- PSYCHOTHERAPEUTIC RULES AND THEIR APPLICATION IN THE COMMUNICATION PROCESS

Lecture

Это окончание невероятной информации про .

...

unexpected appearance before a person is another of the surest ways of learning
their attitude toward us. If a person has in the past committed some low act against you,
while fully understanding the baseness of their own act, then upon an unexpected
encounter with you (best of all, your sudden appearance from around a corner), they will not merely change countenance,
being taken aback, but may even jump aside!
The psychotherapeutic rule "Remember the conditioned-reflex origin
of character traits and the possibility of correcting them only after determining the history behind the formation of these traits" (Evstigneev D.A., 2010, c). Understanding this is of primary importance
180
in the analysis of any character traits and their subsequent correction. Many erroneous judgments made regarding the origin of this or that character trait are connected precisely with the fact
that a trait that manifests identically on the outside is treated as though it had one and the same content underlying it – but this is not at all the case! Despite outward sameness, a given character trait, as a rule, has not one but a whole multitude of sources feeding it, and these sources are determined by the environment in which the person's formation took place.
This applies to any character trait, including one as common as jealousy – a trait that is a burden both to the one who carries it and to those toward whom it is directed. Being a conditioned-reflex formation and drawing on several sources, in each specific case jealousy will include different components, and the weight of each of them will also be
different. Let us enumerate the components of jealousy (the sources that feed it).
1. The need for exclusive possession of one's partner (the so-called "sense of ownership"): a person, having reached a certain level of relationship, believes that
the other is obliged to belong to them. But the whole point is that another person is not a thing and
naturally cannot belong to anyone, and their presence at one's side must be won
constantly (earned), as we have already mentioned earlier. Since the person is perceived as
a kind of acquisition, treatment of them corresponds to treatment of a thing. In other words, a person, having reached a certain level of relationship, believes that the "payment" for the level attained will be corresponding behavior, any deviation from the norms of which
must naturally be curbed. Here we plainly have a violation of the rule "Meet at points of intersection," and a lack of respect for the communication partner's needs.
2. Fear of a negative evaluation from those around them, should the partner (in the jealous person's view) behave in some way other than that prescribed to them. This
fear is based on the blocking of the need for respect: here again we encounter the fact that
this same need for respect, being conditioned-reflex in nature and acquired over the course of
life, has as its basis only what was laid down in the course of that specific person's life; in this particular case, in the jealous person's conception, respect from other people toward them
presupposes that their partner should be associated only with them, and if things turn out otherwise,
condemnation from those around them will follow, along with the inevitable blocking of the need for
respect.
3. A greater or lesser degree of conscious understanding that the forecast regarding the partner has not been borne out (an understanding has come that the partner is not, after all, the right one), and
181
jealousy in this case is a disguised wish that the partner would indeed do something for
which they could be condemned and the relationship broken off. That is to say, jealousy in
this case is a wish to find a pretext for ending the relationship: here the jealous person either does not
recognize this wish at all (it has been repressed into the unconscious), or finds it difficult to convey
to the partner that they no longer suit them.
4. Projection of one's own realized or unrealized desires (in particular, the
desire for infidelity) onto one's partner. If the desires have been realized, then, on the basis of
their own experience of communicating with others, the person fears that their partner may act the same way.
If the desires remain unrealized, then a person unable to realize them and repressing these desires
from consciousness into the unconscious (owing to their incompatibility with the demands of conscious needs), projects them onto their partner.
5. Fear of losing one's partner, which has the following causes underlying it.
The first cause: over a certain stretch of time a person has come to understand their partner very well, has developed a predictable and comfortable system of relations with the
partner, and so anything that threatens to destroy this constructed system will
provoke fear – fear of losing the certainty and comfort already achieved in the relationship.
In other words, this is a fear of losing the various benefits that communication with the partner presently affords.
The second cause: connected with the costs invested in the partner (meaning both emotional and
material costs incurred in the process of establishing a certain level of relationship). A person fears losing their partner because they regret the effort expended
in the process of interacting with them, in the process of maintaining the level of relations achieved.
The third cause: over the course of communication between partners, not only a psychological but also a physiological dependence arises: when a person experiences positive emotions connected with their partner, they try to see the partner more and more often – the one who evokes such a storm of positive emotions, and with each new meeting the conditioned connection grows
ever stronger (the more frequent the repetition, or training, the stronger the conditioned connection); and
when a person experiences positive emotions, an enormous quantity of biologically active substances is released, which constitutes yet another condition for the formation of very stable conditioned reflexes, and the desire to see the partner is intensified even further. It is precisely because of this
psychological and physiological dependence that the possible loss of a significant person will be experienced very painfully, and jealousy in this case will be connected with the painfulness of a possible loss of a dependency that brings so much joy.
The fourth cause: lack of self-confidence, a perception of oneself as noncompetitive.
6. A hysteroid personality makeup, which does not permit even small doses of sympathy or attention directed toward someone else. If a hysteroid person sees that their partner is showing interest in someone else,
182
this provokes indignation and jealousy in them. Let us recall that a hysteroid personality demands constant positive evaluation of themselves alone and cannot tolerate attention being paid to someone
else, cannot tolerate someone else being better, more capable, or more attractive than they are.
7. Past negative experience connected with a partner's infidelity: actions by a partner
similar to previous ones may arouse suspicion and lead to thoughts of yet another betrayal,
even though in reality there are no grounds for this whatsoever (once again: externally identical behavior in no way indicates identical content).
Such an impressive number of sources feeding jealousy proves quite clearly that a correct understanding of character traits presupposes an analysis of the sources from which this or that trait was formed, followed by a determination of the weight of each
source – the degree to which it is represented in the trait. Only after this entire procedure is it possible to draw a conclusion about the true content of a given character trait in a specific person,
followed by its correction: correction (treatment) is possible only for that whose content is known, just as the method for changing that content must also be known (Evstigneev D.A., 2010, c).
The psychotherapeutic rule "Attempts to apologize for something may lead to
a negative result" (Evstigneev D.A., 2010, c). A negative assessment of an apology
arises because the person making the assessment understands that: 1) the one apologizing cannot exit the situation with dignity, cannot answer for their own actions and deeds: first they do something unseemly, and then they try by every means to make amends for their guilt, ingratiate themselves, and appease the injured party, which naturally evokes only emotions of contempt or
disgust; 2) words of apology are words devoid of any real content
(a learned, empty cliché), which likewise provokes rejection.
The psychotherapeutic rule "Do not be in a hurry to condemn or reproach a person for something." Before condemning another person for some act or action of theirs, recall whether you have not
done something similar in the past. It often turns out that much of what we condemn others for
we ourselves did in the past, but outgrew it in the process of maturing – new needs arose in place of the old ones. At some point you managed to outgrow one or another unfortunate trait, so help the other person do this too, since only you can help them quickly and competently in this regard. Remember also that even if you do not currently possess a particular
quality that you condemn, are not a carrier of it, this by no means implies that under
certain circumstances, in which this quality usually manifests and in which you
have not yet found yourself, it would not manifest in you as well. Remember that another person will not live your life, nor will you live
theirs. Most often one observes that condemnation of certain qualities is directed at
183
the weakest and most defenseless. It is precisely upon them that the heaviest blows fall, but
the "weak" are weak only within a particular group. Thus, any "strong" person
in one group may turn out to be "weak" in another, and it is precisely for this reason that anyone who inflicts arbitrary harm, who tries to cause as much damage as possible to someone weak, ought to ask themselves the question:
"Are they prepared to find themselves in the very same role as the one they are attacking, but in a different group (or even the same one), while experiencing for themselves the full delight of attacks and humiliation?"
So then, organizing the process of communication in accordance with the psychotherapeutic rules described makes it possible to avoid many problematic situations, to prevent the development of
certain categories of conflict, and, should they nevertheless arise, to defuse them quickly and skillfully. Beyond this, following the rules given makes it possible to prevent the emergence of such a common form of psychogenic disorder as neurosis, the appearance of
which is often connected with contradictory (mutually exclusive) tendencies within the psyche
(a contradiction between one and another equally significant need, the satisfaction of
each of which blocks the other).
Following the rules given is the most effective and least energy-costly way of achieving compatibility, understood as a type of interaction in which both partners in the communication derive satisfaction from it, that is, the needs each of them has
find their satisfaction in the process of communication. Implementing an adaptive approach, grounded in a thorough understanding of psychic phenomena, does not require the laborious – and in this case inexpedient – study of the individual characteristics of a specific person for the purpose of determining how well these characteristics correlate with the characteristics of another person (how compatible people will be, based on the combination of each other's traits). This approach not only makes it possible to preserve compatibility in a case where it already existed at the very start of two people's communication, but also to
create it, even if from the very first meetings the communication partner evoked unpleasant sensations. Most often compatibility is understood as the first situation, in which, from the very first meetings, we derive pleasure from communicating with the person, but staffing working groups (crews, air traffic control shifts) on the basis of such an understanding of compatibility is
an inadmissible luxury, since cases of compatibility of this kind are not so numerous, and it would turn out that for most of the people making up a working group we would be unable to find compatible partners. Here only a psychotherapeutic approach to understanding compatibility can come to the rescue – an approach based on constant work on oneself and on expanding
a person's system of needs, following which will come an increase in the probability of points of contact with other people, and an increase in the probability of deriving pleasure from communication (Evstigneev D.A., 2010, c).
Above we indicated that the criterion for the presence of compatibility is the mutual satisfaction of this or that need in the process of communication. It follows from this that compatibility
184
can only be determined after the communication has already taken place and mutual satisfaction
of this or that need has in fact occurred in the course of that communication. Therefore it is entirely
clear that compatibility should be determined empirically, and this matter should
be, above all, the concern of the participants in the interaction themselves (members of flight crews and air traffic control shifts), as well as their
immediate supervisors. Both must be fully aware that
compatibility is what will ensure both flight safety and the preservation of human life, and, this being so, all instances of incompatibility
should invariably be reported, and everything possible should be done to avoid placing incompatible people in conditions requiring them to perform joint activity (what matters above all is separating people who are plainly incompatible with one another).
The empirical method of determining compatibility is the most reliable, but even it is not absolute. Two people may be compatible for a very long time, but after one situation or another they may cross over into the category of people who hate one another. If even the empirical
method of determining compatibility is not absolute, then the testing procedure, which deals with a hypothetical combination of the traits of one person and another, is even less suited to determining compatibility. The very idea that a particular combination of characteristics of one and
another person leads to compatibility is correct, but the idea that one can precisely calculate at what time and which particular combinations will produce a picture of compatibility is not correct (Evstigneev
D.A., 2010, c).
If we speak of the approach based on determining compatibility through testing, from the results of which the optimal combination of traits of one aviation specialist and another is determined, then it is profoundly utopian. The "researchers" implementing this approach forget that compatibility is a category of a probabilistic nature, and, this being so, it would require not only studying not just one hundred characteristics of each person with subsequent calculation of all combinations with those of another person (which is impossible), but also knowing the future:
which events precisely will occur and how each of the participants in those events will react, while being in one of hundreds of possible psychic states. Often a single
mismatch is sufficient (one that was not studied and was not considered as a possibility)
for people who are, overall, compatible on the vast majority of characteristics to become incompatible, and the mismatch may concern a matter that will strike most people as something quite astonishing (all attempts to create a test that would determine the compatibility
of one person with another have failed, although some "researchers" firmly
believe this to be possible, whereas it is not possible under any circumstances whatsoever). We do not
deny the possibility of forecasting a person's behavior from this or that characteristic of theirs (in particular, from traits of character or temperament), but the use of this
185
technique for resolving questions of compatibility does not appear to be possible. Those "researchers" who attempt to determine the compatibility of one person with another by a certain set of combinations of characteristics plainly fail to understand such an extremely important pattern: that any quality acquired over the course of a lifetime is conditioned-reflex in nature, and consequently, while manifesting identically on the outside (for example, aggressiveness), has its own history of formation, and so, no matter how many people we observe possessing
one and the same quality (the same aggressiveness), there will be just as many causes (and hence just as many methods of eliminating it) as there are people who carry it. That is, one and the same quality, despite outward sameness, has whatever content was laid down in the course of its
formation. It is precisely for this reason that an approach proceeding from a conception of compatibility as a correspondence of certain characteristics to others between two people, and claiming that the combination in question can be calculated, cannot in practice be implemented. These "researchers" would need, at a minimum, to study the formation history of every quality of interest to them and to draw up a program that would calculate the correspondence of these qualities to those of another person (in doing so, an incalculable number of variants would accumulate). Such an approach
does not withstand any criticism and is one of the largest mystifications in psychology. Moreover, the very fact of testing personal characteristics as such is already largely speculative: first, if the testing is conducted for some purpose and not by the
person themselves, the latter will strive to "guess" the correct answers; second, many people (in particular, hysteroid personalities) have obvious problems with an objective assessment of their own personality traits, which naturally makes it impossible to use results of this kind for subsequent analysis (Evstigneev D.A., 2010, c).
Only through a psychotherapeutic approach (aimed at adapting some aviation specialists to others), combined with compatibility being perceived by the participants in the interaction as a need, can the compatibility so necessary within a group of
aviation specialists be created. Given the enormous number of aviation incidents that have occurred precisely because of the incompatibility of aviation specialists, crew members and air traffic control shift members essentially have no choice: if they wish to ensure their own safety and the safety of flights, there is only one way to do so –
to learn the methods by which they could become compatible with practically any type of person, and to do so, thanks to a clear understanding of the laws governing how the psyche functions, without having to do it "under duress"! Thus, while other
professional associations of people may, to a greater or lesser degree, allow themselves not to regulate relationships within their community, crew members and air traffic control shift members cannot afford to do so.
186
Review questions and assignments
1. To which type of psychotherapy do the psychotherapeutic rules set out in this chapter belong?
2. Are the psychotherapeutic rules specific in character (directed at one particular type of group), or are
they applicable within any group?
3. In what way does the psychotherapeutic approach to compatibility differ from classical conceptions on this
question?
4. What does a collective operator represent?