Tony White

The research shows that different drugs have different ages of peak drug use. For example:
Marijuana 14 - 30 years
LSD 23 - 34 years
Amphetamines 20 -34 years
Heroin 20 - 30's years
Cocaine 18 - 30 years
Inhalants adolescence
Nicotine & alcohol teens - lifetime.



Age first tried illicit drugs
Young drugs
Average age less than 18
Proportion who have tried it before age 16 above 20%
Marijuana
Barbiturates
Inhalants

Older age drugs
Average age above 18
Proportion who have tried it before age 16 below 20%
Heroin
Amphetamines
Cocaine
LSD

When first studying the area of alcohol and drug use I always found this an interesting statement. It suggests that different drugs meet different needs in human development. The good part about this is that when one gets older than the age of peak use then they will probably be less driven to use. One could say less ‘addicted’ perhaps.


The latest weapon in the war on drugs.



There are 10 main reasons why people use drugs with 4 common ones being
* Experimental use - "I always wanted to try that stuff". This is typical reason for adolescent and early adulthood drug use.
* Recreational use - this involves using drugs for recreational leisure activities. This is typical of longer term adulthood drug taking.
* Symptomatic use - this involves the use of a drug so one can avoid unpleasant experiences or memories of childhood. The drug is used to ‘numb’ the user.
* Dependent use - here there is a very strong compulsion to use the drug such as is implied in 'drug addiction' or 'drug dependency'.

I have long maintained that for the drug addict or ‘dependent’ type user it is more productive to use a management strategy that gets them through the age of peak use, rather than trying to get them to stop. Of course one wants them to stop using but at times that realistically is just not going to happen. In such instances the ‘treatment’ strategy is more about assisting the person to get through the age of peak use as best they can. Avoiding as many legal, familial and health issues that confront them is the goal of treatment.

From what I have seen of the literature this is a novel concept that I have not heard articulated before. I have just recently been working with two 50 year old men who both have used heroin in an addicted way since their teenage years. They have very long histories of ongoing heroin addiction and thus have lives which are quite tragic with a number of stints in prison and living a life style that is very damaging to themselves and others.



They also articulate the change in attitude that one sees from a 20 year old heroin addict to the 50 year old heroin ‘addict’. Thus it provides some insight into why certain drugs are used at certain ages and not at others. As you will see from a drug treatment point of view therapy now is much more likely to be successful as they are out of the age of peak drug use for heroin.

Person A states that for his entire adult life he has either been addicted to heroin, in prison or on methadone. He has managed to stay heroin free for about the last 6 years and has used methadone successfully in this way. He has no plans to stop his use of methadone. He expresses no desire to recommence his use of heroin and has little urge to do so.

Person B has not used heroin for the past year and is by and large drug free. He has no interest in alcohol and never has, he has no interest in methadone, he uses marijuana and other drugs like valium spasmodically. His use of heroin has reduced slowly over the past 10 years.

He reports that at this time that he has no urge at all to use heroin and states that in the past 10 years he has gets off heroin when his work and family life are going OK. When they turn bad he then has the urge to use.



The difference is:
Both men do not have that attitude you find in the 20 year old habitual heroin user where there is a very strong desire to seek out an use heroin. Where ones thinking is dominated by thoughts about obtaining and using drugs. They both report they are tired of using heroin and they know where using and dealing drugs leads and they have no desire to go those paths again.

This is also different from the 20 year old user who has an interest in the excitement of the drug scene and believes that he can be heavily involved and avoid trouble with the police and so forth. “He can handle it and not get into trouble like others do” he thinks. These two men basically say that they have been there and done that and it is no longer for them. One of them also reports about feeling embarrassed about being 50 years old and still a drug user.

It simply gets too tiring to live the active heroin addict life style which is a high energy, excitement laden way of living. This for example is quite different from the nicotine or alcohol dependent user who can quite easily keep using until well into old age

Graffiti

Self discovery and the parental therapist

In the last post I talked about the therapist who practices in what is called ‘psychoeducation’ approach to counselling. This means the counselling has very much an educational flavour. The therapist sees self in the role of counsellor plus educator, like a teacher is an educator. So they are kind of a teacher plus therapist. Some CBT courses can be a bit like this where people are taught relaxation exercises, thought stopping techniques, behavioural strategies and so forth.

When this is the case the counsellor takes on what could be seen as a parental type role and there certainly is a group of therapists who would fit this genre. The parental type therapist. I have heard many clients over the years ask for this type of thing. They say they are seeking a therapist who will be like a big nurturing, kind, safe, person who also provides answers, gives directions, solves problems, protects and so forth.


Telling instead of allowing self discovery



Many say this is the kind of thing they are truly looking for. Unfortunately it is like fools gold and by and large most people find it is not what they want when they eventually find it. Few end up actually wanting this (in the long term at least).

With the parental therapist the client is afforded much less opportunity to have self generated insight, epiphanies, self discovery and so forth. As such things come to the surface in the process of counselling the parental therapist will generally tell the client what is happening, how they are involved in playing the games, educate them on different behavioural options, give them solutions to their problems etc.

Sooner or later this ends up with the client feeling like they are being told what to do and they have little opportunity to find things out for self. From what I have seen most will eventually move away from such an approach to counselling as it becomes stifling.


We all have a child part that would love to have an 'Earth mother' parent. But it never works out in the long run.



However there is a group who don’t feel smothered and I see these therapists as playing a needed role in the community for this particular group of clients. These are those individuals that are badly psychologically damaged and have adjusted by becoming passive and psychologically incapacitated. They tend to be timid and fragile individuals who struggle to cope day to day because the Child ego state dominates in their personality. They are not bad enough to be institutionalised but they do struggle to cope psychologically and just getting along day to day. They don’t tend to resist authority but will be thankful for the direction given.

I would however divide this group into two subgroups. One difficulty for the parental therapist is they tend to be stuck in that style of counselling and are not capable of working in other ways. Essentially they get stuck in their Parent and Adult and loose their Child ego state flexibility. Thus they form a symbiosis with the client who lacks Adult and Parent ego state function.


Symbiosis

Sometimes this type of fragile and timid client will develop from relational contact with the parental therapist. In essence they out grow the therapist. They get from the therapist what they need and start to develop an Adult and Parent. When that happens the symbiosis starts to break down.

This tends can get quite problematic because they will start to challenge the therapist in their own ‘ineffectual’ way. They essentially start to say, “I am now capable of having my own insights and epiphanies. I don’t need you to do it for me anymore”.

However because they are not psychologically robust individuals they can be talked out of terminating therapy in some cases for long periods of time. The parental therapist often lacks their own insights and understanding of their own limitations as a therapist because they are cut of from their Child ego state.

This can be hard at times for the client because they are conforming. They will be told they still need the therapy when inside they feel and know like they are ready to leave.


These people are very good at inviting parental therapists to come near but then will almost fight them 'to the death'.



Then finally there is another group who really will never be able to stand on their own and make it in life. This type of client can work well with the parental therapist for long periods of time. They get the direction and instruction they need on how to manage their lives and thus cope better than if they did not have that.

Graffiti

Self discovery and the complaining client

It does seem a bit of an odd situation between the therapist and client as was commented on in the last post. Here we have two people who get together and usually they have the same goal, for the client to think, feel and behave in a way that is more healthy for the client. To achieve that often that involves catharsis and epiphanies. That is for the client to gain some insight into self.

There will be times when a client will be discussing something and seems to be floundering. To an outside observer (in this case a therapist) the “answer” or understanding of the difficult situation appears quite obvious. The client seems to be going around in circles and outside observer can see that.


I can see something you can't




For instance the wife who is complaining about her recalcitrant husband. She reports how he again seems to be acting like a lazy child and not doing things around the house. What she does not see is how parental she is with him which of course plays into the game of schlemiel and schlimazel. She is actively encouraging him to be ‘childish’ by certain behaviours of her own and yet this is out of her consciousness.

So what does the therapist do? The hope is for the wife to have an epiphany as she discusses her relationship with her husband. For her to realise that she is in fact contributing to the difficulty. For her to have a self discovery as her unconscious becomes conscious and she realises her part in the game.

The key here is SELF discovery. So the therapist cannot make the discovery for her. He cannot tell her what her role in the game is. If he does that he does extractive identification and steals away any self discovery she might have ever had about it.

So she sits there going around in circles and the therapist does not give the ‘answer’. The client knows that the therapist knows the answer and is not saying anything and thus feels frustrated. The therapist knows that the client knows that he knows and is not saying anything and may also feel frustrated.



Ahhh, isn’t the therapy relationship lovely? But it has to be like this really. One of the most common ‘failings’ of the beginning therapist is they say too much. They feel like they have to start ‘doing’ some therapy and so they jump in say stuff.

Now I would be regarded as an actively involved therapist. I am not the kind to continually sit back looking empathetic, and making sympathetic noises from time to time. I would be regarded as an interactive therapist but still there has to self discovery for one to get the good epiphanies and thus growth.

At times clients will say to me that I never give them any answers. That they pay to see them and I don’t answer anything to which I may say something like, “Don’t I?” Which pisses them off even more.

Then there is the client who complains that I ask all the personal questions about them and I never answer any myself. To which I reply for them to ask me a personal question which they do. I start to answer it and after about 30 seconds the client interrupts and starts talking about them self again and never again complains about me asking all the questions.

Graffiti

Good point Roses about catharsis and epiphany. You state:

“A catharsis is when you realise something you hadn't realised before? Something new has popped into your head - it was probably always there but that particular time, it became an epiphany of sorts?” (end quote)


I would see them as two different but related things Roses.

Catharsis is generally seen as some kind of release often including an emotional release. With such a release people often end up feeling better and being in better psychological shape afterwards. Especially if the 'thing' being held onto has been for some time and has been troubling to the person.



In this way psychotherapy is often seen as cathartic because it involves people talking out and 'feeling' out what ever is inside them at the time. Indeed this is why the catholic confessional is sometimes seen as one of the very first psychotherapies. A place were people could go and unload the troubled thoughts and feelings inside them - thus have a cathartic experience.

Personally I think catharsis is most important therapeutically and at times I see therapists getting lost in their therapy techniques and theories. They start spending too much time and effort in getting clients to do and say things that their theories require them to do. Thus they forget about the basics like cathartic release.



Of course there can be a down side to catharsis. People can go on catharting (try and say that word when you have had a few beers!) for ever. For instance a woman can come to counselling and complain about her husband and express feelings like sadness and anger about him doing or not doing what she wants. Thus she can use the counselling to have cathartic release about her marital woes.

However this can go on for ever. After the release she can feel better, go home and return the next week with the same woes and then do the same and get the same release. The problem is she never does anything about her marital situation and in this way the counselling then becomes part of the problem. It can provide her with just enough release so she can tolerate her dismal marriage instead of finally getting totally fed up with it and actually doing something about it. The catharsis becomes part of the problem.

There would be debate on this point however. Some therapists would confront her about just expressing feelings about her lay about husband and not actually taking any action. Other therapists would not see anything wrong with it and say things like, “She just needs more time and she will do something when she feels ready and able”.


Tree hugger catharsis




The other potential problem with catharsis is that it is meant to be a means to an end but it can become an end in itself. Cathartic release is stimulating and can be quite pleasurable for some in that way. So some can simply seek opportunities for catharsis because they like how it feels. It has no psychotherapeutic use in this sense.

If someone is going to psychotherapy and doing catharsis that has no psychotherapeutic use then there seems to be something wrong with that. As a therapist I would need to bring such a situation to the surface in a therapy session. However there is nothing intrinsically wrong with having catharsis for catharsis’s sake. People do that all the time by going sky diving, watching sad movies, going to the football so you can shout abuse at the umpires, indeed having sex for non-procreative reasons and so on.



Epiphany
In therapy one sometimes hears people talk about having an “Ah ha!” experience. This is what I would see as epiphany like. The client has a sort of revelation as a consequence of talking with the therapist. The revelation is most often something about them self that they were not aware of. So one could say that all of a sudden the client’s unconscious becomes conscious and there is that sensation of revelation, Ah ha or an epiphany.

This is where the idea of extractive identification plays a role and where the therapist literally steals from the client. A client may report that her husband is always angry but in fact what is happening is he is not angry instead she is projecting her anger on to him. She is unaware than she is doing this and thus the problem persists.


Humans are very good at lying to themselves and not seeing what they are really doing.




If the therapist should suddenly report this to her, that she is projecting her anger, then her unconscious all of a sudden become conscious. But the therapist has stolen the ah ha experience from her by giving her that information. He has stolen the possibility of her having an epiphany about her unconscious projection, at least to some degree. This is extractive identification.

If she should suddenly become aware of her unconscious projections by her self then her experience or self revelation will be much stronger and thus will tend to have more of a psychological impact on her. It’s like the client is half way through reading the latest Harry Potter novel and all of a sudden the therapist comes along and tells her the ending. The experience is ruined to some degree.

So that is why it is sometimes (often) wise for the therapist to shut up and let the client struggle around and come to their own realisations about their unconscious even if it is standing out like the proverbials for the therapist looking on.

So that is how I see catharsis and an epiphany being different. However often an epiphany can lead onto some kind of cathartic release and indeed a catharsis could lead to an epiphany for that matter. So one could say that they are related in that way.



Right at this time I am working with a man where catharsis is the main mode of treatment. I have seen him 5 times and all he does is talk and talk lots. He is a banker and arrives always on time in an immaculately tailored suit with gold pens in the top pocket, business tie and perfectly shined black shoes. The whole deal of the upper end business world.

He just talks. I intervene occasionally but not all that often. For the past 30 years he has never had an opportunity to speak about himself in this way. So now he can and he is not missing the opportunity. At last he can talk about himself and what he thinks and feels and about his life as a child and teenager and so forth.

I could be doing all sorts of fancy therapy but I don’t and he simply gets cathartic release. If he continues to see me then I will intervene more but for the time being he states that he is getting what he wants and is keen to continue.

Graffiti

I had a bit of a catharsis today at the all day workshop. Or more correctly it was sort of a re-catharsis. In the afternoon we ran a relational type of group therapy process. In these groups no usual type of therapy is done in the sense of there being clients and two therapists running a group by doing therapy on the clients.

It is by and large a leaderless group and people work with the others or relate their relational experiences to each other. Now let me tell you, it is quite a challenge to be the leader in a leaderless group. None the less I think my co-therapist and I achieved it to at least a satisfactory degree.


Do all groups have a leader?




The good part about being a leader in a leaderless group is you get to be like the clients at least to some extent. My co-leader reported having a emotional reaction about hearing of the death of someone whom she had known. At the lunch break I had actually informed her of the death of this person who we had both met on a few occasions. He was a psychotherapist of some note.

She reported to the therapy how he had been a very nice man and she had developed a good affection for him and thus was sad at hearing of his death. I resonated to this as my experience of him was quite different as I know he had been quite unkind to some others I had known. So I did not like him much at all.



This left me with a juxtaposition. I felt I wanted to state my feelings about him to the other group members but I did not want to adversely effect her emotional experience and reporting. So doing the relational thing I related my juxtaposition and stated what I just reported here. After subsequent statements by her and other group members I then related an experience in my earlier life.

I had a very good friend of many years whose father died recently and I attended the funeral. At the funeral people got up and talked about him and stated what a kind and good man he was. Well he was neither. He was a very emotionally abusive man who has damaged all four of his children significantly. At the funeral I felt like someone needed to get up and tell the truth but then as I watched everyone and I had a catharsis - “No it is not necessary to tell the truth about this man who died!”. My good friend and his family don’t need to hear or tell the truth as he is now dead and they just need to get the memory of him in a good place in their minds. At this realisation I felt a great relief.



The same happened today in the relational group. I felt the relief and release as it dawned on me that the truth does not need to be told. This catharsis is good stuff.

Graffiti

As the all day workshop on the therapeutic relationship appraoches I have sought to add to my previous blog posts on terminating the therapeutic relationship.

In those situations where the client is the one to make the decision to end the treatment relationship a number of scenarios are possible it would seem as this transaction shows.



This demonstrates some of the difficulties that a therapist can have when the therapuetic relationship comes to a halt.

1. I want to cease therapy (Social transaction from client).
2. Are you sure that is wise at this point? or Is this a way of you avoiding significant issues coming up now? or Perhaps you should make a No Run contract? (Social transaction from therapist)
3. Covert transaction from therapist’s Parent to Child. “Explain yourself” or “Don’t you dare get out of my control”
4. Covert Child to Child transaction. “Please don’t reject me” or “Show me I am a good counsellor”.

Of course the termination of therapy in this instance is not going to be harmonious due to the therapist’s own difficulties. Other therapist’s can of course avoid such difficulties and end the relationship with the client in such a way as to benefit the clinet and them self such as in the transaction below.



1. I want to cease therapy (Social transaction from client).
2. I feel some sadness at the end and I am proud of what you had done. (FC social transaction from therapist)


Of course the client can terminate the therapy in a way which advances their life script or in a way that will promote their health and growth. If the relationship ends in an argumentative way then it would seem safe to say that the client did use the termination of this relationship to advance their script. If there is some kind of an abrupt end or disjointed end or an end that feels wrong then it is possible that the client has used it to advance their script from their AC.



1. I want to cease therapy (Social transaction from client).
2. I will use this relationship end to advance my script. (AC covert transaction)
3. I need you less. The dependency is needed no more. Your style of therapy no longer fits for me. (FC transaction from client)

If the client has a FC motivation accompanying the Adult social transaction then the relationship end is not advancing the script but promoting their health. When this happens there is usually a stepwise and slower end to the therapy. They stop coming once a week and it becomes once a fortnight and so forth. There is less contact over time.


The way to really tell if script advancement has occured is to ask self at the end of all the transactions if you feel like saying inside your head,
“It just goes to show you that...”
you can’t really trust people.
they always abandon you in the end.
I can never seem to get it right.
I never liked him anyway.
and so on endlessly



The most important factor in the termination phase of counselling, is that the client does not leave the therapeutic relationship in the same old self defeating relationship patterns that they have done so before.

Graffiti

In the previous post myalterego talks about what is bad with a no-dependency life?

Jacob Bronowski of book fame, “The ascent of man” refers to humans as social solitaries. I have found this a good descriptive term. Humans like their solitude, independence and individuality. At the same time they are communal beings and have a need to be in relationship and belonging with another person and having a sense of belonging to a group of people. So in this sense they are dependent on that other person and group to be there to fulfil their need for belonging.

If I ever present the idea of the dependency hump inevitably there will be comment by someone that once they get over the hump then they can be independent and thus wont need to depend on anyone. Indeed many psychotherapies promote such an ethos - the healthy state is not a state of dependency but a state of independence. Self reliance is highly regarded in some counselling systems.


Belonging



My response is - dependency for life is a healthy state. Without a doubt self reliance, independence and the like are very good qualities to possess in life. I would encourage people to seek those personality qualities and use them in their daily lives.

Just one problem - they are not enough on their own. We need other people to be psychologically strong ourselves. When we depend on a dependable person/group then we are much more psychologically robust than the person who does not have such dependence in their life. So one needs a person(s) on which to be dependent their entire lives until the day they die.

Let’s take a transactional analysis explanation of this.



Person A has a problem in that they feel sad. However they go and use their own internal resources and use internal nurturing to assist their sadness and after time the Child is soothed and the problem is solved. A clear example of a person being self reliant and independent. A most desirable state to have for anyone I think it is safe to say. Some times however it is not enough and consider person B.



Person B feels sad and uses their own internal NP to assist in soothing the Child. However they also ask another person for help and that person offers their caring and kindness. So the Child is self soothed and soothed by others as well. Person B in the long run is going to be much better off than person A because of their willingness to engage others in their time of need. This person is not being self reliant and independent at this point, which I am suggesting is a healthy state.

However person B has one extra problem. As soon as person B transacts with the other, all sorts of very difficult and thorny psychological issues come rushing to the surface. Issues of trust, reliance, need, importance, closeness, dependence and so forth all come rapidly to the fore. As we know these are major issues of psychological importance that sometimes are not easily dealt with. If you get soothing from others then you have to also deal with these issues.


Trust



For some they are simply too difficult and they choose to rarely seek soothing from others. They will never allow themselves to be in that dependent position and thus they will live an emotionally crippled life.

I suggest that the healthy state is where one allows self to have some kind of life coach, mentor, confidant, therapist for the rest of their days. They allow self at times to be the dependent like party in such a relationship and this is a much more psychologically healthy position than the person who is completely self reliant and independent.

Graffiti

I have mentioned before about the dependency hump.



How in normal development the child in the first year of life develops a high degree of attachment and psychological dependence on the parents. Some people make it to the top of the hump but then get stuck there and live life like line C. The most obvious example of this is the Dependent personality.

There are others who follow line A and never make it up to the top of the hump and these are sometimes called the “Hurried child syndrome”. They are forced to grow up in a hurry before they are psychologically ready to do so. These people find it very hard to become dependent in relationships and thus can suffer greatly because of that. Sometimes the goal of longer term therapy with character disorders is for the client to go through the dependency hump with the therapist.


Do I trust him to catch me?



Dependency is an interesting thing in that it is a double edged sword. It leaves the dependent party in a paradox.

On the one hand dependency can leave the person with secure and comfort feelings as they know and trust that the other party will look after them and protect them in a competent way.

At the same time the dependent party knows that they are dependent on the power figure and needs them to survive. This can lead to feelings of resentment and anger at the powerful figure. In addition when one is dependent on another person, then that is ‘stopping’ them from growing because to grow and develop one must eventually leave the dependency at least to some degree. So the dependency is indeed inhibiting the dependent party from growing. This can also lead to some resentment at the powerful figure by the dependent party.

Adolescence is a classic example of when these two contrary emotions can exist in one person at the same time and indeed they can both be felt at the same person at the same time. This of course can lead to relationship difficulties because the parent and the adolescent may be confused about the conflicting emotions being felt and expressed.



Sometimes however they can be split between mother and father. Where mother gets the negative emotions expressed at her for the dependence inhibiting development and father gets the good emotions expressed at him for the security the dependency offers. This can particularly happen when the parents have separated.

This can also be reflected in the process of transference development. See this diagram that I have blogged about before.



Clients will initially go through a period of positive transference in relation to the counsellor. At this time the positives of the dependency is felt by the client where their Free Child at last feels like it has a secure dependency on which to rely and it feels great.

But sooner or later the Free Child starts to feel like it wants to grow and develop into its own person and hence an anger or resentment starts to be felt at the counsellor because the dependency is holding it back from developing. Hence the negative transference arrives and the angst gets felt towards the therapist.



I have long suggested that it is wise for therapists to encourage the expression of adversarial feelings towards the therapist by the client in the positive transference stage. This probably reduces the excessive dependency whilst still allowing and permitting a functional level of dependency in the client so that he can proceed through the dependency hump.

Graffiti

This is the relationship the evolves between client and counsellor over time. As the counsellor is attributed with more archaic qualities and emotional energy by the client then he/she will begin to perceive the therapeutic relationship as a replay of the archaic relationships that they had in childhood with their parents.

For instance if the client came from a background where mother and father were angry, humiliating and unpredictable then the client will begin to see the counsellor as doing those things. They will begin to misperceive things like tone of voice, looks on the face of the counsellor, imagining the counsellor is angry about things which they are not, selective perceptions and reinforcing memories. So over time the client finds them self in a relationship that is a replay of childhood even when the therapist is not doing that.





Why would a client do that?

There is the eternal battle in all of us between our drive or natural tendency to grow and self actualise, and that drive of the repetition compulsion to repeat the same self defeating relationship patterns over and over.



Transference neurosis transaction

All of us battle with this especially in out most intimate relationships.

One of the most crucial factors in the selection of a mate involves the transference neurosis exercise. Answer this question:
In the first decade of life.
The thing that you always wanted from Mother and never got was...... ?
The thing that you always wanted from Father and never got was...... ?
(Usually people answer things like love, time, encouragement, affection, information, direction and so forth)

Most people in some way will select a partner that also never gives the things they always wanted and never got


In your relationship with mother and father which glass did you drink from?

Graffiti

The supervisor transaction
The supervisor transaction is a type of transference transaction.




Diagram 1.


This is a transference transaction - so it is a crossed transaction. The supervisee mistakenly sees the supervisor as a parental figure and will react to that person in the same way that they reacted to their mother or father as a child. So in childhood when a child was told it had done something wrong it often felt bad or angry, sad and so forth. So if a supervisor has to tell a supervisee they have done something wrong or needs to be improved the supervisee will often feel the same way. So information may not be perceived as being information but as an accusation.


Some supervisors are wieners



This can happen in any relationship where there is a perceived power difference. That can be a formal power difference such as at work with a boss - employee, or in the armed forces. It can also happen in a relationship where one person perceives the other as having more power or potency even when there is no formal difference. This can and does happen in many a marriage often with disastrous results.


The supervisee transaction
Counter-transference transactions are also crossed transactions. In this instance the supervisor will mistakenly see the supervisee as a child like figure and will react to it in a way that it learnt in childhood. The person will tend to see the child as being incompetent, manipulative, needing rescuing or criticism and so forth. As a result the supervisor will respond from the wrong ego state (ie not Adult and instead come from Critical Parent or Rescuing Parent).



Counter-transference transaction

Diagram 2


Instead of hearing the clear Adult information from the supervisee the supervisor will respond inappropriately because he hears the supervisee as whining, playing poor me, being rebellious when in fact they are not.

This is a more problematic transaction than the supervisor transaction and has the potential to cause more damage. In the supervisor transaction the supervisor can confront the supervisee with more ease as it is assumed that the supervisor is more knowledgeable than the supervisee. Indeed in many types of supervision this is expected to happen.

In the supervisee transaction it is the supervisor who is in error or has the problem. It is much harder for the supervisee to expose or confront the supervisor’s error because they are seen as less knowledgeable and the party of less potency in the relationship. Indeed even when the supervisor is in error he can often convince the supervisee (and himself) that this is not the case and it is the supervisee that has the problem. Thus this can at times go on for long periods of time and can in fact harm the supervisee's sense of self worth and so forth.


Showing the more powerful party in a relationship that they have a personal issue is very difficult. Often the less powerful party automatically assumes they are the cause of any relationship difficulties, when they are not.



Of course the same applies for the client and therapist. If the client has some personal issue with the therapist that is interfering with the therapy then the therapist can quite easily bring this to the surface and have it dealt with. Indeed many therapies actively suggest this happens.

However sometimes it is the therapist who has some personal issue with the client that is interfering with the therapy. This is much harder to deal with because the client is much less able to confront the therapist about his own problems. Again the client can often be convinced it is his problem in the therapy relationship when it is not. This can lead to damaging the client and can go on for long periods of time.



Indeed I recall a situation a number of years ago when I was supervising a psychology registrar. She stated that her previous supervisor had said to her, "You will never make a competent psychologist". Such statements clearly indicate that the supervisor has a personal issue in the supervisory relationship.



Graffiti