|
|
|
It will be helpful to briefly discuss our mindset as we approach these techniques. In particular, it will be helpful to know how our worldview and prior learning can affect the way we interpret our experiences.
OUR WORLDVIEW
We all interpret the world around us through our own unique set of “glasses” or filters. These glasses are shaped by our own experiences. For this reason, two people may interpret the exact same event in two different ways, each representing reality for each person.
For example, suppose two people are sitting peacefully in a room when a small green snake slithers under the door. Now stop for a moment. Did you have negative feelings as you read this? Did you shudder a bit? Maybe you did or maybe you didn’t. It depends upon your worldview and your glasses.
As the snake slithers into the room, one person jumps up onto the table and begins dancing in fear, hoping and praying that the snake can’t climb up onto the table. However, the other person calmly gets up, corners the snake, and then gently picks it up. After asking the person dancing on the table if he would like to pet the snake, he walks outside the building and releases the poor creature.
Two different people witnessed the exact same event, yet two different realities were perceived. One person had been taught from childhood that snakes are evil and are just waiting for a chance to bite. This teaching was reinforced when, as a child, a blue racer snake chased this person.
The other person had a very different upbringing. He was taught that some snakes are poisonous, but most are harmless. His personal experience with snakes was quite positive as he had several snakes as pets through the years.
So we have two different worldviews of snakes, two different sets of filters, or glasses, from which to view the same event. The end result was two very different responses to the same event.
This raises an interesting question. Is it possible to be completely objective and unbiased? It’s very hard to be completely objective due to the glasses we wear. Ironically, our best hope for being unbiased and objective lies in our ability to acknowledge the existence of our glasses, and to realize that previous learning influences our views and interpretations.
Our filters may affect us more than we realize. George Lindsey [Goober from The Andy Griffith Show] was once asked why his restaurant failed. He replied, “Well, if you’ve never tasted butter, lard ain’t bad.”
ASSOCIATION
Another concept worth mentioning is learning by association. By the time we reach adulthood, any new information can almost always be associated with previous learning. So, as we learn to operate a word processor, we associate the new information with what we already know about operating a typewriter. We can easily accept the new information because we have some prior learning to “hang” it on.
What happens if we observe or experience something totally new; something so different that we have no prior learning for association. In addition, what happens if our glasses filter out this experience? Our worldview just doesn’t allow us to accept what we are experiencing.
When this happens, most people experience a type of denial. This is not the classic denial identified by Freud. Freud’s denial is a defense mechanism with the purpose of protecting the individual from a traumatic experience, or from information that the person’s system simply cannot handle at the moment.
This denial is different. This denial does not serve to protect the person; rather, it exists simply because the person doesn’t know what to do with the information. It’s hard to process the information because there is no prior learning from similar experiences. Besides, the person’s glasses filter out the event, so it must not have happened.
Dr. Callahan calls this the Apex problem. This type of denial often occurs when one experiences the results of the techniques you are about to learn. As a psychologist, I have seen it happen over and over again. Clients who have struggled with trauma, sadness, anxiety, and so on, gain dramatic relief in a matter of minutes, but they simply can’t believe it. They typically try to attribute the change to anything other than the technique. A common comment is, “You distracted me with the tapping and now I can’t think about it [the treatment issue].”
PSYCHOLOGIST’S APEX PROBLEM
Please understand, this is not said to be critical. This is a normal reaction. In fact, I experienced a similar reaction as a psychologist.
I had been practicing therapy for several years when a chiropractor friend, Tim Adair, suggested that I look into Thought Field Therapy. He suggested a couple of books, which I purchased and read.
Then the opportunity came to try this strange technique. I was interviewing a young lady as a part of her application for social security disability benefits. She was quite anxious with trembling hands, fidgety movements, and excessive perspiration. I diagnosed her as being miserable, among other things.
More importantly, I sensed that she genuinely wanted relief from her anxiety [this technique does not require faith or belief that the technique will work, but it does require that the individual genuinely wants to feel better]. I explained the technique. She said she would try anything. We reviewed the treatment points, and then she began tapping the points as she watched me demonstrate on myself.
About halfway through the tapping sequence, her whole demeanor changed. She became quite calm. When she realized the change, her mouth dropped open, her eyes widened, she gasped and covered her mouth saying, “I can’t believe it.” As I tried to hide my own gaping mouth and bugged eyes, I agreed, “I can’t believe it either.”
I truly couldn’t believe it. After all, I had never seen anything like this. I didn’t know what to do with this new information. I had spent years learning traditional therapy. I knew the theories of the various therapy techniques. I was conservative. What I did in therapy was backed up by research. Now what was I to do with what I had observed?
My glasses, shaped by years of psychological training, filtered out what I had just observed. It wasn’t possible to get these kinds of results. Clients have to work long and hard to get improvement.
Over the next few months I continued to explain the technique to clients and try it with those interested. The success rate was about 70% to 80%. I must admit that the 20% to 30% of cases that did not respond could become embarrassing situations. I knew to stop trying when I noticed my client’s eyes scanning the wall, looking for a legitimate license. Even worse was when they stopped and asked “Ok, where’s the camera?” However, the 70% to 80% who did respond were spectacular.
It took three or four months of seeing fairly consistent results for me to even begin to accept what I was seeing. I eventually received training in Thought Field Therapy and other similar techniques, which greatly boosted the success rate.
Please keep in mind the Apex problem as you begin to use this technique. You may surprise yourself.
 |  |  |
|
|
|