Tim,
I find your messages very stimulating, and would encourage you to stay on the forum and "take up space" with your questions and comments. T. Cummings has already contributed some helpful comments about Adlerian treatment of criminals and the Humanistic vs. Behavioral issue. I prefer to turn this categorization issue upside-down and ask: "To what degree have the other schools of psychology become Adlerian?" You can find traces of Adler's original ideas in cognitive, behavioral, humanistic, neo- psychoanalytic, and family therapy approaches. Why not go directly to the source for a fully integrated cognitive, affective, behavioral model?
I've read the earlier Samenow and Yochelson volumes on "The Criminal Personality," but not the more recent book by Yochelson. They created a compelling view of criminal thinking and feeling patterns, including many concepts that paralleled Adler's theory (energy level, zero state, power thrust, perfectionism). However, there are significant differences, particularly in treatment. Their approach to treatment tends to be nomothetic, systematic, and directive. The Classical Adlerian approach to treatment is more idiographic, creative, and Socratic.
We do not have special strategies for depression, anxiety, criminal behavior, or other disorders. Our challenge is to invent a unique therapeutic intervention for each "individual" who may be using symptoms or disruptive behavior in the service of a hidden goal. Initially, using a therapeutic adaptation of the Socratic method, question the client's mistaken thinking. Later on, we may use eidetic and guided imagery to generate conjunctive feelings. If needed, we may use role-playing to practice new, cooperative behavior. However, unless we also uncover and dissolve the hidden fictional goal, the mental, emotional, and behavioral changes may be superficial or temporary.
Replies:
|
| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |
Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.