Transcript: Episode 123
123. Closing Remarks
Welcome to the System Speak podcast. If you would like to support our efforts at sharing our story, fighting stigma about Dissociative Identity Disorder, and educating the community and the world about trauma and dissociation, please go to our website at www.systemspeak.org, where there is a button for donations and you can offer a one time donation to support the podcast or become an ongoing subscriber. You can also support us on Patreon for early access to updates and what’s unfolding for us. Simply search for Emma Sunshaw on Patreon. We appreciate the support, the positive feedback, and you sharing our podcast with others. We are also super excited to announce the release of our new online community - a safe place for listeners to connect about the podcast. It feels like any other social media platform where you can share, respond, join groups, and even attend events with us, including the new monthly meetups that start this month. Go to our web page at www.systemspeak.org to join the community. We're excited to see you there.
[Short piano piece is played, lasting about 20 seconds]
[Note: The contents of emails being read in this episode are in italics.]
Okay, so it's actually been three weeks since we recorded a podcast at all. I know that you've been listening to them, but we have them scheduled so far out we've just had a little bit of a break. And so trying to get back into it a little bit. We just had a little break, which was good because we were not functioning so well, and so I'm glad that we were able to take some time and sort of focus on our family. We also had a lot of things happening with our family and just trying to stabilize everybody, makes sure everybody is safe and feeling better, and taking care of ourselves while taking care of so many others. That sometimes one of the hardest pieces of just living. Not even healing specifically, but just living, is being able to balance that where you take care of yourself even while having so many responsibilities. Whether that is work, or relationships, or children, or parenting, or any of those things, much less all the work that you do to take care of yourselves inside. It's kind of a big deal and a lot of work. So good for you for still trying.
So as we get started again in recording some more podcasts and moving forward. One of the pieces I sort of want to put some closure to is the podcast that we did about the Stronghold System’s article on Power To The Plurals about their perspective of the structural dissociation theory being ableist. We got more emails from different people and I love that this is a conversation. I think it's really, really important that it is an ongoing conversation. Because as people in the support groups, and as people who are survivors, and as people who are clinicians, we really need to be aware of what is out there, and what we think about it, and being able to communicate about it, and share information and learn from each other. And that's such an important thing. So I'm going to read those last emails that were in response to those episodes and that conversation, and then I will just let you continue the conversation on your own and we'll stay out of it. But I really appreciated that so many people had so much to share.
Lisa, who we love, said: You are so brave to come out to the ISSTD, but I am so proud of you for doing so. As you said, you are in a unique position to help in very big ways, and your perspective is vital for the improvement of treatment guidelines. You are making positive changes and that is beautiful. And the welcoming DID culture you and Stronghold System described are a huge part of the healing. You're working to provide hope for all kudos and sehr gut to you all. [Laughter] I love it so much. Thank you Lisa.
Raven says: It's wonderful news, what we heard about Kathy Steele changing her language. That was really great the way she responded to you. Thank you for telling me. I really didn't expect her to even change the language. But if she did, I would have expected it to be just a language change. I never expected she would actually change her perspective entirely since it's such a foundation of her writing and her work. I'm in awe and I am grateful, very thankful to the work both you and Sarah Clark did to make this happen and so thankful to her as well for her willingness to change her perspective as that can be so rare to find in a clinician. I want to pause for just a second. So I transitioned into her email and read that, but I want to say something about this. You guys. I think they are more good clinicians than we know about. I think that we hear so often about bad clinicians because those are the people who have to speak up, and those are the people who have to tell their stories, and who make complaints, and that we hear the awful stories in the online groups. But I think more and more, the more that I meeting people through the podcast, the more that I'm getting to know clinicians, the more than getting to know survivors, the more that I'm learning that there are actually a lot of really good clinicians out there who are doing everything right. And so I just want to say that because I want people to have confidence and to have hope that there is help out there, there are good people out there who are safe and can help. And not at all to minimize the disaster stories that some of us have been through, ours included, but it doesn't have to mean that all of them are bad just like the way so many of us were abused or hurt in different ways, doesn't make all people bad. And so I just want to give a shout out to good clinicians because I've met so many of them. And I know that, at least for us, sometimes one of the things that we do is when we are trying to hold on to our story and defend our story, and especially those of us who have been through like gaslighting dynamics or other abuse dynamics where people don't hear our story or don't believe our story, and we have to work so emphatically to tell our story and to emphasize how difficult it was, it's really easy to get in a pattern of focusing on that. And we've had to for good reasons, both educationally and for advocating for ourselves and for others. But also, that's not the whole story. And part of this story is that we have survived. And part of the story is that we have made it, even if there's still healing work to do. And part of this story is that there are good clinicians out there to help. And so I just want to be sure that we include that piece. And so I love that she brought it up here because for some of us the experience it has been that it's so rare. But I also think maybe it's less rare than we're aware of, and to keep that in context because it gives people hope when they are trying so hard to find those good therapists.
Anyway, Raven said: I feel like you have the ability to make a real difference bridging the clinical community and the DID community, as they will listen to you even when they won't listen to the rest of us without clinical experience. Thank you for all you do. All the best to you. From Sage. So I think that it's not just that they won't listen to me. I think that it's not just that they’ll listen to me when they won't listen to anyone else, I think it's more that it's like it's not really even about me. It's about the venue of the podcast itself and the opportunities that it opens up for conversations that wouldn't happen otherwise. So I think that that's what's so unique to it. And I appreciate the clinicians who listen and the survivors who listen, and I think that's part of how the conversation is starting. But I'm seeing the conversation continue in other ways and we'll be talking about that as well. So it's super exciting.
Okay, and then we got another email that I'm super excited to share. Do you remember when we talked to the Adaption System, and they were from Germany. It was the Sehr Gut episode and they shared a lot about OSDD that we had not talked about previously on the podcast. And they did such a fantastic job. They have written, both as survivors and clinicians, their own response to this episode that we've been talking about. So they have several things to share. Let me share the email. First of all, they published a Spoon Theory article in collaboration with the Infinite System that we've also interviewed a while ago. And so if you want to read their article, and I can post the link, but if you want to read their article, it's at DIDselfhelp.com/tracking-energy-levels?rq=energy. So I have the link to their article, but the Infinite System is working on the DIDselfhelp.com website. It's amazing. And the Adaption System has helped published an article on the Spoon Theory that we talked about a few episodes ago. So you're welcome to look that up. It's fantastic.
And here is the feedback on the ableist theory and idea that Adaption System has sent, they said: We read the article on why Structural Dissociation Theory (TSDP) is ableist and listened to the interview on our way home from training, and we're confused and a little bit shocked. We don't want to come across as just a fan girl or boy, and we clearly see downsides to the theory or the way the authors phrase specific things in The Haunted Self. But these things are different and also minor things compared to the allegations the Stronghold System voiced. We took notes while reading and listening and complimented them when listening to Sasha reading out Dr. Barach’s email. Number one: Action systems being hindered from integrating is just one path leading to dissociation of the personality. It is useful to explain why parts or alters or insiders in fully blown DID and OSDD are so developed and have such a strong sense of individuality in full blown DID and OSDD. Structural dissociation can happen later in life. Which Dr. Barach also said that and sent information on that, which we posted on the blog.
But the Adaption System says: That's what the foundation of the whole theory is. Even this regular PTSD, you will end up with at least one ANP and one EP, and they are defined by, Number Two, being conscious and being self-conscious. These are the minimal constraints brought up by TSDP. And my clinical knowledge can account for these criteria. And that discovery is wonderful and hope bringing amongst all the pain and suffering of being traumatized. When you can engage with different selves in treatment directly, instead of addressing faceless symptoms, you can work on compromises between different wills instead of suppressing apparently useless symptoms. As you might remember, the core feature of the inactive approach is who does what and why. Number three. TSDP is super confusing and The Haunted Self not the best publication ever. No wonder there's so much drama arising and misunderstandings. Number four. ANP an EP are not exclusive, but the division was made to derive hypotheses for empirical studies. They are prototypes and especially in OSDD and DID systems, there exist alters with mixed features. For example, when trauma repeatedly happened in, quote, “everyday domains,” quote, like while having a meal or being in the bathroom, and the concept of EP, to EP-F and EP-C, fragile alters like trauma-holding children, and controlling alters like protectors and persecutors.
Number five. But you would avoid using the term “part” in therapy because you favor the language the system uses to describe themselves. In clinical communication you have to have common ground, and part just means being part of a system, not every part isn't valuable and has their own wills and goals and characteristics. We ourselves actually prefer “part” over “alter”, because alter is in line with the tradition of viewing one ANP as the original, while the others are just “alternatives.” If you want to call out one term as ableistic, alter is the one to get rid of because TSDP values every part. Switching in therapy is not forbidden at all. Our therapists constantly asks for the opinions of the others inside and encourages them to come forward if they want to speak out. We have read The Haunted Self several times ourselves, and we get why it comes along as therapists should only speak with ANP. And unfortunately a lot of clinicians actually hold that viewpoint. But what we learned from clinically working with the concept as a mental health professional, and from diving deeper into TSDP, is to carefully consider why a switch happened. Oftentimes ANP avoid harder topics by disappearing inside and sending child alters to the front.
Oh, snap! Wait, okay, I'm sorry. I know I'm trying to read her email and all of you are like in brain mode. But that just blew me away. I have to read it again: Oftentimes ANP avoid harder topics by disappearing inside and sending child alters to the front. Oh crap. I think we totally do that. You guys, I think we do that. Like, not on purpose, but I think she's right. Wait, what? Oftentimes ANP avoid harder topics by disappearing inside and sending child alters to the front. Maybe that's why JohnMark spent the first year in therapy. [Laughter] Oh man. Oh man, oh man, oh man. Okay, we're gonna have to think about that. Okay, focus. Focus. Okay. Lalalalala. Back to the professional email.
Oftentimes ANP [laughter] avoid harder topics by disappearing inside and sending child alters to the front. And that is not helping the system to heal by any means. The goal is not to force the system to appear as an individual's, but to improve inner communication by encouraging empathy between parts or alters and supporting teamwork. While you see your therapist only one hour a week, you have to collaborate with your system members 24/7. ANP, please know that this refers to one but also to multiple ANPs, normally have the highest mental capacity and are guided to take over responsibility for the others inside. Also, they normally have the most mental energy like every part.
Okay. So this is actually something Kathy Steele said as well, that the focus on the ANP is not instead of talking to others inside. The focus on the ANP is that because the person is there in the therapy session to engage in therapy, they have to have the mental capacity and the ability to engage in the therapeutic process. So I think this is something that The Haunted Self actually doesn't talk about very well and does not distinguish very well. But in these writings that she's referring to, it's actually explained very differently, and is actually what happens more often in therapy with a good clinician who knows what they're doing. That what they, what the Adaption System said here about working with the ANP is because they have the highest mental capacity and are guided to take over responsibility for the others inside. So they're able in some ways to work with others. That does not mean exclusively or instead of. Which I think is an important distinction.
Number six. Even like the other parts, they are still not well-rounded personalities are persons. While we cling to that belief that hard, and it was important to do so for our survival, we all lack certain aspects or emotions or action systems. We see it in our own behavioral patterns, and you should be able to recognize that in yours as well. A good example are the episodes recorded by JohnMark. He talks for 40 minutes, but he only covers a very discreet variety of topics. That's why inner cooperation is so crucial. Ah, see? JohnMark, again. We're getting busted for JohnMark. Something. The Adaption System has analyzed us and solved our therapeutic blockage. Oh my goodness, that's so true. Wait, what? Okay, that's gonna have to be a whole different episode. But we have been pinned to the wall like a butterfly. I don't know. [Laughter] Oh man, we are so busted. Okay. We're gonna figure this out.
Number seven. But you will always take into consideration that it takes time. That the system has to live in everyday life in the meantime, and that you have to make sure everyone is heard. Like Putnam put it, “The slower you go, the faster you get there.” Wow, that's amazing. And actually very very true of our therapists. We have gone very very slowly. And yet, in many ways we've had like leaps and bounds of huge bits of progress, but pace very very slowly and carefully. And it's actually something that has maintained safety for us with our therapist, and one of our favorite things about therapy with her. Even though she can also challenge us and also push us. And she does not she's totally kept her promise not to go anywhere uninvited, but also help us learn how to invite her. Is that a way of saying it? Maybe. And there's something that's very true about going slowly and carefully. And one thing, and this may be another episode altogether, but one thing that I am wondering about is there's something different about going slowly and carefully, whether it's in therapy or with friendships-. Because we have friends now. It's a thing, right? There's something different about that that is like physiologically different in my brain than what it's like when you're in abuse dynamic or getting the gaslighting, which we're going to be talking about, and something process-wise is different there. And it's healing to do it differently. So there's something more even than what they're saying here, but that I totally agree with about the Putnam quote “The slower you go, the faster you get there.”
Number eight. And this goal may or may not be fusion, but that's something this is somewhat outside your realm of control. Fusion happens when parts get close enough and work through a sufficient amount of traumatic memories. Normally, the first goal of treatment is to lift the mental capacity of the whole system by finding alternatives for outdated behaviors, lost functionality, lost time, things like that, and reducing dissociative barriers. But it's hard work to keep up this level of mental energy while keeping the inner division up as well. So you'll alternate between lower and higher levels of mental capacity forever if you choose to not fuse. That very fact will lead to number nine: distress. We do not believe from a nerd point of view-. [Laughter] That's really funny, I love this system so much. They're amazing.
We do not believe from a nerd point of view and out of our own experience that you can have a dissociative disorder and not be distressed. Even in an understanding and open-minded society, you would have flashbacks and mental breakdowns because of the trauma you endured and the dissociation it caused. So the struggle would be less if you could experience being open about your plurality and being welcomed with open arms. Okay, this is something powerful, because I actually feel a lot of shame about this, this whole plural movement. Like, I really, really appreciate the way they're fighting stigma and the way they're advocating for awareness and support, and all of those things that are so so important and so needed. Like, I get that part. And I have been there where there was a whole decade of not being able to find a good therapist. Like, I get that I really do. But at the same time, DID totally stresses me out. And so these people that can be super chill about we're DID, and we're okay with it. Ah, I’m not there. It's really hard. It bothers me.
Um, it's one of those things where I feel like we're talking about the same thing, except that it also has 900 definitions. Because we have come a long way in accepting our diagnosis, compared to the beginning. And we've come a long way in being able to talk about each other, and to each other, differently than ever before. In fact, that's basically what's happened in the three weeks between the last podcast and this one, even though there's no gap in airtime, is that for the last three weeks we have for the first time sat down with our therapists and said, “This is who our system is and who I know about them.” So Emma was able to have an entire session with the therapist, and stay present, and also like talk about us, and talk about what she knows about us. Not just what was in the notebook or what she knows from the notebook, but what she knows from us, and interacting with us, and us working together with her. So like that was really huge. Like, we never even could do that the first time we were in therapy. So that is like the first time in all these decades that we've been able to do that. So we're coming a long way towards accepting our diagnosis, and the system, and learning how to work through it, and knowing each other, and those kinds of things. And although I do think there's still a little bit of feeling bad that we're so much work, like for our friends, or feeling bad, sort of maybe some layers of shame, that about being unwell. But I think really that is more old tapes from the mother, which is a whole different story. I don't think it's actually about DID. Maybe it is.
So I don't think it's just about like being in the closet or something about DID, although in some ways we still are obviously. But now we have a handful of friends who know and we are open with our family. And we are talking about trauma with the children in ways that are appropriate for them. And we're working actively with a therapist for a long time now. And so there's all these things that we've worked through some of those layers. And so our functioning is better. Our healing is making progress. But DID is still totally distressing. I don't know that it can be not distressing.
And as far as functional multiplicity, like we're more functional than we were two years ago, and so I'm excited about that. But we still can't necessarily just control who's out when. We still can't necessarily control what someone else is doing, or influenced that, or however some people are able to do it. And we still struggle with feeling safe. We still have triggers. We still have things that absolutely affect the different areas of functioning. Like, it's not just about if we can hold a job or not. We can hold a job only because we adapted and shaped what our job is so that we could function. But there are also days where we have to, where we are not functioning well in relationships or otherwise. Because it's just that hard and there's so much to deal with. So maybe I just don't understand it because we're not in that place yet. But also the people who talk about functional multiplicity also really struggle with functioning, and also really struggle with their own triggers in their own stories even though they are also very good about being able to function in other ways and have adapted their own work for their own creative expression and the ways that they can function. And even though they're really good at knowing how and when and where to ask for help. Like all of those things are really important, but it's still really distressing.
Okay, sorry, I went off on a tangent. From, back to the Adaption System email. Number 10. 12% stable integrated systems is, by the way, actually a huge number for a disorder this severe and treatment options that are that limited.
They said: We enjoyed Dr. Barach his email in reaction. You can also contact us to discuss TSDP in detail, or learn about how why we as a therapist apply it or what downsides we see. That's actually a really great idea. We would love to talk to the adoption system. Again, everyone really enjoyed that episode and we got a lot of positive feedback about it. It was so helpful to so many. So we may take you up on that you guys. Thank you, Miss G, Devin and Sarah.
We also got an email back from Sarah Clark ourself. She was so kind to give us some clarifications that we promised we would read on the podcast. And I think she was so brave to share her perspective and ask her questions. And I really honestly don't know how we could have gotten some of the answers we have if we didn't talk about. It is such an example of like life in therapy, right? That if we don't ask the questions, or if we don't say what's going on or talk about the things we need to add therapy, we don't actually get help with it. And so I love that Sarah was so brave, that their system was so brave to publish their article and to ask these questions and the advocating work that they are doing. It's really just amazing because it's really brought a lot of attention to some of these layers, and calling out clinicians for not doing their work when they need to. So yes, it's true, there are so many good clinicians. But it's also true that people need help when that's not what's happening or what their experiences.
So the Stronghold System says: Hi, Emma, thank you for the latest episode on the podcast and the input from the clinical community. Here's a list of points I did not say, nor did I mean to imply in any way. I've listened to the episodes twice to make sure that I did not accidentally misrepresent my thoughts on these matters. Most importantly-. And then she has some points listed, like an outline. Number one, unlike the episode to the introduction of my article states—which we did, she did write, we were just initially reading through and trying to respond, she says, they say—we never asked anyone to reject structural dissociation theory. I did remind everyone to give credit where credit is due. So that makes sense. And we totally agree with that. The points about rejecting parts of the dissociation theory comes from the end of her article, which you can read for yourself and see that what she says is that give credit to what part of the theory that you're accepting. And so if you're accepting this part, it really originates here. And if you're accepting that part, it really originates here. But if you're accepting the whole thing, that's fine. Or to understand where this theory came from and how it developed, that that's important. Which is one of the things she's advocating for, not just changes with clinicians, but also for survivors to understand what theories are out there, and what those theories are actually saying, and what they mean. Which I appreciate. And that is my summary, not her words.
The next point she says: Mr. Barach’s claimed that DID could have different origins is wrong. I've always said DID is traumagenic, associated with overwhelming experiences, traumatic events and/or abuse in childhood as the DSM-5 teaches us. I totally agree and I think Dr. Barach would also agree with that. I don't think he was saying at all that DID could have different origins, other than saying that that's just not documented. Like, we are aware—we meaning us, not Dr. Barach—we ourselves are aware that there are people out in the community who say they are DID without having trauma. And so we ourselves say that is their story. Like we can't judge them at all. We don't know their story. We don't know where they are on their journey and healing. We don't know if that's someone who doesn't remember what the trauma is. We don't know if that's just something of their own. Like we don't know. But I think Dr. Barach and we would also just totally agree with what she says here, that DID itself is traumagenic. That it is caused by a trauma. And that the continuum of plurality is a whole different issue and topic. But as far as DID. It's absolutely what she says. And that is the category of the DSM-5, like how those symptoms are categorized, the label that's used, is about trauma and being associated with overwhelming experiences, traumatic events and abuse in childhood. Totally agree with her here.
The next point that they give is: I've not stated that structural dissociation theory stole the terms from Myers or Putnam. I pointed out in the podcast and in my article how they borrowed those theories and its terminology. I pointed out in the podcast and in my article how they borrowed those theories and its terminology. That totally makes sense. She's just clarifying. I think that's an English language thing. She's just clarifying the words that she used in her article, that they were borrowed, not stolen. And I think that just comes from what we said, not what she said. So that's good that she's clarifying.
She also then educates: Plural is an umbrella term that may be used to self-identify with for people who are many. The umbrella includes people with DID. Being plural in no way indicates that someone is no longer distressed or disordered. So that's really helpful because as I said, the plural concept is one we're still wrestling with. Partly because of our own issues. Partly because we're scared of getting stuck in the trauma pieces of this and we don't want that to be our identity. We want to be more than the trauma that happened to us, and become more from the healing that we work so hard for. And so it's still something we're wrestling with in our own process. I appreciate her clarifying and educating over and over and over again, because this is a conversation she's had with us lots of times. And so she's very patient as she teaches and helps us understand, and as we wrestle with it the last year or two that we've known her, and so thank you for clarifying that.
She also says, I also like to apologize and clarify a mistake I made. The day and the night child concept did not come from World War Two. It is Miss. Van Derbur, who describes the day and night child in her book Miss America By Day. So that's interesting if you want to follow up with that book and that information. But again, it was such a good conversation. And I know it was strung-. It kind of happened over several episodes. But it was really good information and gave a lot of people a lot of things to think about, and I really appreciate that it came up and that the Stronghold System from Power To The Plurals, that they were so willing and so brave and had the courage to come on and talk with us about it. And we will look forward to talking to them again when it gets closer to the Plural Positivity Conference next year.
And then after talking with her some more. [Laughter] It was such a big thing, this conversation, right? So we talked with her some more and she sent some more clarifications.
The Stronghold System says: The ISSTD treatment guidelines explain integration and fusion indeed from a less ableist point of view. So that's good. But the guidelines only quote Kluft and then make statements without sources on harmony. So I still don't know where that terminology comes from. Then they mentioned resolutions as a more realistic outcome. As far as I am aware, the term resolution also comes from Kluft, and he states in his 1999 paper An Overview of Psychotherapy of Dissociative Identity Disorder, quote, “a smooth collaboration is a resolution; the alters bleeding into unity is an integration,” end quote. This is also what I read with different words in the Theory of Structural Dissociation. The integration I talked about in my article and the episode are about what the ISSTD guidelines referred to as fusion. Wooo.
So these are really big concepts so thank you for clarifying, Sarah. Thank you for teaching us and asking good questions to make all of us think. It was amazing conversation. And I'm really, really grateful. And it brings such awareness to the need to clarify some of these concepts, especially when clinicians only have access to this piece or that piece, or old information is getting passed down that needs to be updated. So this was really, really good. Thank you so much Power To The Plurals. Wooo!
I feel like you need to shout and cheer after you say that. Power To The Plurals, yeah! Right? Like, I feel like I'm at a rally. [Laughter]
Sarah says: I listened to four podcasts related to structural dissociation, Kathy Steele interview through the clinical response, and also read your blog post and that of Sarah Clark. I was curious about the results of the study quoted related to integration. When I read the actual study, the actual wording on page four is as follows, quote, “Successful resolution of treatment without full integration of self-states, 12.8%. Successful resolution of treatment with full integration, 12.8%,” end quote. I know you mentioned this in your blog post, but I think it would be worth mentioning in a podcast as well. Especially since there is a division within the DID community regarding functional multiplicity and integration. Plural advocates are using the 12.8% rate to point to integration as an ineffective or impossible treatment goal, when in fact the study indicates the exact same resolution rate for both integration and functional multiplicity. Clearly, one is not a better treatment goal or option than the other. And clinicians are not wrong in pursuing either option depending on the goals of the client. It is important to recognize and openly acknowledge these findings within the DID community at large to clear up any misconceptions and educate all involved. My hunch is people are more likely to listen to the podcast than read a lengthy blog post. Thanks. Okay. So, Sarah is totally right. And I'm really glad Sarah wrote in. And it's really funny, because the blog post was really long. So I'm sorry about that. That's a thing we do in real life anyway. Long blogs, that's a problem. We have, we have a problem. [Laughter] There's so much to say and so many people to say it. [Laughter] So what she's saying is totally true and we point this out on the blog. If you look on the blog, systemspeak.org, we have a blog there and we link to Sara's original article so you can read it there. But then we also included some of the responses from the people. And what she's referring to specifically is that the study about 12.8%, that being the only success rate for integration, that's used a lot in the DID community, especially in the online support groups. The problem with that is that compared to other disorders, that's actually really good success rate. And the other problem with that is that functional multiplicity has the same success rate. Which means functional multiplicity with therapy support, and integration with therapy support together, that's like almost 25% success rate. Which is huge considering all that causes DID to be such a severe and long term issue.
And so I think what's important out of the conversation is that survivors learn that it's kind of a process, and that clinicians work with survivors as they set their goals and as those goals unfold. I don't, I mean, and I think most everyone would agree with that, that's part of the point is that survivors want to have the capacity and the ability and the right to determine their own treatment goals. That they should be participating in that. Clinicians, especially those who have ever had to work with managed care will know that's true. Good clinicians will already be doing that. The problem, once again, is the bad clinicians kind of giving everyone a bad name, so to speak.
But the other part of that is that, at least for us, where we are, like we're not at all trying to duck out of the conversation. But like, our goal is still just to get to therapy, and maybe say something once we're there. Like, our therapist has never ever one time like sat down in her fancy chair, and, like, crossed her arms and said, like, “Today we're going to talk about why integration is a goal for you.” Like, that's never been even a conversation. What she says is like, “What's hard for you today? What's been going on this week? Who has something to say to me today?” Like, it's always this open, invitation, attentive presence, that's just there. And sometimes we don't even talk at all. And I don't know how she deals with that, like how she copes with that. I don't know how she endures that. I don't know. But we've never had any kind of conversation that we're like, “These are the rules for you,” other than conversations that are about how rules and expectations of our childhood no longer apply. And how rules and expectations in relationships and friendships now are about how Now Time is safe, and we do have the right to choose for ourselves in those kinds of situations. And the one thing she has ever said about our choice-. Well, two things.
There are two things that she has ever said about our choice and things. Number one is that we always have a choice. She says that over and over and over again. Like we can’t always choose what happens to us, we can’t always choose what our circumstances are. But we can always choose what we do about it and how we respond to it. Okay, the second thing that she says in this context at all, or in any context, is that no one knows better what we need than we do. So I know everyone doesn't have our therapist. But in our experience, that's really the only conversation it's about.
And so if someone is so sticking to a certain kind of manual that you don't find helpful, like you need a different therapist anyway. If you're a manual kind of person, and you have a good fit with that therapist, then that's totally fine if you're getting to have a say and a vote and a choice in what your therapy is. But we don't do any of that in our therapy. Like, we work on the workbook. But that's mostly to stay sane and learn skills in between therapy sessions. We've never taken the workbook to therapy other than to show it to the therapist. And so, I mean, we do group, but that's a specific thing and separate.
And so while I totally understand about wanting to be sure guidelines are updated and that information is accurate, and that people are getting the help they need, I think that the clinicians that are good are already doing this and are already on board. I think it's the problem clinicians who either don't know what they're doing, or have bad or old information that they are misunderstanding or misapplying. And that's not going to be fixed just by updating things. What can be fixed is better education and preparing new therapists that come through school and things like that. But good clinicians are already doing a good job with this. Does that make sense? I just want to point that out as well.
So really, it all just comes down to us working together, clinicians and survivors, and that's why this conversation was so important. Thank you everyone for participating, for listening, and for sharing your thoughts.
[Break]
Thank you for listening. Your support really helps us feel less alone while we sort through all of this and learn together. Maybe it will help you in some ways too. You can connect with us on Patreon. And join us for free in our new online community by going to our website at www.systemspeak.org. If there's anything we've learned in the last four years of this podcast, it's that connection brings healing. We look forward to connecting with you.