensed clinical psychologist from the US, is the developer of Integral Somatic Psychology (ISP) (a complementary therapeutic approach based on affective neuroscience and the emerging paradigm of embodied cognition, emotion, and behavior in cognitive neuroscience and psychology) to improve cognitive, emotional, behavioral, physical, energetic, relational, and spiritual outcomes in all therapy modalities. Dr. Selvam is also a senior trainer in Dr. Peter Levine’s Somatic Experiencing (SE) Professional Trauma Training Program. He has taught for twenty-five years in nearly as many countries in North and South Americas, Europe, Asia, Australia, the Middle East, and the Far East. His work is informed by older body psychotherapy systems of Reichian Therapy and Bioenergetic Analysis, newer body psychotherapy systems of Bodynamic Analysis and Somatic Experiencing, and bodywork systems of Postural Integration and Biodynamic Craniosacral Therapy. His work is also inspired by Jungian and archetypal psychologies, Kleinian and intersubjective schools of psychoanalysis, affective neuroscience, quantum physics, yoga, Polarity Therapy, and Advaita Vedanta (a spiritual psychology from India). His book The Practice of Embodying Emotions: A Method for Improving Cognitive, Emotional, and Behavioral Outcomes was published on March 22, 2022.

Dr. Selvam's work also draws upon his clinical psychology PhD dissertation on Advaita Vedanta and Jungian psychology, based on which he has published  an article  titled “Jung and Consciousness,”  in the international analytical psychology journal Spring in 2013. He did trauma outreach work in India in 2005–2006 with survivors of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, based on which he has published an outcome study  titled “Somatic Therapy Treatment Effects with Tsunami Survivors,”  in the journal Traumatology in 2008. Dr. Selvam’s  work is also inspired by the work he did in Sri Lanka in 2011–2013 with survivors of war, violence, loss, and displacement, and with mental health professionals engaged in treating them, after Sri Lanka's thirty-year civil war ended in 2009.

His website is HERE.

 Jackie Burke is a registered psychologist with 20 years of experience researching, practicing and developing policy in relation to trauma and vicarious trauma, as well as clinical governance and risk.

She has worked in remote Australia, regional and metropolitan NSW, and has directed national programs for people affected by sexual, domestic and family violence.

She is an awarded researcher and published author with an adjunct position at Western Sydney University and often speaks internationally on the topics of trauma, complex trauma, vicarious trauma and clinical supervision.  

After holding senior management roles for the past 15 years, Jackie established a private practice and consultancy business based in Sydney Australia in 2017. 

When not working, Jackie tries to maintain a regular yoga practice and enjoys a good murder mystery. 

Jillian Hosey, MSW RSW, is a Clinical Social Worker and Trauma Therapist in a collaborative Private Practice in Toronto Canada, providing trauma therapy to children, youth, and adults who are struggling with experiences of trauma, PTSD and complex PTSD, attachment and developmental trauma, and dissociative disorders.

She is an integrative EMDR Therapist, incorporating various treatment modalities into Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing Therapy, including Sensorimotor Psychotherapy, Havening, Deep Brain Reorienting, Polyvagal Theory, and various theories of dissociation and parts work and ego-state modalities.

Jillian is a Certified EMDR Therapist and EMDRIA Approved Consultant and places value on the mind-body connection and an holistic approach to healing, tailoring therapeutic work to the client and their unique needs and experiences. 

In addition to her clinical work, Jillian is a facilitator with the AGATE Institute (Ana Gomez Attachment Trauma Education Institute) and Faculty with the Professional Training Program with the ISSTD (International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation).

She has presented on integrating the Safe and Sound Protocol (SSP) into EMDR Therapy at the Child and Adolescent Complex Trauma Conference 2019 and the SSP Gathering with Dr. Stephen Porges 2019. 

She is a founding partner of the Healing Therapy Alliance (HTA) and the PsychoSomatic Trauma Initiative in Toronto, which are collectives of integrative Psychotherapists, Wellness Therapists, and Addiction Counselors that provides a collaborative, team-based approach to healing and is grounded in neuroscience and trauma-specific, evidence informed practices.

You can see her WEBSITE HERE.

Below is part of the transcript from episode 275, in which we answered an email about how to find a therapist:

Finding a new therapist is brutal. Brutal.

 So for those who have not had this experience, let's literally just pause the emails for a minute and walk through this. Let me show you on our side of things as a client—as a survivor—what that's like. So knowing that I need someone who can help with trauma, and someone who can help with dissociative disorders, that's what I start my search with when I'm looking for a new therapist. And the easiest way these days, obviously, is to look online. You can look at the EMDRIA site. You can look at the ISSTD site. You could look at sensorimotor. You could find a particular modality if you really want something specific. Or you can just do a general search for trauma and dissociation therapy or something like that. Right? I don't usually search for DID therapist or dissociative identity disorder therapist, because it limits the results so much that it's you almost can't find anything because most people don't advertise that specifically. But they may advertise dissociative disorders or have that listed either on their Psychology Today profile—which again guys, those are not vetted at all, they're just uploaded by therapists, so you still have to be super careful—or they might have it listed on their website. Okay, so that's the first thing I search for.

 And then when I find someone and I look at their profile or their website and it looks like not crazy and not creepy, because sometimes you pull up a profile or a website and there's like weird stuff in their office, or it looks creepy, or it's all dark, or you're just not comfortable for some reason. Like, for us, our agreement is to trust our intuition. So if something feels off just looking at the website or their profile, we definitely just skip that one. Because why go in person to feel something we can already feel just looking. So again, that may limit some of our choices, but it also protects us in a way of adding safety by paying attention to the signals we're getting. They may not be always accurate because there's not actually a lot of information to go by, but it's enough to pay attention. And as survivors, I feel like we're really in tune with that, if we will listen to it. So that's the next step.

 And then out of the results that are left, it's a matter of matching, at least for us in America, it is matching insurance and availability. Like can you see me when I'm available to be seen, are you also available? And also can I actually afford to see you? Because therapy is expensive. And as a therapist, I also would like to get paid. And yes, there's so much paperwork that we have to do that is not within the 45 minutes or hour of our session time. And there are trainings we have to do and certifications we have to keep, plus paying for office or zoom or whatever. All of that overhead cost is legitimate. So I get it because I am a therapist, and I am trying to have an office and things like that. And all of those costs don't even count trying to feed my children or actually provide for my family. Like it's even just sustaining to keep the office open so that I can continue to be available for people. So I get that it's difficult. But also as a parent of six children with lots of medical needs, and eight people in our family, our budget is very, very tight, especially through the pandemic. One of our jobs was traveling for the refugee work and the war zones and the disaster sites. We can't do that during the pandemic. So that money is completely on hold, which was our primary income. And most of our clients don't pay us as much as they did before because also the pandemic has impacted them. But we still want to help. And so what do you do? It's a fine line of navigating all that, right. So the therapist’s job, though, is to negotiate the fees for their therapy services that they offer, according to what they are able to do. And then I have to offer what I can do and choose based on what I'm able to pay or not. And when that matches, it works out; when it doesn't match, it doesn't work out. And sometimes that's really hard.

 Okay, so when it looks like there's a match for fees based on their profile or their website, and it's someone that I maybe could budget in, and they also see trauma and dissociation, then it's a matter of contacting them to see if they're actually available. The challenge at this stage of things is that the therapists who are really good, are usually really full. And so they have a waitlist, or it's difficult to schedule with them, and that can be really daunting. Especially if you feel like you're in a bit of a crisis and someone can't see you fairly quickly. It's really difficult. So let me read you some of the emails we have actually gotten back from people and why we chose to see them or did not choose to see them.

 Okay, so my first example was a lady we contacted. And I'm not going to say any names. And it doesn't give you away because we had to see in the last year therapist in like a four state area, okay. And because of telehealth, that could be anywhere in those states. So I don't think I'm disclosing anything inappropriate. But let me share what that experience is like. So to be clear, for me because I am deaf with cochlear implants, when I contact a new therapists I have to do it over email. I cannot just call the office and them call me back. Like you can't play phone tag with a deaf phone. That's not how it works. I can call out with some special equipment, but it's very difficult and I usually have to have the husband with me. And so I don't do that very often. Although it's something I'm trying to practice a little bit, but it's very difficult. So for something like this, especially because I'm also extra anxious, I do it by email. Because you're doing it by email, and you're not actually signed up into someone's like secure portal or whatever yet, you don't want to give lots of information that is private. Like don't send them your insurance card over email. Don't tell them your birthday or social security card number over email. Does that make sense? But you can say, “Hey, this is me. I'm looking for a therapist on these issues, like trauma and dissociation. And I'm available on these days. Do you have any openings? Do you think you we might be a good fit?” Something like that. And then usually what happens, either they email you back, or they send you a link to their portal so that you can talk to them privately. Or you can set up a time to actually have a free phone consult where you can sort of talk on the phone and see if you feel like a fit and make an appointment. So there's several different things that can happen next, but generally, that's how it goes.

 So let me share with you some of the emails. One email that I got back last year was from someone who said: I received your email. I would be happy to discuss with you my services. Are you available at such and such a time. I do work with trauma and dissociative disorders, and I'm also a nurse. So I have special interest in working with medical trauma. I have availability at the following times if you would like to schedule an appointment. Now, you guys, that was like an ideal email. And of course, I snatched her up. And I wanted to see her because she understood medical trauma. So I thought that would be helpful for Em dealing with our daughter and her medical needs. There were things that are difficult to explain to people that maybe she would understand right away. And so we connected with her. But then it turned out that she could not take our insurance and so we did not get to see her.

 Another email that we got back from someone last year was really good example as well, said: Thank you for your email. I do take your insurance, and I also help with trauma. Unfortunately, my waitlist is until late March or early April. If you don't mind waiting that long you can call our office at this number and schedule an appointment and also get on our waitlist. I also work with families if that would be helpful to you. Let me know which direction you want to go. So she was very clear about when she was available, whether she took my insurance or not, and how she could help. This is the woman that actually ended up being our family therapist where we used to all go, all eight of us for the children, and just hang out there for two hours rotating everybody through. And she was amazing. And so one thing that was also helpful as she responded so quickly, and she was available by email, which I really need as a deaf person. I do not abuse that privilege. I do not send crisis messages to the therapist. So that one worked out, but for the children, not for us.

 As the year progressed last year and the pandemic started, I also needed to find someone who specifically would do telehealth because I was not able to go into the office. And where I live, not everyone took it seriously in the beginning. And so some people were not available on telehealth. So since that was something I needed, that was something to ask upfront. So a good example of this response from a therapist that we actually saw until we moved was: Hi. Thank you for touching base. I do currently have a few openings. Let me know what days and times work for you. I do take your insurance, no problem there. I will be supportive of you in your healing journey and however you integrate your beliefs and family into that just let me know as we go. At this point, I'm doing exclusively telemedicine, I'm considering doing that long term, or with some in office after the pandemic. You can email me here and you can text my phone number at this number. So she was very clear about what is okay and what is not okay with her, her availability, and what she can help with or not. And I asked, I followed up with some more detail questions, and at that point moved to the portal so that I could ask more specific questions privately. And this person we saw most of the beginning of the summer until we moved. So this one really worked out and we only didn't get to stay with her because we had to move.

 So those are some good examples. Let me give you some not so good examples. This person emailed back and said: Good afternoon. I do offer telehealth, but please call the clinic to schedule an appointment. They do all of that for me. Thank you for reaching out. So when at that point, I realized that this person was actually in a larger practice or some sort of community building, which I already know is too overwhelming for me. So I didn't even reply to that person. If they could not help me get an appointment scheduled and get me into the building the first time, they are not someone who can help me with some of our issues.

 Another person wrote: Thank you for thinking of me. Unfortunately, I have a full caseload right now and do not have room for another client at this time. I know the agency I'm contracted with has several really good trauma therapist, and they maybe could help you. And then ask for so and so, she's great. I think she may have a staff meeting on the day you want. But she could call you back if you wanted. So this person was polite, but totally couldn't help. And if they're a contractor, like they revealed so much about their office dynamics, I just didn't, that was not going to work.

 Another one wrote: Thanks for reaching out. What problems are you experiencing? But that's all that they said. No way to contact them, no way to talk to them privately, and no follow up as far as if they're available to help with some of that. And so that person we did not see.

 Another one said: I use a sliding scale and I do help telehealth, but I'm not contracted for your insurance. I can only bill for children. You could try and then she gave me the number of a community mental health agency, which I appreciate. But again, that was not the setting that was going to work for us. We had already tried that and it was like a walking panic attack just to get into the therapists office. Which is really sad because the therapist was amazing.

 After we moved, a therapist wrote: I am happy to schedule a mental health telesession with you. Are there certain days or times a day that are more open for you? The way we will get started is I will send you an invitation to join our client portal. After joining a client portal, you will find some intake paperwork and a questionnaire. That's also how we do billing. I am happy to answer any more questions you may have on the client portal to protect your privacy. Feel free to reply to this email or use the contact information below, but I will watch for you on the portal. I look forward to hearing from you soon. So this person actually that was an amazing response. It totally worked out. That's who we saw after we moved here until they change portal sites and we somehow got lost in the middle. Their email changed, and their portal site changed, and we just sort of didn't hear back from them. So that was a little bit traumatic because we really liked her.

 Someone else wrote to us: Thank you for your email, I understand that you're looking for an appointment. I'm available for ongoing and consistent support. I do cognitive behavioral with trauma informed in parentheses if that is what you want. That is not what I want you guys, and so I did not reply to them.

 Here's another email from a therapist who did equine therapy. And she was here after we moved. And so we contacted her to try to set the children up with her. And she sent us the link to the portal that worked really well. We filled out all of the paperwork, which takes ages for children's Medicaid, and six of them at that. And so I spent hours and hours and hours, like an entire day, filling out all the paperwork. I got everything signed, I emailed her back PDFs of that, and gave her list of our availability which she had asked for. And then we never heard from her again. And it was so frustrating because we spent hours filling out that paperwork and never heard from her. I still don't know what happened. Like I don't know if she got COVID, or if our paperwork was just lost, or she didn't want to see us after she saw the issues that children had. I don't know, but we never heard from her. So that's another example.

 Here's another one that was really good. This one said: I just got your email, and wanting to send you an invite to my patient portal. You can have a free session so we can get to know each other a little bit and see if we're a fit. I'm also going to send you an invitation for Spruce, which is an app that we can text securely on so that your information is protected, but you can still get ahold of me if you need to, or just share what's going on. Sometimes that's important with trauma clients. We can do video sessions. And we can talk about scheduling sessions during the day. I absolutely have availability during the times you mentioned. And I can meet with you more than once weekly if that would be helpful. And then she gave me a list of her schedule of open times. And you, your choices for payment are these and she gave different ways that we could pay her securely and said, Here's an appointment. You don't have to pay for the first appointment so that we can get to know one another. And this is actually our therapists that we really appreciated this spring who passed away from COVID. She really had things set up in a secure way and we felt safe with her. So then we had to do it all again. When our therapist died from COVID, we had to go through this all again.

 So one person wrote back: I'm taking new clients now, yes. We can do in person or telehealth. I can help you with trauma. It's actually something I really enjoy helping people through. My sessions are $250 out of pocket. Let me know when you want to meet. Yeah, you guys. That didn't happen. I don't have $250 a pop.

 So the next one wrote back and said: I can help with trauma, and here are some of the trainings I've done and experiences I have that shows I'm able to do so. Which I actually really appreciated. However, I get several requests for telehealth, so I'm thinking I will move those to their own day. Do you want to do this day only at this time? So then she talked about her schedule, and we set an appointment, and that was fine. But then she emailed back and had to move things because she decided to move of her telehealth people to one day. And then she emailed again because she had to cancel for something else she was doing. Like, she was just too busy. So that one didn't work out.

 There were other emails we've gotten that literally said: I can help with your issues. But I don't have time right now. Like, if you can’t squeeze me in for an hour, there's no way that you can squeeze me into your head space. You know what I mean? Like, if they don't have time to just schedule something, then they certainly don't have time to actually like hold space and presence with us. When DID is such a long term and intense experience, which I already feel guilty for. Like I'm going into therapy, feeling bad for what I'm going to have to put this person through just for me to get better. Like it feels so yucky and abusive, even if that's all not like entirely accurate thinking. Or even if the therapist can explain how it's done from their side of things. Which technically I understand, because I get in that role too for work, right. So it's really tricky.

 The therapist we have now that we have been able to see five times in a row, we went ahead and set up with her because she gave us lots of availability times. She was careful about our confidentiality. She demonstrated that she understood about trauma and dissociation without being overly intrusive before we were ready to go there. And because she was available on telehealth and had a sliding scale that we could do within the budget of our family, even though we don't actually even have that money. Like it's really, really hard, right. But we can work extra and just do our best because being tired and worn out is somehow better than not making it. Right, so.

 So we accepted an appointment with that therapist, and then going to the first session, and feeling how she talked about things, the respectful language that she used, this safety that she created in the rapport between us, even though clearly we have some serious therapy issues. And her capacity to sort of get some of that information out of us in a general way without being pushy, is what got us back for this second appointment.

 The second appointment we're just going to call a wash, because we basically cried the whole time, because our other therapist was dead, and the therapist before that is just like a hole in our heart, right. And so there is that just pain. But it was coming out and it was coming out in a safe place. And it was coming out in a way that we were not alone. And so that is why we showed up for the third appointment.

 The third appointment, she gave us some new resources, which we'll talk about on the podcast later. But some books we hadn't even heard of, although you probably have heard of them, but we hadn't heard of them. And gave us some homework to get these books and to read some specific things to talk about how they apply to us. And that is when we started learning and giving that framework of a way to ease back into therapy through a safe context, as opposed to jumping back into trying to establish a relationship with a therapist. Because right now that's where our wound is. And so that's not happening. There is no parade of altars. There no little showing up in therapy, even if it's to distract things. Like they are not coming. They are not participating. They are not going there. And we won't let them. Like, that it hurts too much. But having this framework of let's talk about dissociation, and let's talk about trauma through these books, and in a very safe window of tolerance kind of way, gave us a way to at least engage with the process and to attempt to hold on in a way that at least put some footing under our feet a little bit again. And that's why we showed up for the fourth appointment.

 At the fourth appointment, she had all kinds of stuff ready that reminded us of things that we learned from like Christine Forner about the brain, and some of the things we've learned through the ISSTD courses over the last year. And so that was familiar enough that it built somehow on this safety through the books and that framework. It added a layer of familiarity, which helped us bring down those walls just a little bit. Not enough to engage, not enough to give any pieces away. And we spent the whole time crying again. So it was embarrassing. But she used some art, we did some art together. And she used some of the reading to help us put into words what was going on and noticing patterns of what was triggering these big responses that would get us so tangled with our friends, or so tangled from what happened in therapy before. And that at least was like a balm on the wound, even though it's so raw and vulnerable. And so that was huge. And that's what got us back to the fifth session.

 And then in the fifth session, we somehow through conversations stumbled upon both of us knowing—like Bible knowing—I don't mean the actual Bible. But I mean, like our other Bible is the Wolves book, the Women Who Run With the Wolves. And she is the first person that we have ever met, who not only also knew the book, but like knew knew the book. Like we could quote something or reference something to try to express what we were feeling. And she got it. And you guys for whatever reason, that nailed it. Like it was out of the ballpark. It is the first time that we felt safe and comfortable and expressive in therapy in over a year, almost two years. It was so good. And it was so helpful. And she gave so much homework, which we're not thrilled about. But all of this we'll be talking about in other episodes to share what we're learning and how things are progressing. But yes, finally, things are going very well.

 So I'm sorry to go off on all that tangent, but I'm saying I get it and finding a new therapist is exhausting. But also, when you find that therapist that knows how to help you and is accessible, and is available, and is respectful of your experience, and builds safety in that way. You guys, you've got to do everything on your end to do that work. To honor that opportunity. It is such a privilege space. It is such a sacred space. And there is hope there again in a way there hasn't been in a long time.

Our guest this week is Martha Straus, PhD:

Martha B. Straus, Ph.D. is a professor in the Department of Clinical Psychology at Antioch University New England Graduate School in Keene, New Hampshire. Dr. Straus is an international trainer on topics related to child, adolescent, and family development, attachment, trauma, and therapy. She is the author of numerous articles and five books including, most recently, Treating Trauma in Adolescents: Development, Attachment, and the Therapeutic Relationship. She lives in Brattleboro, VT where she also maintains a small private practice.

Lexi M is trauma educator, survivor outreach provider, and co-founder of Beauty After Bruises. As a survivor of highly complex trauma herself, she uses her lived experience of Dissociative Identity Disorder, as well as navigating all levels of treatment, to inform her outreach and advise clinicians, survivors and everyone with BAB. Due to the nature of her trauma story, much of her personal credentials and life identifiers maintain a level of anonymity, which has become a unique opportunity to demonstrate healthy boundaries and show one potential path concerned survivors can take in their passions. Lexi's main focus today is in creating clear, well-synthesized, heartfelt psychoeducation; writing articles, symptom management tools and resource guides; designing social media and web materials; and most of all bridging the gaps between all extremes necessary for trauma care. Matching well-researched data with deep heart and connection, healthy realism with flourishing hope, and compassionate awareness with real tangible and effective change.

Anne Knisley is the Co-founder and Survivor Outreach Liaison for the nonprofit organization Beauty After Bruises. Beauty After Bruises directly helps survivors with Complex PTSD and Dissociative Disorders access the therapeutic and inpatient care they need by providing financial grants as well as bridging the many gaps in trauma care by locating specialized clinicians, educating the public on trauma and dissociation, and giving survivors themselves the tools and self-compassion needed to fight another day

Anne received her BA from York College of Pennsylvania and built her career and businesses ownership in the health and human services industry. After life was redirected by a loved one's close and intimate battle with complex trauma, her focus transitioned into becoming an effective support person in their life. This required a robust crash course in trauma and dissociative disorders, the bureaucracy and financial demands of the healthcare industry, and society's mistreatment of survivors. This early introduction and life milestone birthed a passion to ensure the same services reach the countless survivors that did NOT have anyone in their corner to guide them through this maze. Thus, the Beauty After Bruises initiative was born.

Today Anne mainly works one-on-one with our survivors, their therapists, and doing public education. In every role, she offers the information, skills, and self-confidence needed to proceed with strength, self-agency and the knowledge that someone has their back.

Beauty After Bruises.

Richard P. Kluft, M.D., Ph.D., practices psychiatry, psychoanalysis, and medical hypnosis in Bala Cynwyd, PA.  He is Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at Temple University School of Medicine.  He serves on the faculty of the Psychoanalytic Center of Philadelphia, where he is a Waiver Training Analyst, and on the faculty of the China American Psychoanalytic Alliance.

He has published over 260 scientific papers and book chapters. Most of these papers concerned trauma, dissociation, dissociative disorders, therapeutic impasses, boundary violations, hypnosis, and psychoanalysis. His recent book, Shelter from the Storm (2013), explorating a compassionate approach to the abreaction of trauma, won the 2013 Written Media Award of the International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation. His edited books are Childhood Antecedents of Multiple Personality, Treating Victims of Sexual Abuse, and Incest-Related Syndromes of Adult Psychopathology.  He and Catherine G. Fine, Ph.D., co-edited Clinical Perspectives on Multiple Personality Disorder.  Dr. Kluft was Editor-in-Chief of the journal DISSOCIATION for ten years. He is currently Clinical Forum Editor of the International Journal of Clinical & Experimental Hypnosis and Advisory Editor of the American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis.  He has presented over 1,000 scientific papers and workshops. 

He was a co-founder and an early President of the International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation. He has been President of the American Society of Clinical Hypnosis and the Society for Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, and International Conference Chair of the International Society of Hypnosis. He has received numerous awards for his published research and his clinical and teaching contributions. These include four Erickson Awards for the best scientific paper of the year in hypnosis, and the 2019 Ernest R. Hilgard Award for the best paper addressing the history of hypnosis. The Journal of Trauma and Dissociation has established the Richard P. Kluft, M.D. Award to honor its best scientific paper of the year. He has held several visiting professorships.

He was the Director of the Dissociative Disorders Program at The Institute of the Pennsylvania Hospital for 8 years. He has extensive experience in treating victims of sexual exploitation by psychotherapists and has served as an expert witness in several malpractice cases involving boundary violations. He also has served as an expert witness in cases in which the diagnosis of dissociative disorders or matters of memory were major issues, including those involving murder and serial murder charges. Dr. Kluft served as a consultant to the Dreamworks and Showtime series, “The United States of Tara.” He was featured in the Showtime documentary, “What Is DID? With Richard P. Kluft, M.D,” which won the 2009 Media Award of the International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation.

He has a second career as a writer of novels and short stories. He is the author of three novels Good Shrink/Bad Shrink (2014), An Obituary to Die For (2016) and A Sinister Subtraction (2019), and a novella, How Fievel Stole the Moon: A Tale for Sweet Children and Sour Scholars (2014).

This week we welcome to the podcast nutritionist Annie Goldsmith:

Annie Goldsmith, RD, LDN holds an undergraduate degree from the University of Rochester in Brain and Cognitive Sciences and attended Winthrop University for her graduate coursework in human nutrition.

She has worked in eating disorder treatment at the Partial Hospitalization Program, Intensive Outpatient Program, and outpatient levels of care.

She founded her group practice, Second Breakfast Nutrition, in 2015; her practice is rooted in the Health at Every Size® and Intuitive Eating philosophies.

She has presented on weight-inclusive care at the NCAND regional meeting and at the annual AHEC diabetes symposium in Charlotte, NC.

Annie became interested in somatically-oriented and trauma-informed approaches to nutrition therapy in eating disorder treatment in 2018, when she began training with the Embodied Recovery Institute.

She realized that an understanding of how nervous system state impacts eating is missing from many traditional approaches to ED treatment.

She is passionate about bringing the body into the conversation and providing education to colleagues about trauma-informed approaches to nutrition therapy.

You can see her website HERE and her Instagram is @second_breakfast_nutritionclt

This week we welcomed Veronique to the podcast, who shared with us about trauma and chronic illness.

Veronique majored in cross-cultural studies & premed for a BA at Antioch college in Yellow Springs, Ohio, where the focus was also on experiential learning. She then found a medical school with a similar emphasis on learning by doing, McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, whose mission is “to create life-long learners.” This style of learning has served her greatly in the exploration of her health and looking into factors that may have contributed to, and continue to perpetuate, her fatigue.

She attended the University of New Mexico for her Family Practice Residency, having spent her early years in Santa Fe, as it has a medical student program, and philosophy, like McMaster’s. After completing her medical training, she traveled the country doing short stints as a temp doc (locum tenens). She tested out different environments such as private, independent outpatient practices in Michigan and Rhode-Island, hospital-based clinics in Maine, the Indian Health Service in North Dakota, and an isolated clinic in the Outer Banks of North Carolina.

She then settled down as full-time faculty in a small, community-based residency training program that was just getting started, in Concord, New Hampshire, where she delivered babies, taught residents and medical students, bought her first house, and made good friends.

In 1998, she took a year off and realized that she could become more like one of her role models, Rachel Naomi Remen, MD, who works with the relationship between mind and body. She went back to school to become a somatic psychotherapist. What she learned helped make sense of her own symptoms. She got a Master’s degree at Naropa University and did specialty training in working with trauma, bonding and attachment.

Her research has taken the form of scouring the medical databases for over twenty years. She has put together new ways of making sense of  chronic illness; and finding commonalities between chronic illnesses (chronic fatigue syndrome ME/CFS, MS, diabetes (both type 1 and 2), RA, Inflammatory bowel disease, Lupus, and asthma, among others). She has also been using herself as a case study, examining and working with her symptoms and their relationships to past and present life events, and she shares these throughout her blog to validate just how much is changing in our understanding of disease and tools for healing.

• 1986 BA Cross Cultural Studies & Pre Med – Antioch College – “learning by doing”

• 1990 MD – McMaster University Medical School, Ontario, Canada – “how to be lifelong learners”

• 1993 Family Physician – University of New Mexico in Albuquerque Family Practice Residency

• 1993-1995 Family Physician Locum Tenens (short term clinical work around the USA)

• 1995-1998 Assistant Professor – New Hampshire Dartmouth Family Practice Residency Program, teaching; obstetrics and full spectrum care;

• 2003 MA Somatic Psychology / Body-Based Psychotherapy – Naropa University in Boulder, CO – working with the wisdom & language of the body and symptoms

• 2000 to present: Nervous System Specialist using Somatic & Trauma Therapies

• 2001 Training – Sensorimotor Psychotherapy (Trauma)

• 2006+ Training – Somatic Experiencing Practitioner (Trauma)

• 2006+ Training – Prenatal and Perinatal Professional Training (Early Trauma)

Master’s Thesis:  Mead, V. P. (2003). Somatic psychology theory and the origins of chronic illness: a case study of type 1 diabetes. Somatic Psychology. Boulder (CO), Naropa University: 427 p.

Journal Article: Mead, V. P. (2004). “A new model for understanding the role of environmental factors in the origins of chronic illness: a case study of type 1 diabetes mellitus.” Med Hypotheses 63(6): 1035-1046.

Book Chapter: Mead, V. P. (2007). Timing, Bonding, and Trauma: Applications from experience-dependent maturation and traumatic stress provide insights for understanding environmental origins of disease. Advances in Psychology Research. A. M. Columbus, Nova Science Publishers. 49: 1-80. (downloadable from bottom of free ebooks page)

Special links referenced in the podcast included:

ACEs and chronic illness
https://chronicillnesstraumastudies.com/adverse-childhood-experiences-and-chronic-illness-boyhood/

Her own story and journey with chronic illness from trauma perspectives
https://chronicillnesstraumastudies.com/how-understanding-trauma-is-making-sense-of-my-chronic-illness-and-helping-me-heal/

A list of somatic trauma therapies she recommends for healing trauma and nervous system perceptions of threat
https://chronicillnesstraumastudies.com/chronic-illness-recovery-books-on-trauma/

A list of books on trauma and chronic illness and related perspectives
https://chronicillnesstraumastudies.com/therapies-chronic-illness-stress-triggers-perception-threat/

Her blog is HERE.

Our guest this week is Ken Benau, PhD.

Ken Benau, Ph.D. has been a licensed psychologist for 30 years, with an independent practice in psychotherapy, consulting and training, currently in Kensington, CA (SF Bay Area).  Dr. Benau has a special interest in working with children, adolescents and adults living with various learning differences, ADHD and High Functioning Autism, as well as depression and anxiety.  Dr. Benau also works with survivors of relational or developmental trauma, all from an integrative approach to psychotherapy.  His theoretical orientations include attachment and emotion-focused, psychodynamic, experiential, somatic and Coherence Therapy.  Dr. Benau has a special interest in understanding and working with shame and pride in survivors of relational trauma, and has written several articles and is currently working on a book with that theme. 

His website is HERE.

The impact of COVID19 has caused changes and chaos for most of us across the world, whether we have gotten sick or know someone who has, or whether we have made significant lifestyle changes to help “flatten the curve”.    We have learned about how viruses multiply exponentially, witnessed the shutting down of schools and businesses, and watched as hospitals filled and protective equipment ran out.  But we have also seen creativity in connection, enjoyed the slowing down of our busy lives, and refocused on being present with our own families.

In neuroscience, it’s the “mammal brain”, or higher brain, that turns you toward your caregivers when you are in danger.   This is the pull toward “home”, whether it is your own parents or chosen family.  This is why children - whether ours or those we teach or love - turn towards us for learning how to handle a crisis, how to regulate our emotions, and how to feel about all that is going on in the world around us.

It is the “reptile brain”, or lower brain, that tells us to run from danger.  That’s what helps us remember to wash our hands.  That’s what makes us strong enough to stay away from neighbors and friends and family that we miss during social distancing.  That’s what cringes inside us when we hear stories of people being exposed, getting sick, or so many people dying.

There are times in life when the brain gets both signals at once, causing a conflict that makes it feel impossible to respond.   For example, with child abuse, the brain wants to turn toward the caregiver for safety.  But the brain also wants to run away from the caregiver who is causing the danger.   And yet the brain knows the body is dependent on the caregiver to stay alive because they are only a child, despite the danger that is also present.  

That is trauma - not just when you get hurt physically, but when external situations leave no way to get out of what is causing danger, but also no protection from that danger.

To make things even more challenging, your brain itself doesn’t actually perceive context.   It just knows signals it receives from your body and the chemicals rushing through your body.   So sometimes even the experience of this dynamic, either relationally (with others) or only the perception of danger, is enough to tell your brain that you are in danger and initiate a trauma response.

When your brain gets the signal that you are in danger, one of the things it does is send a message to the vegus nerve, which goes from your brain to all your major organs (heart, lungs, etc.).   Because it branches off along the way, it is called the “polyvagal nerve”.   This is what prepares your body to respond to danger.

When your trauma response is activated, the polyvagal nerve presses down on your organs so that you are ready to respond to danger.  You can’t detect danger and then decide to respond and then tell your body to get ready for it.  For survival, your body has to already be ready to respond to danger as soon as it is detected.

When you are not in danger, it means you are feeling safe and you others around you also feel safe.  Your brain knows this through tone of voice, content and rhythm and pacing of conversation, and facial expressions.  Your body matches these as part of safe mode:  your affect is brighter, and your voice is modulated (goes up and down in pitch), and so you feel calm and good and happy.

But when you feel there is some danger, or your body senses it, then the nerve is activated against your organs, so as to prepare your body to respond to that danger.  Your body doesn't have to be in actual danger - it might just be perceived danger - even just another person's facial expressions or tone of voice can be perceived as danger.  Then your own facial expression goes flat, and your voice goes more monotone, and your heart and lungs are pumping in preparation for "flight".   This often is where panic attacks happen.

If you aren't able to feel safe again quickly, and you still feel in danger, then your body thinks now your life is being threatened (whether it is or not), and you drop down another stage into "fight".   Because you couldn't get away from the situation, now your body wants to fight.  This is when verbal aggression increases, or you feel then tightness in your arms and legs instead of just your chest.

When you can't win at fighting, even if it's just with someone who argues better or differently than you do - even if that's not oppressive or even abusive - then your body goes into shutdown mode, or “freeze”.  Your mind goes blank.  You basically dissociate.  You don't respond to anything.

Falling down that "ladder" - from safety to flight to fight to shutdown - always happens in that order, though some stages may happen more quickly than others for some people.    And to get back to safety, you have to go back up the ladder in the same order you came down - so back up to fight (being willing to confront a situation or something you were avoiding or something you need to try or do differently) and then up to flight (getting away from what isn't healthy, what isn't safe, what patterns are not positive or beneficial for you) until you get back up to safety.

Right now, with the COVID19 experience globally, we as individuals (and as communities) are experiencing a trauma response.  There is no way you can actively “fight” the actual virus itself, and there is no way to get away from the experience of the pandemic (“flight”).   It impacts us in every area of our lives, and has impacted all of the people around us.   No one is “safe”, and everyone around us is also responding to the same experience.   Our brain literally steps down into the “freeze” response.

It is important to remember that all of your feelings are valid as you adjust to all of this and feel the impact of it in many ways.  Everything you feel is okay, and all of your feelings are normal.  It makes sense why you are responding the way that you are.

You may feel more tired, slow, or less motivated while in the “freeze” response.  It may be difficult to focus, pay attention to others, or complete tasks.   You may be hypervigilant in other ways, like staring at patterns of tile in the bathroom or at light dancing on leaves outside.  You may struggle to focus on conversation, tolerate the noise of children, or stick to any kind of routine.  You may feel pulled down by gravity, struggle to smile, or forget to laugh.  Time may get slippery, the days blur together, and hours disappear.   You may feel less real, or like you are watching yourself, or like the world around you is unbelievable.  

The word for all of this is “dissociation”, which is a continuum of the “freeze” response.

You may also experience some grief responses for your loss of normalcy, the loss of your routine, and especially loss of contact with friends.  You may also miss the ease with which things were accessible while still taken for granted.  You may crave the earlier stability you experienced from your work or other routines.  You may feel at a loss without the validation that you are busy enough, doing enough, or productive enough.

But you are enough.

What you are experiencing is a trauma response:  flight, fight, or freeze.

With COVID19, that "fight" could look like anything from irritability to an increase in bickering with children or arguing with adults to actual aggression.   "Flight" could look like avoidance behaviors, such as scrolling on social media for hours at a time, eating too much of unhealthy foods instead of keeping things balanced,  too much screen time instead of using some of the time to organize or clean while you have the chance, isolating in your bed instead of interacting with others who live with you, or disengaging from family and friends instead of finding creative ways to connect.  

"Freeze", then, could look like staying under the covers instead of being able to get up for your day, feeling sleepy or lethargic, staring into space for long periods, or needing extra sleep, or being overwhelmed with tasks as you try to work from home, or if you are still having to "go" to work, or if you are having to   help children learn from home.

There are others as well, which may be more your style, besides just the common fight, flight, or freeze:

“Fawning” is when we try hard to be very good, so that we are not caught or blend in or fly under the radar.  This is a very common way for children with relational trauma to behave so as not to upset the parent.   It also happens frequently in domestic violence situations.   With COVID19, it may look like too much handwashing or overly isolating indoors, in cases where you are properly socially distanced and can relax some in your own home.

(The above “F’s” of fight, flight, and freeze, were identified and written about by Peter Walker. The additional F’s below were identified by and written about by trauma survivor and life coach “The Crisses”. Others have come up with more, as well. We apply these here as part of educating about and sharing our own trauma responses to COVID19 on the podcast.)

“Following” is what happens when you go along with things despite the danger.  In abuse situations, it looks like doing what the abuser says to do in hopes that joining with them will keep you safe.  In COVID19, it looks like people who minimize the danger and refuse to self-quarantine, in effort to avoid feelings of anxiety or admit their own fears.

“Fortifying” is when we make our “walls” higher and stronger to defend ourselves better than before.  In abuse survivors, this may look like disruption in relationships or increase in dissociative symptoms.  It can look like social disconnect instead of social distance.  With COVID19, it could be hoarding toilet paper or stockpiling medications with no evidence to actually treat the virus.

“Fabricating” is when the story is changed so it’s not scary.  This is a kind of denial more than it is an attempt to actually deceive, though deception is what happens by default.  In abuse situations, this could look like a child making up happy stories about their parents.   In domestic violence experiences, it is telling yourself someone loves you despite the pattern of them hurting you.   With COVID19, it shows up when recommendations from doctors and scientists are dismissed or downplayed.

None of these are "bad" or "wrong".   They are trauma responses.  Your brain is literally trying to catch up the   processing of what is happening to you.  Remember that your brain does not know context.   It only knows the   signals it receives and the chemicals flowing through, which right now is a lot of stress information with so many changes as we protect ourselves from a virus we can't actually  "see" (or fight or get away from right now).   Your brain may interpret that as "danger",  without understanding you are doing everything you can to be safe  and to continue functioning.

Feel all there is to feel.  Let it come up.  Notice it.  Acknowledge it.

But then let it go.

You have the power to choose your response and which thoughts to dwell on and which experiences to create for yourself.

All of your feelings are valid, but your feelings are not reality.  They only give you information about what is happening in reality.   Receive the information, but then empower yourself to choose your response.

“Facilitating” is a way of coping that empowers yourself for positive change and healing, even if in little ways.  This almost always happens in connections with others, through attunement experiences where your emotional needs are noticed, reflected and met by safe people around you.  Any step towards this counts, whether it is telling the truth about abuse (they are not your secrets to have to keep), or unsubscribing from the toxic issues of others, or not taking the bait in negative thoughts in yourself or negative interactions with others.

Be gentle with yourself.  Give yourself breaks.  Let your body rest.   You may literally be exhausted from the trauma response happening in your body, even if you are not sick at all.

Connect with others in the ways you can.  Be both safe and creative in how you do.   But do it.

Do deep, slow breathing periodically to help that polyvagal nerve come off your organs and remind your brain that you are safe.  Regular practice of progressive muscle relaxation would also help reinforce those signals to your brain, so that it knows you are safe and aware of the situation.  These very simple things that almost seem too silly make a huge difference for your brain.

Find ways to laugh and smile.  You have to do it intentionally until your brain knows you are safe.  But the more you smile and brighten your affect, the safer people around you will also feel.   Then they will start smiling, too, and feel better themselves, which also helps you feel better as your brain notices that.   Smiling makes a physiological difference, I promise.

It makes sense you feel like you have fallen down a ladder, because you have.

But you also still have the power to climb back up again.

We work online with clients internationally, as well as those living in Oklahoma, Kansas, and New Jersey. 
CLICK HERE to register.

On today’s podcast, we share the PPWC Survey Results about Plural Experience, as an expression of plural culture and shared experiences. These results were accepted for a Poster Session at the 2020 ISSTD Conference in San Francisco. However, as you now know, the conference was cancelled at the last minute due to efforts of government officials’ attempts at controlling the Coronavirus through social distancing. Because we were not able to share our poster, we did take pictures of it and do share them below.

As part of the 2019 Plural Positivity World Conference (PPWC), we helped with a survey with results to be shared in 2020. This Plural Positivity Experience survey was not associated with any research project, nor did the survey go through any review panel process. There was input from the Plural community itself, including deciding which contextual questions to include (such as the ACE’s questionnaire) as well as verbiage options to be as inclusive as possible for the Plural experience. Again, this was not a research project, but was an expression of the Plural experience, both individually and as a community.

Please note:

• Participants were informed that the survey results would be shared during the 2020 PPWC Conference.

• To continue the survey, participants had to agree that they understood this and that they were over 18.

• Any participant who did not agree to have their results shared or who were under 18 were excluded from the survey results published below.

• It was explicitly stated, and participants agreed to understanding, that the questions were only for information about their experiences and not at all diagnostic in nature.

• Participants were also warned that due to the nature of trauma-specific questions, they could be triggered during the survey. Resources and referrals for support were offered, and system-wide self care was encouraged before, during, and after participating in the survey.

SURVEY DESIGN

This survey was designed by plurals themselves, as a community, following online discussions in support groups, peer mentoring groups, and a variety of social platforms. The common threads of interest were narrowed down and presented in polls on the social platforms. From these results, the questions included in the survey were designed. While obviously vast and covering a multiplicity (pun intended) of areas that would be too many variables for a research project, this was again just the general areas of experience that plurals themselves wanted to know more about and were interested in learning in regards to shared experiences.

The survey was in English.

The survey took an average of 26 minutes to complete.

The first page of the survey was simply exclusionary material clarifying the purpose, concerns, and limitations of the survey. Any “no” responses exited the participant from the survey. Questions included:

1. I am over the age of 18.

2. I understand the screening tools used in this survey are for data gathering only, and not meant to be diagnostic in nature.

3. I understand that due to the nature of the survey in regards to trauma and dissociation, some of the questions may be triggering.  I am safe and able to care for myself during and after this survey, and know where and how to seek support if I need help.

4. I understand I can quit this survey at any time.

5. I understand the data gathered from this survey is non-identifiable, and that the survey is done with SSL encryption.

6. I understand that the data results will be combined, and that the overall results will be shared in the Plural Positivity World Conference for plurals, by plurals.  I understand that the data results will be shared with the conference via the System Speak podcast, which is a public podcast already on air.  I understand that the podcast may be linked to from other blogs, YouTube Channels, and support groups online.  I understand that, while this is not an official research project, the clinical community as a whole may have access to these results generally and the related non-identifiable data.

7. I understand these things and consent to this survey.

The second page of the survey were demographics, including country, identified gender, body age, levels of education for self and each parent. It also included context questions regarding perception of trauma impact on education, frequented online resources, government assistance, housing stability, and patterns of sleeping, eating, and exercise.

The third page of the survey were the questions from the Dissociative Experiences Scale, again clarified that this was for appropriateness of the survey and not for diagnostic purposes.

The fourth page of the survey were the ACE (Adverse Childhood Experiences) questions.

The fifth page of the survey was about therapeutic experiences, including: number of therapists prior to diagnosis, number of therapists since diagnosis, reasons for changing therapists, current reported diagnosis, ritual abuse identification, how therapy is paid for, positive and negative experiences with therapists, what does and does not feel safe in therapy, misdiagnosis experiences, treatment goals, and integration perspectives.

The final page of the survey was cultural, about the personal experiences and identification of or with the integration process and views on functional multiplicity.

There were no research analyses done with the data, beyond the collective-per-question results shared below, or any correlation conclusions drawn from this survey due to this not being an actual research project and other obvious limitations to this survey.

That said, we do believe it to be informational about the common experiences of the Plural community as a whole, and that the survey could be informational upon reflection when considering future clinical studies.

SURVEY PARTICIPATION

The PPWC organizers had an initial goal of 100 responses from different people diagnosed with DID or otherwise identifying as “multiple” or “plural”.

The link to the survey was shared in all known dissociative disorder and plural community support groups on Facebook, posted and shared on Twitter, and then also explained and shared on other communities including Discord, Reddit, and Tumblr.

The link was also left live on this website, and we did discuss it on the podcast.

The link was left live for six months so that as many could participate in the survey as possible.

Ultimately, the survey received 863 responses from different IP addresses (which were not tracked or recorded, but filtered only for non-repetition of the survey).

These responses came from 61 different countries, including:

• North America: Canada, United States, Mexico, and Panama;

• South America: Columbia, Peru, Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina, Chile;

• Europe: Iceland, Ireland, UK, France, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Poland, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Slovenia, Austria, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Serbia, Romania, Greece;

• Africa: Morocco, Ghana, Egypt, Uganda, Kenya, South Africa;

• Asia: Turkey, Lebanon, Israel, Iran, Pakistan, India, Nepal, China, Thailand, Cambodia, Indonesia, Philippines, Russia, South Korea, Japan; and

• Australia and New Zealand.

The survey had a 92% completion rate. An additional 6% completed more than 75% of the survey, but needed to stop due to length of the survey. 1% had to stop the survey because of triggers. The final 1% did not complete the survey and did not explain why.

RESULTS

PAGE ONE: Clarifying Material and Consent to the Survey

Only participants who answered “Yes” to the first seven questions (see above) were included in the results below.

PAGE TWO: Demographics

Participant countries were listed above.

In regards to identified gender:

• 54% identified as female;

• 9% identified as male;

• 9% identified as non-binary;

• 8% identified as trans male;

• 4% identified as gender queer;

• 3% identified as trans female;

• 2% identified as gender fluid;

• 2% identified as non-conforming;

• 1% identified as gender variant; and

• 1% identified as questioning.

4% listed “other” as their identified gender, and reported that they did not want to answer.

“Female” and “Trans female” as well as “Male” and “Trans Male” were included separately not to divide the genders (“female” and “trans female” being the same gender, and “male” and “trans male” being the same gender), but simply to clarify experiences in everyone’s request for their journey to be included and reflected.

The remaining percent were decimals in the above percents, as will also be the case with the remaining results below.

In regards to the actual body age, people reported that":

• 43% were ages 25-34;

• 20% were 18-24;

• 16% were 35-44;

• 13% were 45-54;

• 2% were 55-64; and

• 1% was over 65.

We would suggest that the online platforms provided access to younger populations not usually included in research studies. We would also suggest that the online platforms were more accessible to those who are in rural areas and in other geographic locations not usually available to participate in research studies.

In regards to the participants’ fathers’ education:

• 26% had high school education only;

• 21% had graduate level education;

• 20% had bachelor’s level education;

• 17% had some college but no degree;

• 7% had an associate’s degree; and

• 6% did not complete high school.

In regards to the participants’ mothers’ education:

• 25% had a high school degree only;

• 18% had some college but no degree;

• 18% had a bachelor’s degree;

• 14% had a graduate level education;

• 11% had an associate’s degree; and

• 11% did not complete high school.

For participants themselves:

• 35% have some college education but no degree;

• 22% have a bachelor degree;

• 16% have a high school degree only;

• 11% have a graduate degree;

• 9% have an associate’s degree; and

• 4% have not finished high school.

For context, remember that 20% of the participants were in the age group of 18-24; however, that said, more participants have finished high school than their parents. More have some college, even if they have not finished a degree. More have associate’s degrees than their fathers. More have bachelor’s degrees.

Of these, in regards to how their trauma histories impacted their educational efforts, participants reported that:

• 34% felt their trauma impacted their education “a great deal”;

• 25% felt their trauma impacted their education “a lot, but I struggled through”;

• 13% felt their trauma impacted their education “a lot”;

• 7% felt they were able to complete the education they wanted;

• 6% felt their trauma “moderately” impacted their education;

• 5% felt their education was impacted by trauma “some, but I dealt with it okay”;

• 4% felt their trauma impacted their education “a little”; and

• 1% felt their trauma did not impact their education.

As for online platforms survivors frequently use for support:

• 78% use Facebook;

• 77% use YouTube;

• 70% use Facebook support groups;

• 36% use professional and/or clinical research sites;

• 32% use Twitter;

• 28% use Podcasts;

• 24% use Reddit;

• 22% use Tumblr; and

• 20% use organizational sites.

As for level of functioning and assistance needed:

• 59% of participants reported they are not on any social security, housing assistance, or food stamps;

• 27% of participants reported they are on social benefits;

• 8% of participants reported they use social benefits, as do others in their household; and

• 3% of participants reported they do not, but someone else in their household does.

As for housing stability, participants reported that in the last five years:

• 24% have not moved;

• 20% have moved once;

• 15% have moved three times;

• 13% have moved twice;

• 7% have moved five times;

• 7% have moved more than ten times;

• 4% have moved six times;

• 2% have moved seven times;

• 2% have moved four times;

• 1% have moved eight times; and

• 1% have moved nine times.

In regards to physical care, the survey included questions about sleep, eating, and exercise.

In regards to sleep, participants reported that:

• 54% do not exercise at all, due either to preference or medical condition;

• 21% exercise twice a week;

• 13% exercise once a week; and

• 10% exercise five times a week.

No other responses were reported on that question.

In regards to eating, participants reported that:

• 36% eat twice a day;

• 24% eat three times a day;

• 15% eat smaller amounts four times a day;

• 11% eat just once a day; and

• 6% reported that eating is difficult, and so they leave food out and “whoever inside” just “grazes” throughout the day if and when they are able to eat something.

In addition,

• 34% reported they struggle to eat five to six days a week;

• 20% struggle to eat one to two days a week;

• 20% do not struggle at all to eat;

• 18% struggle to eat three to four days a week; and

• 6% do not miss meals no matter what, nor do they find it difficult to eat.

In regards to sleeping, participants reported that:

• 28% sleep eight hours or more a night because they have help with medication;

• 22% sleep six to eight hours a night without the use of medication;

• 24% sleep four to five hours a night without the use of medication;

• 21% sleep three to four hours a night without the use of medication; and

• 4% sleep one to three hours a night without medication.

In addition,

• 24% rarely have nightmares;

• 22% have nightmares one to two nights a week;

• 18% used to have nightmares, but not so much since starting therapy;

• 15% feel like they still have nightmares every night;

• 11% have nightmares three to four nights a week; and

• 7% have nightmares five to six nights a week.

PAGE THREE: Dissociative Experiences Scale (DES) -II

The DES was included for context of what issues participants struggle with and which populations were completing the survey. It was not used for any diagnostic purposes, nor were the results saved in anyway by specific participants. Rather, the algorithm of responses scored this page per participant but only reported in the results of the page in the percentage of participants who scored in each range. So, we were not informed of which DES score goes with which participant. We only know what percentage of each possible DES score. That was intentional, as an additional buffer for privacy since this is not a clinical research study or diagnosis in any way. Participants were not informed of their individual score, nor was this reported to us in anyway. Individual DES-II scores were not reported or disclosed to anyone in any way.

Of the participants in this survey, 89% scored above 30 on the DES-II. 6% scored between 27-30. 4% scored between 24-26. 1% of participants scored 23 or below.

The high scores were expected, due to the population receiving notice of and participating in this survey were primarily those already in treatment for or aware of their own issues of trauma and dissociation.

Please note that higher scores (30 and above) only indicate high levels of dissociation, and are not indicative of specific diagnosis in and of themselves.

Again, the inclusion of the DES-II was only as a measurement of experience in the context of this survey; no clinical interview, structured or otherwise, was part of this survey, and no diagnoses were given to any participant.

For more information about the DES-II, please visit the ISSTD website. To take an online version of the DES-II, CLICK HERE.

PAGE FOUR: Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE)

We included the ACE questions by request of the community due to increasing discussion within the community of the physiological impact of trauma long-term.

The ACE study questions were broken down into the questions listed below, to which participants could answer “yes” or “no”. Again, a specific participant’s answers were not saved per participant, but rather as a poll for how many participants answered yes to each question. This was both in protection of people’s privacy and because the survey was not being given in a clinical setting. 4% of participants opted out of this page due to the nature of the triggering questions regarding their own trauma. Another 1% declined to participate for other unspecified reasons. The positive results endorsed by those participants who completed this set of questions are given as follows:

1.   Did a parent or other adult in the household often or very often… Swear at you, insult you, put you down, or humiliate you?

   80% YES

2.   Did a parent or other adult in the household often or very often… Act in a way that made you afraid that you might be physically hurt?

   78% YES

3. Did an adult or person at least 5 years older than you ever… Touch or fondle you or have you touch their body in a sexual way?

   66% YES

4. Did an adult or person at least 5 years older than you ever… Attempt or actually have oral, anal, or vaginal intercourse with you?

   52% YES

5. Did you often or very often feel that… No one in your family loved you or thought you were important or special?

   71% YES

6. Did you often or very often feel that… Your family didn’t look out for each other, feel close to each other, or support each other?

   70% YES

7. Did you often or very often feel that… You didn’t have enough to eat, had to wear dirty clothes, and had no one to protect you?

   44% YES

8. Did you often or very often feel that… Your parents were too drunk or high to take care of you or take you to the doctor if you needed it?  Or didn't for some other reasons?

   36% YES

9. Did a parent or other adult in the household often or very often… Push, grab, slap, or throw something at you?

   53% YES

10. Did a parent or other adult in the household often or very often… Ever hit you so hard that you had marks or were injured?

    45% YES

11. Was your mother or stepmother: Often or very often pushed, grabbed, slapped, or had something thrown at her?

    23% YES

12. Was your mother or stepmother: Sometimes, often, or very often kicked, bitten, hit with a fist, or hit with something hard?

    15% YES

13. Was your mother or stepmother: Sometimes, often, or very often threatened with a gun or knife or other weapon?

    4% YES

14. Were your parents separated or divorced?

    49% YES

15. Did you live with anyone who was a problem drinker or alcoholic or who used street drugs?

    47% YES

16. Was a household member depressed or mentally ill, or did a household member attempt suicide?

    72% YES

17. Did a household member go to prison?

    15% YES

It is interesting to note that 7% of participants wished the ACE questions included similar specific questions for their father or stepfather the way it does about the mother or stepmother, as this group of people reported their mothers as the or one of the primary abusers even against their father or stepfather.

PAGE FIVE: Therapeutic Experiences

This section of the survey addressed issues regarding therapeutic experiences that the Plural Community had brought up in discussion about what to include in the survey.

In asking about who was in therapy, the participants responded as follows:

• 58% were currently in therapy at the time;

• 10% were, but had to quit because their therapist didn’t “believe” in dissociation;

• 10% wanted to be, but have been unable to find a therapist who works with dissociation;

• 8% were, but had to stop when their funding was cut or insurance stopped paying for it;

• 4% were, but their therapist moved;

• 4% were not currently, but actively looking for a therapist;

• 3% were, but had to stop because of schedule conflicts; and

• 1% were not because they chose not to be in therapy.

Not one person responded that they were in therapy and it was entirely covered by insurance.

When asked about how many therapists they had thus far, participants responded that:

• 21% had been referred more than six times;

• 18% had been referred more than seven times;

• 18% had been referred more than twice;

• 16% had been referred more than three times;

• 11% had more than eight therapists already;

• 10% had more than 10 therapists already; and

• only 4% have only been with one therapist.

The remainder of participants have not yet found a therapist.

When asked why they had seen so many therapists, participants responded as follows (due to multiple experiences with different therapists, participants could report more than one reason, so these percentages do not add up to 100):

• 48% couldn’t make a positive connection with good rapport;

• 39% could tell their therapist didn’t know what to do with them;

• 31% had to move because of related instability;

• 26% felt their therapist didn’t listen to them;

• 25% had a therapist tell them they didn’t know how to treat them;

• 22% felt their therapist did not believe them;

• 17% had a therapist who moved or left an insurance panel;

• 9% were abused by a therapist;

• 8% had a therapist who retired;

• 8% had schedule conflicts;

• 7% didn’t believe their therapist when they did get diagnosed, or got scared, and so quit therapy; and

• 6% left a therapist who was trying to force integration.

“Other” comments included experiences of aging out of a particular school or program, therapist not being able to handle gender identity or sexual orientation issues, being too anxious to keep appointments, finances, and being forced to report abusers.

When asked how many therapists it took before getting an accurate diagnosis, the participants responded that:

• 42% had seen two therapists;

• 39% still had gotten a proper diagnosis with just one therapist;

• 16% had to see four therapists;

• 5% saw six therapists;

• 3% saw more than eight therapists; and

• 1% saw more than fifteen therapists prior to getting an accurate diagnosis.

When asked to share their diagnosis if they felt safe doing so, the participant percentages were:

• 53% DID

• 15% were not sure;

• 12% waiting on results of testing or for diagnostic appointments;

• 8% Complex PTSD

• 5% PTSD

• 4% DDNOS

• 3% OSDD

When asked who did the diagnosing, participants replied that:

• 54% were diagnosed by a therapist;

• 24% were diagnosed by a psychiatrist;

• 23% were diagnosed by case manager or social worker;

• 5% were diagnosed by a doctor; and

• 4% were “peer-diagnosed” by a friend who referred them to a clinical professional.

When asked how they identified any experience of S/RA, participants shared that:

• 56% did not know what the terms were and so did not think it applied to them;

• 23% knew what the terms were, but also knew it did not apply to them;

• 7% preferred the term RA/MC (Ritual Abuse/Mind Control);

• 5% preferred the term (S)RA (Satanic/Ritual Abuse);

• 4% preferred just the general term of trafficking;

• 3% preferred the term RA (Ritual Abuse); and

• 1% preferred the term SRA/MC (Satanic Ritual Abuse / Mind Control).

It is interesting to note that not any single participant chose the more general term of “organizational abuse”, and no single participant endorsed “MC - mind control only”.

When asked about other non-trauma diagnoses:

• 77% also have Anxiety;

• 67% also have Depression;

• 67% have both a Dissociative Disorder and PTSD;

• 25% have a Panic Disorder;

• 19% also have OCD;

• 13% have also been diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder;

• 11% have also been diagnosed with a Bipolar disorder;

• 6% have another mood disorder diagnosis; and

• 3% have another personality disorder diagnosis.

When asked about their best therapeutic experiences, participants shared (they could endorse more than one):

• 80% said the best therapy was when the therapist was good at listening to them;

• 57% said it was good therapy when they felt safe;

• 56% said they knew it was good therapy when they got good advice;

• 52% said it is good therapy when they feel connected;

• 49% said the best therapeutic experience is when the therapist responds to others inside (alters/parts);

• 48% said good therapy needs a safe-feeling setting;

• 45% said it is good therapy when they receive comfort;

• 40% said it is good therapy when they gain coping skills;

• 38% said it’s best when they are educated about their mental health issues;

• 38% said the best therapeutic experience is having access to contact outside sessions WHEN policies make those boundaries clear up front;

• 38% said the best experience happens when the scheduling is consistent;

• 27% said the best experience is when they are held accountable for their progress;

• 27% said the best experience is being able to relax and practice relaxation strategies;

• 18% said it is good therapy when they get safe hugs (with permission);

• 13% said it is only a good therapy experience when the office staff also feel safe, both on the phone and for check-in/check-out; and

• 12% said it is good therapy when the therapist plays with Littles or intentionally includes them when appropriate.

When asked about the most helpful techniques their therapists use, participants responded:

• 87% Listening

• 72% Reassurance

• 64% Playing Together

• 62% Art Therapy

• 26% Guided Imagery

• 26% Psychoeducation

• 24% EMDR

• 21% Music

• 19% DBT

• 18% Meditation

• 16% CBT

• 13% Sensory Therapy

• 11% Sandtray Therapy

• 10% Horse or Pet Therapy

• 8% Progressive Muscle Relaxation

• 5% Yoga

• 3% Hypnotherapy

Please note that the above list is not an efficacy rating of which techniques are the most effective or produce the best results. These were simply the comfortable techniques experienced by the participant population of this survey. It does not mean any one of those is better or more helpful than another, and may reflect more frequency of use or access than quality of treatment.

When asked what made them feel NOT safe in therapy, the participants endorsed the following:

• 65% Not knowing how to help me;

• 56% Not listening to me;

• 39% Therapist saying my stories were too hard / too much / too intense for them;

• 37% Therapists refusing to talk to others inside (alters/parts);

• 32% Discounting my stories;

• 30% Therapist talking too much about their own stuff during sessions;

• 25% Not feeling safe with office staff or in office setting;

• 21% Not available outside of session;

• 21% Not knowing about vacations or time off ahead of time for scheduling;

• 20% Concerns about confidentiality;

• 19% Boundary violations;

• 18% Therapist being afraid of my insiders (parts/alters);

• 16% Sudden movements;

• 15% Rejection of Littles;

• 13% Touch without permission, even if it was otherwise safe/appropriate;

• 13% Lack of eye contact;

• 12% Texting or taking calls from other people during sessions;

• 8% Not closing the office door during sessions;

• 3% Deliberate triggering to prove a point, access a particular alter, or test progress;

• 2% Inappropriate/unwanted religious discussion; and

• 2% Falling asleep during sessions.

Of participants asked, 18% had been abused by a therapist.

Of these, only 4% reported it.

Of those in therapy, 82% agree with their therapist on their treatment goals. Some of these goals include:

• 75% Decrease in Anxiety / Panic;

• 72% Improved Functioning;

• 67% Memory Work / Specific Trauma Processing;

• 67% Improved Internal Communication;

• 66% Compassion for My Self/ves;

• 62% Improved Mood;

• 58% Improved Cooperation;

• 41% Decrease Lost Time;

• 40% Maintain Functioning;

• 34% Remembering;

• 22% Stabilization and Reduce Self-Harm Behaviors;

• 15% Reduce Interpersonal Drama with Outside Relationships; and

• 14% Accepting the Diagnosis.

When asked their therapist’s goal for therapy, participants reported:

• 50% Functional Multiplicity

• 5% Integration

Another 20% did not know what their therapist goal was or what they thought about integration or functional multiplicity.

12% did not think their therapist has ever heard of functional multiplicity.

When asked about their own goal for therapy, participants reported:

• 78% Functional Multiplicity

• 3% Integration

• 11% had not yet heard the term “functional multiplicity”

When asked directly if participants ultimately had some goal or vision for final or complete integration, 78% said no.

92% said they were interested in some level of functional multiplicity.

PAGE SIX: Plural Perspectives

The final questions regarding plural perspectives became more specific in regards to identifying with or despite trauma, levels of dissociation, and functional multiplicity or ultimate integration. These questions arose from the efforts at uniting the Plural community as a resource for itself, for Plurals by Plurals, while also respecting individual experiences and understanding the perspectives of the clinical community. The options for responses to these questions came from the Plural community themselves, in exploring options of self-expression as a community culture and not just a clinical diagnosis:

The questions will be listed, with the participant percentage responses following.

In regards to my trauma and dissociation, I identify as:

• 35% DID

• 27% Plural

• 22% Multiple

• 5% Dissociative

• 3% Traumatized

• 2% It’s just baggage

In regards to my trauma and dissociation, I am:

• 30% In the closet publicly, but have found support groups online;

• 19% I have told friends, but not my family;

• 12% Everyone knows, and I consider myself an advocate in some way;

• 10% I have told my friends and family, but carefully with good boundaries;

• 4% Everyone knows, but I am not safe enough to advocate culturally;

• 3% Still in the closet, but at least I “get it” and am trying to deal; and

• 2% So far in the closet that I still am not sure what’s going on yet.

In regards to my trauma and dissociation, coming out to myself:

• 64% was a huge relief because everything finally made sense;

• 42% brutally hard, but at least I knew what was going on;

• 32% was positive because I found others like me;

• 18% was so hard / terrifying / confusing that I still can’t even think about it yet;

• 14% was a good thing because I finally got help; and

• 7% was not a big deal.

In regards to my trauma and dissociation, coming out to others was:

• 37% mostly with others online who know what it’s like to be me;

• 29% not as big a deal as I thought it would be;

• 27% disappointing because I lost family or friend contacts because of it;

• 25% okay, and my friends were totally supportive;

• 24% easier with my friends than my family;

• 16% terrible because of the repercussions that followed;

• 14% dangerous, and caused me safety problems; and

• 13% terrifying, and totally backfired.

I believe my dissociation is:

• 38%  Traumagenic-Adaptive (I am this way because of trauma, and still use dissociation adaptively to deal with life but not necessarily intentionally and not as part of my intentional cultural expression.)

• 34%  Traumagenic (I am this way because of trauma.)

• 13%  Traumagenic-Cultural (I am this way because of trauma, feel mostly in control of my symptoms, and have intentionally adapted to it as a cultural lifestyle.)

• 2%  Endogenic (I was this way before I was born, but not because of trauma.)

• 1%   Exogenic (I was this way since I was born or grew up this way, but not because of trauma - that I know of yet.)

There were NO people who marked the following:

• 0%  Iatrogenic (I am this way because my therapist made me this way.)

• 0%  Iatrogenic-SocioCognitive (I am this way because I internalized and/or copied symptoms seen in friends or online, intentionally or unintentionally.)

• 0%  Iatrogenic-Cultural (I am this way because I internalized symptoms of others intentionally or unintentionally, but did intentionally learn/apply it as a lifestyle.)

Other responses included:

• Quoigenic - mixed origin

• Endogenic, but heavily and negatively impacted by trauma.

• Traumagenic-Neonatal. We developed this way before we were born because our maternal unit was being abused/traumatized while we were in the womb. We were "born ready" for plurality & problems/trauma.

• Traumagenic-SocioCognitive             

When I was young, I tended to identify with:

• 65% Books

• 31% Teachers

• 31% Movies

• 24% Video Games

• 23% Science Fiction Anything

• 21% Comics

• 20% Role Playing Games

• 17% Caregivers

• 17% Role Models

This final question was included because “fictives” are being commonly dismissed from participating in treatment, and we wanted to explain how technology has impacted the use of introjects in plural systems. Here is a quote from the History of DID talk we gave last year at the 2019 PPWC Conference:

This is not 1980.

It’s been more than forty years since 1980.

More than half of your survivors were barely even born in 1980.

DID is not going to look the same, sound the same, or present the same now as it did in 1980 because those clients grew up in the 1940’s and 1950’s and 1960’s.   The cause may be the same, and the process may be the same, but the presentation comes in a whole new generation - four decades later.   Introjects look different, persecutors look different, and inner worlds look different.   That doesn’t make any of it less valid, and it is cruel and re-traumatizing for anyone to dismiss survivors because the culture we grew up in and had access to during childhood and adolescence was different than it was almost a hundred years ago.

Respectfully Submitted, thank you.

Dave is senior international faculty with the Somatic Experiencing Trauma Institute.  He teaches all levels of the SE training. He is also a part of Dr. Peter Levine’s initial legacy faculty being mentored by Dr. Levine to teach SE master classes.  Dave’s own BASE™: Relational Bodywork and Somatic Education Training™ for trauma practitioners is an integration of his decades of work in behavioral and physical health. As a therapist, teacher, consultant and mentor, Dave’s passion and commitment to deep healing guide his work.

An internationally recognized somatic psychotherapist, Dave brings his knowledge of anatomy, physiology and function of the body, and of psychological and relational dynamics to help clients improve their physical well being and psychological health. With 40 years of clinical practice, Dave provides a unique blend of clinical care for people healing from traumatic injuries and accidents, anxiety, back and neck pain, post-traumatic stress disorder, headaches, panic attacks and chronic pain. He uses a diverse array of traditional and complementary healing practices, integrating his understanding of the relationship between an individual’s emotional challenges, their family system dynamics and cultural issues. In therapy, a client may expect to talk, use body awareness and relaxation, trauma renegotiation, hands-on (when appropriate) interventions, movement and exercise to help in their healing process.

Family systems, psychodynamic psychotherapy, psychobiology and a number of other psychotherapeutic theories inform Dave’s work as a psychotherapist. Understanding the relationship between physiology, body usage and psychology and emotions Dave works along an integrative continuum in his clinical psychotherapy work.

Dave received his bachelor’s degree in Somatopsychology from the University of Maryland and graduate degrees from Stanford University (Physical Therapy) and California Institute of Integral Studies (Psychology with a specialty in Somatic Psychology). He has been a professor in physical therapy and psychology,  and has been adjunct faculty at several colleges. Dave is on faculty with the Somatic Experiencing Trauma Institute and Ergos Institute.  He consults internationally with Somatic Experiencing® and BASE students and practitioners as well as others interested in the field of Somatics.

Daniel J. Siegel received his medical degree from Harvard University and completed his postgraduate medical education at UCLA with training in pediatrics and child, adolescent and adult psychiatry.  He served as a National Institute of Mental Health Research Fellow at UCLA, studying family interactions with an emphasis on how attachment experiences influence emotions, behavior, autobiographical memory and narrative.

Dr. Siegel is a clinical professor of psychiatry at the UCLA School of Medicine and the founding co-director of the Mindful Awareness Research Center at UCLA. An award-winning educator, he is a Distinguished Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association and recipient of several honorary fellowships. Dr. Siegel is also the Executive Director of the Mindsight Institute, an educational organization, which offers online learning and in-person seminars that focus on how the development of mindsight in individuals, families and communities can be enhanced by examining the interface of human relationships and basic biological processes. His psychotherapy practice includes children, adolescents, adults, couples, and families. He serves as the Medical Director of the LifeSpan Learning Institute and on the Advisory Board of the Blue School in New York City, which has built its curriculum around Dr. Siegel’s Mindsight approach.

Dr. Siegel has published extensively for the professional audience.  He is the author of numerous articles, chapters, and the internationally acclaimed text, The Developing Mind: How Relationships and the Brain Interact to Shape Who We Are (2nd. Ed., Guilford, 2012).  This book introduces the field of interpersonal neurobiology, and has been utilized by a number of clinical and research organizations worldwide. Dr. Siegel serves as the Founding Editor for the Norton Professional Series on Interpersonal Neurobiology which contains nearly seventy textbooks.  The Mindful Brain: Reflection and Attunement in the Cultivation of Well-Being (Norton, 2007) explores the nature of mindful awareness as a process that harnesses the social circuitry of the brain as it promotes mental, physical, and relational health. The Mindful Therapist: A Clinician's Guide to Mindsight and Neural Integration (Norton, 2010), explores the application of focusing techniques for the clinician’s own development, as well as their clients' development of mindsight and neural integration. Pocket Guide to Interpersonal Neurobiology: An Integrative Handbook of the Mind (Norton, 2012), explores how to apply the interpersonal neurobiology approach to developing a healthy mind, an integrated brain, and empathic relationships. The New York Times bestseller Mind: A Journey to the Heart of Being Human (Norton, 2016) offers a deep exploration of our mental lives as they emerge from the body and our relations to each other and the world around us. His New York Times bestseller Aware: The Science and Practice of Presence (Tarcher/Perigee, 2018) provides practical instruction for mastering the Wheel of Awareness, a life-changing tool for cultivating more focus, presence, and peace in one's day-to-day life. Dr. Siegel's publications for professionals and the public have been translated into over 40 forty languages.

Dr. Siegel’s book, Mindsight: The New Science of Personal Transformation (Bantam, 2010), offers the general reader an in-depth exploration of the power of the mind to integrate the brain and promote well-being. He has written five parenting books, including the three New York Times bestsellers Brainstorm: The Power and Purpose of the Teenage Brain (Tarcher/Penguin, 2014); The Whole-Brain Child: 12 Revolutionary Strategies to Nurture Your Child's Developing Mind (Random House, 2011) and No-Drama Discipline: The Whole-Brain Way to Calm the Chaos and Nurture Your Child's Developing Mind (Bantam, 2014), both with Tina Payne Bryson, Ph.D., The Yes Brain: How to Cultivate Courage, Curiosity, and Resilience in Your Child (Bantam, 2018) also with Tina Payne Bryson, Ph.D., and Parenting from the Inside Out: How a Deeper Self-Understanding Can Help You Raise Children Who Thrive (Tarcher/Penguin, 2003) with Mary Hartzell, M.Ed.

Dr. Siegel's unique ability to make complicated scientific concepts exciting and accessible has led him to be invited to address diverse local, national and international groups including mental health professionals, neuroscientists, corporate leaders, educators, parents, public administrators, healthcare providers, policy-makers, mediators, judges, and clergy. He has lectured for the King of Thailand, Pope John Paul II, His Holiness the Dalai Lama, Google University, and London's Royal Society of Arts (RSA). He lives in Southern California with his family.

You can see his website HERE.

The website for the Mindsight Institute is HERE.

The parts of the brain video referenced in the podcast is here:

Uploaded by Dr. Dan Siegel on 2017-08-09.

Kelly McDaniel, LPC, NCC, CSAT, author and psychotherapist, has been a licensed clinician since 2005.  In 2008, Gentle Path Press published McDaniel’s first book Ready to Heal: Breaking Free from Addictive Relationships.  Written for women, her book addresses the cultural and psychological issues that complicate love and sex. In Ready to Heal, Kelly created the concept of Mother Hunger® to explain the origin of problematic bonding. Each year since 2008, Kelly has been teaching both locally and nationally about women, relationships, and trauma, and in 2012, Gentle Path published the second edition of Ready to Heal with an expanded chapter dedicated to Mother Hunger.

In 2012, McDaniel collaborated with 9 other colleagues to write and publish Making Advances: A Comprehensive Guideline for Treating Female Love and Sex Addicts. In January 2019, she hosted a four-hour webinar sponsored by the Institute for Trauma and Addiction Professionals for 30 clinicians on the topic of Mother Hunger.

McDaniel’s new book Mother Hunger Living With a Broken Heart, informed by the past 10 years of clinical work, training, and neuroscience, describes the complex betrayal trauma that delivers a child’s first heartbreak.  The concept of Mother Hunger frames the lonely legacy of bonding to a compromised caregiver. McDaniel’s work is being used to treat women in various programs and facilities throughout the U.S. including The Center for Healthy Sex in Los Angelnces, The Meadows in Wickenburg, Arizona, and The Ranch in Tennessee.  McDaniel has offered trainings for clinicians through The Society for the Advancement of Sexual Health, The Rape Crisis Center in San Antonio, Texas, Sante Center for Healing in Argyle, Texas, and Life Healing Center in Santa Fe, New Mexico. 

McDaniel has successfully trademarked her Mother Hunger Intensives; custom curated, one on one healing experiences for women. You can see her website HERE.

Today on the podcast, we welcomed Pat Ogden, PhD, a pioneer in somatic psychology, is the Founder and Education Director of the Sensorimotor Psychotherapy Institute.

Dr. Ogden is an internationally recognized school specializing in somatic–cognitive approaches for the treatment of posttraumatic stress and attachment disturbances.  Her Institute, based in Colorado, has 19 certified trainers who conduct Sensorimotor Psychotherapy trainings of over 400 hours for mental health professionals throughout the USA, Canada, Europe, and Australia. The Institute has certified hundreds of psychotherapists throughout the world in this method.  She is co-founder of the Hakomi Institute, past faculty of Naropa University (1985-2005), a clinician, consultant, and sought after international lecturer.

Dr. Ogden is the first author of two groundbreaking books in somatic psychology: Trauma and the Body: A Sensorimotor Approach to Psychotherapy and Sensorimotor Psychotherapy: Interventions for Trauma and Attachment (2015) , both published in the Interpersonal Neurobiology Series of W. W. Norton. She is currently working on a third book Sensorimotor Psychotherapy for Children, Adolescents and Families with Dr. Bonnie Goldstein. 

Her current interests include Sensorimotor Psychotherapy for groups, couples, children, adolescents, families; Embedded Relational Mindfulness, culture and diversity, challenging clients, the relational nature of shame, presence, consciousness and the philosophical/spiritual principles that guide Sensorimotor Psychotherapy.

You can learn more about Sensorimotor Psychotherapy on her website HERE.

In the podcast episode, Emma’s Top Ten, she told the story of a baby bird we saw today at the park. Here is our youngest daughter having a little chat with the baby bird:

Here is the list of ten things Emma shared that she has learned from our therapist:

10. Now time is safe.

9. Now time is different.

8. Memory time does not change now time.

7. She (the therapist, or even ourselves) is real, all the time.

6. We can ask for reassurance; sometimes that’s all you need.

5. You know better than anyone else what you need, and what is right for you.

4. It’s not our secret.

3. You always have a choice.

2. Turn the lights on.

1. You are not a little girl anymore.