Posted by gardenergirl on October 9, 2004, at 23:54:01
In reply to Re: I didn't read any., posted by Dinah on October 9, 2004, at 23:00:27
Hi Dinah,
Thanks for giving your reaction. I know you've read many many more of Dr. Bob's posts than I have, and your radar has to have been finely honed by all that experience.I may be off base, but I was thinking about the "technical thing" you mentioned. I can't think of what it's called, either...darn it...perhaps exaggeration for effect? I am thinking it fits in with other paradoxical interventions. Anyway, if we are thinking of the same thing, and I don't know for sure that we are, so have the salt ready :)...then I think of it as playing "stupid" in order to challenge a statement. I do this very occasionally, and you have to be very deadpan and seriously curious in your approach otherwise it comes across as disingenuous. If we are thinking of the same thing, then I am guessing this technique would not work in this media, as the nonverbal that goes along with it is just as important to the effect of the intervention. It's similar in some ways to Linehan's irreverence. You need the same kind of sort of genuine curiousity while simulaneously knowing that you are exaggerating.
So, if I am way off base, forgive me for taking up so much time...:) I hate it though, when I use a technique and I don't know what it's called. :( Makes it much harder to 'splain to supervisor about how my gut said to do it. :)
Take care,
gg
poster:gardenergirl
thread:400856
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040927/msgs/401026.html