Tons of information...

[AnotherRound]

I've been doing some research and found a website that is inundated with articles and research about fidelity and relationships. It not only has a ton of information, but it also has a lot of external links too, some of them quizzes to help one assess themselves in certain things.

 

The website is Affairs, cheating, infidelity, betrayal, secrets: summary of issues

 

And I don't know the counselor who created it or compiled it, and I haven't verified the sources (there are a LOT), but it looks like he has put together a really great site with a lot of useful information.

 

For those of you who don't believe in psychology or the theories that guide it, this probably isn't going to be a site that you will be interested in. It is very scientifically based, research, peer review, theoretical systems, etc. But for those who desire more information about these situations, I think you will find a lot of reading here!

 

I would be interested to see what your feedback is on a lot of the info presented. Are you in agreement with most of the scientific research? Can you see your affair or your relationships in the information? I know it's a lot of info, and can be somewhat dry bc it's research and such, but for anyone else that is interested, I would love to hear your reaction to all of the research and statistics presented.

[stillwater]

I would be interested to see what your feedback is on a lot of the info presented. Are you in agreement with most of the scientific research? Can you see your affair or your relationships in the information? I know it's a lot of info, and can be somewhat dry bc it's research and such, but for anyone else that is interested, I would love to hear your reaction to all of the research and statistics presented.

 

Interesting site. I enjoy reading these types of things because I'm a curious person. That said, I think this quote from the site sums up my view on this type of thing: "You can find an expert to agree with anything, but you can't live by statistics."

 

I certainly don't mean to dismiss the effort you took to find this, like I said it's very interesting. It's just that I experienced what I experienced, whether that agreed with the statistics or not. Just like a person who wins the lottery doesn't care that the odds were one in a trillion (no I'm not comparing the outcome of my A to winning the lottery). I guess what I'm saying is statistics are good at describing, but they don't/can't predict what will happen in any particular relationship.

[AnotherRound]

Interesting site. I enjoy reading these types of things because I'm a curious person. That said, I think this quote from the site sums up my view on this type of thing: "You can find an expert to agree with anything, but you can't live by statistics."

 

I certainly don't mean to dismiss the effort you took to find this, like I said it's very interesting. It's just that I experienced what I experienced, whether that agreed with the statistics or not. Just like a person who wins the lottery doesn't care that the odds were one in a trillion (no I'm not comparing the outcome of my A to winning the lottery). I guess what I'm saying is statistics are good at describing, but they don't/can't predict what will happen in any particular relationship.

 

I agree. I look at statistics as a sort of general average, always with outliers.

 

Honestly, the most interesting part to me about the site isn't the statistics but the theories on relationships and such. Also, there are a lot of relationship building exercises which look like they could be pretty effective. And, the self assessments are pretty interesting too and could help some people kind of figure out where they are on certain things.

 

I'm glad that you enjoyed it. I just sort of stumbled across it and was sucked in, lol.

[cocorico]

I agree. I look at statistics as a sort of general average, always with outliers.

 

Honestly, the most interesting part to me about the site isn't the statistics but the theories on relationships and such. Also, there are a lot of relationship building exercises which look like they could be pretty effective. And, the self assessments are pretty interesting too and could help some people kind of figure out where they are on certain things.

 

I'm glad that you enjoyed it. I just sort of stumbled across it and was sucked in, lol.

 

What I found particularly interesting was the "Mistress Law" in Australasia. I had not realised that they had instituted such progressive legislation!

 

(For those who have not followed the link - law in Oz and NZ now allows that, under certain conditions, an OW can have a financial claim like any other de facto R, even though their lover is contemporaneously M to someone else. Proving that the R was long term - more than two years, was stated - and that the couple was recognised as a couple - which could be by travelling together, by dining out together, etc - and that there was some financial dependence, she could qualify for a settlement if the MM dumped her. This reminds me of a signature someone had once which said "a BW's worst nightmare: I will steal your H and your money". It seems the courts may agree... At least in the enlightened southern hemisphere.)

[woinlove]

What I found particularly interesting was the "Mistress Law" in Australasia. I had not realised that they had instituted such progressive legislation!

 

(For those who have not followed the link - law in Oz and NZ now allows that, under certain conditions, an OW can have a financial claim like any other de facto R, even though their lover is contemporaneously M to someone else. Proving that the R was long term - more than two years, was stated - and that the couple was recognised as a couple - which could be by travelling together, by dining out together, etc - and that there was some financial dependence, she could qualify for a settlement if the MM dumped her. This reminds me of a signature someone had once which said "a BW's worst nightmare: I will steal your H and your money". It seems the courts may agree... At least in the enlightened southern hemisphere.)

 

More seriously, it seems that law requires something more than a long-term affair. For example, this mistress of 20 years lost her case because the judge says that although she wanted it to, she was not able to prove that their relationship had moved beyond "an affair", which is a requirement for winning matrimonial assets:

 

Dumped mistress sues for share of assets | Stuff.co.nz

 

The article says:

 

But the lover would have to prove the relationship was more than an affair and was a de facto relationship.

Edited October 1, 2012 by a LoveShack.org Moderator

[SidLyon]

More seriously, it seems that law requires something more than a long-term affair. For example, this mistress of 20 years lost her case because the judge says that although she wanted it to, she was not able to prove that their relationship had moved beyond "an affair", which is a requirement for winning matrimonial assets:

 

Dumped mistress sues for share of assets | Stuff.co.nz

 

The article says:

 

Australia's family law covers de facto relationships not just marriages. The so called "mistress law" is just an extension of this. An "ordinary" affair would not come within this. But if the APs had been living together as a de facto couple for at least 2 years or there are children then it's possible. Our law also recognises there could be more than one genuine domestic relationship going at a time.

 

Here's a good summary of defacto relationships and family law here in Aus: Defacto Relationships (click on the definition)

 

 

I'm afraid going out to dinner, traveling together and some financial dependence, of themselves are unlikely to be sufficient.

 

It wouldn't surprise me if Australia isn't the only enlightened country (as another poster pointed out). It's not a matter of recognising extramarital affairs but more about recognising genuine "living together" arrangements and any children involved, when the relationships break down.

Edited October 1, 2012 by a LoveShack.org Moderator

[SidLyon]

I've been doing some research and found a website that is inundated with articles and research about fidelity and relationships. It not only has a ton of information, but it also has a lot of external links too, some of them quizzes to help one assess themselves in certain things.

 

The website is Affairs, cheating, infidelity, betrayal, secrets: summary of issues

 

And I don't know the counselor who created it or compiled it, and I haven't verified the sources (there are a LOT), but it looks like he has put together a really great site with a lot of useful information.

 

For those of you who don't believe in psychology or the theories that guide it, this probably isn't going to be a site that you will be interested in. It is very scientifically based, research, peer review, theoretical systems, etc. But for those who desire more information about these situations, I think you will find a lot of reading here!

 

I would be interested to see what your feedback is on a lot of the info presented. Are you in agreement with most of the scientific research? Can you see your affair or your relationships in the information? I know it's a lot of info, and can be somewhat dry bc it's research and such, but for anyone else that is interested, I would love to hear your reaction to all of the research and statistics presented.

 

I like reading this sort of stuff AR.

 

I see that on LS, you've stated several times that this is "science" as if this is a "fact". You've even gone as far as suggesting that those that disagree are disagreeing with "science". If you are truly educated in this area then you'll know that it's long been debated whether psychology/psychiatry is a "science". There's plenty of credible opinion out there that it isn't, although you seem to think otherwise.

 

Psychological and psychiatric studies and articles may sometimes use a somewhat scientific method but this in itself does not make it science.

 

I prefer the view that it's a soft science at best and not a true or hard science.

[LadyGrey]

From the link you provided......I found the below interesting and believe it to be true.

 

• Remember the real estate dictum - location location location? Same with infidelity - the situation is powerful. The place has a power and mystery of its own. How, where and when the actions are situated affects the outcome.
   
  
• Our capacity for self-deception is almost limitless. The unfaithful lie to both lover, partner and to themselves in equal measure.
   
  
• Our brain camouflages its inner process - we regularly say one thing and do another, believing we actually did what we said we did. Thinking makes it so.
  

[AnotherRound]

I like reading this sort of stuff AR.

 

I see that on LS, you've stated several times that this is "science" as if this is a "fact". You've even gone as far as suggesting that those that disagree are disagreeing with "science". If you are truly educated in this area then you'll know that it's long been debated whether psychology/psychiatry is a "science". There's plenty of credible opinion out there that it isn't, although you seem to think otherwise.

 

Psychological and psychiatric studies and articles may sometimes use a somewhat scientific method but this in itself does not make it science.

 

I prefer the view that it's a soft science at best and not a true or hard science.

 

I think you misunderstood me. When I stated that people were disagreeing with science, the disagreement was with actual biology - not with psychology. It was specifically about complex thinking - and the brain's ability to do so only after certain ages/times of development. That is a proven fact, with biology research - not psychology.

 

As for psychology being a "soft" science, yes, I know that there are people that believe that. But, there are people that believe a LOT of things - that doesn't make it true. There are people that believe that there is a "man" in the sky watching over us, people that believe that there are martians on Mars, even people that dispute proven theories (this would be what you would apparently call "hard" science, not psychology) such as evolution. Those are the things I was talking about.

 

I do understand how theories work, but thank you for the feedback. When I state that something is psychological fact, I make sure that I say that - as in "in the psychology world, it is considered" etc. That way, those who don't believe in it can dismiss it if they feel the need. I'm just sharing what I know, it's up to them if they believe it or not. I will say that someone is wrong it they want to dispute gravity, evolution, or biology - as those are very tangible sciences. And, it's fairly difficult to have a conversation about many things if the two people discussing them don't agree that 2+2= 4...

 

As for here... there are people here that try to convince others that 2+2 does not =4 on some things that we really shouldn't have to be debating (the hard sciences, I guess you would call them?). I'm not going to keep trying to convince someone that the world is flat - that work has been done. If they choose not to believe it, I'm not sure what they can bring to a discussion about anything that relates to that. No big deal for me, just no point in trying to discuss it with them if they can't accept that basic truth.

 

Glad you enjoyed reading some of it.

[threebyfate]

Attachment insecurity and trauma are sometimes an unrecognised factor in the capacity for serial re-offending. The two can coincide in the one person to whom their behaviour is inexplicable. Particularly when they dissociate.

The ex-husband was diagnosed with NPD. One of his excuses for cheating was that he never felt I needed him, that I could easily leave him and find another. Well, he was right. I left him after D-day!

[SidLyon]

I think you misunderstood me. When I stated that people were disagreeing with science, the disagreement was with actual biology - not with psychology. It was specifically about complex thinking - and the brain's ability to do so only after certain ages/times of development. That is a proven fact, with biology research - not psychology.

 

As for psychology being a "soft" science, yes, I know that there are people that believe that. But, there are people that believe a LOT of things - that doesn't make it true. There are people that believe that there is a "man" in the sky watching over us, people that believe that there are martians on Mars, even people that dispute proven theories (this would be what you would apparently call "hard" science, not psychology) such as evolution. Those are the things I was talking about.

 

I do understand how theories work, but thank you for the feedback. When I state that something is psychological fact, I make sure that I say that - as in "in the psychology world, it is considered" etc. That way, those who don't believe in it can dismiss it if they feel the need. I'm just sharing what I know, it's up to them if they believe it or not. I will say that someone is wrong it they want to dispute gravity, evolution, or biology - as those are very tangible sciences. And, it's fairly difficult to have a conversation about many things if the two people discussing them don't agree that 2+2= 4...

 

As for here... there are people here that try to convince others that 2+2 does not =4 on some things that we really shouldn't have to be debating (the hard sciences, I guess you would call them?). I'm not going to keep trying to convince someone that the world is flat - that work has been done. If they choose not to believe it, I'm not sure what they can bring to a discussion about anything that relates to that. No big deal for me, just no point in trying to discuss it with them if they can't accept that basic truth.

 

Glad you enjoyed reading some of it.

 

I have to say that believing that psychology is a "soft" science is hardly on a par with the "man in the sky analogy" by which I presume you mean a religious belief in a god. Even many devoutly religious people accept this is a matter of faith and belief rather than a science (be it hard or soft) as the existence or otherwise of a god cannot be proved using the scientific method.

 

If you understand all this so well, then it's probably best not to be setting up straw men so often here on LS. I can explain this too if you want but it seems you have good understanding and research skills enough to work it out for yourself.

 

As for the bolded I hope you meant to put a "not" in there somewhere, otherwise you are admitting to being a "flat-earther"!

[AnotherRound]

I have to say that believing that psychology is a "soft" science is hardly on a par with the "man in the sky analogy" by which I presume you mean a religious belief in a god. Even many devoutly religious people accept this is a matter of faith and belief rather than a science (be it hard or soft) as the existence or otherwise of a god cannot be proved using the scientific method.

 

If you understand all this so well, then it's probably best not to be setting up straw men so often here on LS. I can explain this too if you want but it seems you have good understanding and research skills enough to work it out for yourself.

 

As for the bolded I hope you meant to put a "not" in there somewhere, otherwise you are admitting to being a "flat-earther"!

 

Lol... yes, "not flat"... that makes ALL the difference, lol.

 

I know exactly what a straw man is... I'm quite familiar.

 

If someone wants to argue, for example, that black and white thinking is not a lower level thinking, there IS proof that is false. It is a biological process that has been proven, with hard tangible facts.

 

If someone wants to argue that there is a man in the sky, that cannot be proven true or false - so people can debate all day long about its truth - bc it's simply a belief, not a fact, and not provable or disprovable (at this time).

 

In the case of the higher and lower level thinking - there is no debate about whether or not it is true - it is. And, it even has that "hard science" evidence that you were mentioning earlier. Scientists have studied the brain for hundreds of years, and concluded, without a doubt, that it develops at certain rates (in general) and that with that development SHOULD come higher level thinking skills. So, when those are not evident when someone is a grown adult, the conclusion is either they do NOT have the ability (their brain didn't develop "normally") or they choose not to use the ability. That could be the debate - but at the end of the day, there is no debate about whether or not black and white thinking is lower level thinking, or that it uses far less brain power than the higher levels of complex thinking, or that it uses different parts of the brain (and from brain research, there's quite a bit of proof re the different parts of the brain and what they do, as I'm sure you know).

 

That's probably really easily researched, even just with Google. But you seem to appear to have good research skills too, so I'm sure that you know that.

[threebyfate]

In the case of the higher and lower level thinking - there is no debate about whether or not it is true - it is. And, it even has that "hard science" evidence that you were mentioning earlier. Scientists have studied the brain for hundreds of years, and concluded, without a doubt, that it develops at certain rates (in general) and that with that development SHOULD come higher level thinking skills. So, when those are not evident when someone is a grown adult, the conclusion is either they do NOT have the ability (their brain didn't develop "normally") or they choose not to use the ability. That could be the debate - but at the end of the day, there is no debate about whether or not black and white thinking is lower level thinking, or that it uses far less brain power than the higher levels of complex thinking, or that it uses different parts of the brain (and from brain research, there's quite a bit of proof re the different parts of the brain and what they do, as I'm sure you know).

 

That's probably really easily researched, even just with Google. But you seem to appear to have good research skills too, so I'm sure that you know that.

 

Neuropsych is still in its infancy.

Edited October 1, 2012 by a LoveShack.org Moderator

[AnotherRound]

Lol... yes, "not flat"... that makes ALL the difference, lol.

 

I know exactly what a straw man is... I'm quite familiar.

 

If someone wants to argue, for example, that black and white thinking is not a lower level thinking, there IS proof that is false. It is a biological process that has been proven, with hard tangible facts.

 

If someone wants to argue that there is a man in the sky, that cannot be proven true or false - so people can debate all day long about its truth - bc it's simply a belief, not a fact, and not provable or disprovable (at this time).

 

In the case of the higher and lower level thinking - there is no debate about whether or not it is true - it is. And, it even has that "hard science" evidence that you were mentioning earlier. Scientists have studied the brain for hundreds of years, and concluded, without a doubt, that it develops at certain rates (in general) and that with that development SHOULD come higher level thinking skills. So, when those are not evident when someone is a grown adult, the conclusion is either they do NOT have the ability (their brain didn't develop "normally") or they choose not to use the ability. That could be the debate - but at the end of the day, there is no debate about whether or not black and white thinking is lower level thinking, or that it uses far less brain power than the higher levels of complex thinking, or that it uses different parts of the brain (and from brain research, there's quite a bit of proof re the different parts of the brain and what they do, as I'm sure you know).

 

That's probably really easily researched, even just with Google. But you seem to appear to have good research skills too, so I'm sure that you know that.

 

Oh, and as an aside...

 

I did state in another thread at some point that black and white thinking is considered dysfunctional "in the psychology world". That's the part that people could debate - you know, if they don't believe in psychology. So, I did make sure to point out that it was a psychology theory - not a "hard science" theory like biology.

 

Thanks though for helping me keep it clear... sometimes I have difficulty making things clear for others.

[William]

I'll stop in later today to review that the thread respondents are discussing the subject matter beyond this post. Stage Two. Thanks and have a great Sunday

[MissBee]

From the link you provided......I found the below interesting and believe it to be true.

 

These are soooo true!

 

 

• Our capacity for self-deception is almost limitless. The unfaithful lie to both lover, partner and to themselves in equal measure.
   
  
• Our brain camouflages its inner process - we regularly say one thing and do another, believing we actually did what we said we did. Thinking makes it so.
  

 

I'm laughing about my own times of self-deception smh.... Like when I convinced myself that I didn't want to go to my dream grad program because the guy I was with said he didn't want a LD relationship...and I truly talked myself into it. The whole brain camouflage stuff is so true. Fortunately we broke up and I regained my senses Then I'm thinking of my friend ina 4 year A who has wanted him to D forever and wants to get married and have babies...yet has convinced herself she wants to be his second-wife in a nonexistent polygamous relationship smh.

 

Anyway I like that those were brought to the fore, because I remember there was a topic and subconscious motives were being discussed and several people came forth to say XYZ wasn't their subconscious motive and someone else pointed out that if it is indeed subconscious, you can't say whether it is or isn't...which reminds me of the brain camouflaging its own processes. Sometimes you truly don't know until for whatever reason your brain no longer needs to self-deceive and you can look back on it, but often while in the situation requiring the self-deception, you, no matter how smart, because it's not about intellect, can't escape your own brain camouflaging process. Although there probably are things you can do, through growth and practice to make it less likely that you have to engage that process.

[Radagast]

Anyway I like that those were brought to the fore, because I remember there was a topic and subconscious motives were being discussed and several people came forth to say XYZ wasn't their subconscious motive and someone else pointed out that if it is indeed subconscious, you can't say whether it is or isn't...which reminds me of the brain camouflaging its own processes. Sometimes you truly don't know until for whatever reason your brain no longer needs to self-deceive and you can look back on it, but often while in the situation requiring the self-deception, you, no matter how smart, because it's not about intellect, can't escape your own brain camouflaging process. Although there probably are things you can do, through growth and practice to make it less likely that you have to engage that process.

 

It's very easy for anonymous laypeople on an internet to make all kinds of "diagnoses" about people's hidden / unconscious / "subconscious" motivations, smugly able to argue back if challenged that "you can't say whether it is or isn't" (usually with a "lol" added for good measure). Which of course is not true. There are plenty of tools for accessing the Unconscious / "subconscious" including hypnosis and good psychotherapy. It's perfectly conceivable for someone who has gone through processes of self-discovery such as those to resolve such issues and become aware of their hidden motivations, and to know a lot more about what drove them to do something than some random onlooker on the other side of an internet connection.

[LadyGrey]

How do you know she is a layperson? Are you?

 

It's funny that you would call her post smug when your own illustrates a high level of smugness. Her post was anything but smug. It's called self humor.

 

 

 

 

It's very easy for anonymous laypeople on an internet to make all kinds of "diagnoses" about people's hidden / unconscious / "subconscious" motivations, smugly able to argue back if challenged that "you can't say whether it is or isn't" (usually with a "lol" added for good measure). Which of course is not true. There are plenty of tools for accessing the Unconscious / "subconscious" including hypnosis and good psychotherapy. It's perfectly conceivable for someone who has gone through processes of self-discovery such as those to resolve such issues and become aware of their hidden motivations, and to know a lot more about what drove them to do something than some random onlooker on the other side of an internet connection.

[Radagast]

I would be interested to see what your feedback is on a lot of the info presented. Are you in agreement with most of the scientific research? Can you see your affair or your relationships in the information? I know it's a lot of info, and can be somewhat dry bc it's research and such, but for anyone else that is interested, I would love to hear your reaction to all of the research and statistics presented.

 

It seems largely focused on reconciling couples, from what I saw. But I found this quote interesting:

Infidelity is likely a rebellion, and an attempt to find another version of ourselves. As Esther Perel puts it, 'it is not our partners we seek to leave but ourselves'.

 

I had been with my then-wife since I was but a child, and I did at the time feel that the "me" I had been cast into in the marriage had been shaped by forces other than my free will, and I did indeed feel a need to rebel against that version of myself which I could not recognise as authentic, in order to forge a newer, more authentic, more resonant version of myself that was shaped by my own choices rather than by the circumstances to which I'd submitted myelf for the past decades. It was very much, at core, about getting back in touch with who I was, rather than who I'd been cast as and the role I'd been having to sustain through the marriage.

[AnotherRound]

It's very easy for anonymous laypeople on an internet to make all kinds of "diagnoses" about people's hidden / unconscious / "subconscious" motivations, smugly able to argue back if challenged that "you can't say whether it is or isn't" (usually with a "lol" added for good measure). Which of course is not true. There are plenty of tools for accessing the Unconscious / "subconscious" including hypnosis and good psychotherapy. It's perfectly conceivable for someone who has gone through processes of self-discovery such as those to resolve such issues and become aware of their hidden motivations, and to know a lot more about what drove them to do something than some random onlooker on the other side of an internet connection.

 

Agreed. As a mental health professional, there is an understanding in our field that in order to TRULY understand our clients and how our interactions work with them, that we all should have to sit on the other side of the desk at least once. It's not a requirement that all mental health professionals have experience being the client, but it certainly has helped me to understand that part of the process better. Not to mention, has helped me understand MY processes better.

 

And, as I continue my work in many different venues and situations, I am always learning. Not only about those I help, but about myself too. I am able to relate different discoveries and situations to my own struggles and strengths. All of the reading that I am required to do is immensely enlightening and also applicable to my own "stuff" too.

 

Knowledge really is power. Did you follow the link Radagast? I have read every single thing in it already, lol. I even followed the links and took some of the quizzes. And as usual, was able to learn even more about myself and my processes. My goal is truly self-actualization before I die - I have no idea if I'll make it, but I'll die trying!

[Radagast]

How do you know she is a layperson? Are you?

 

It's funny that you would call her post smug when your own illustrates a high level of smugness. Her post was anything but smug. It's called self humor.

 

Actually, if you read my post properly you will see I did not call her post "smug". She was referring to a type of interchange which happens on these boards, where other posters attempt to "diagnose" the "true" motives of other posters, often hiding behind claims that these motives cannot be known to those posters themselves because they are "subconscious" (and thus "unknowable"). It was those posters I was and their claims I was describing as smug, because that was indeed how I have perceived it.

 

Smug, and also wrong.

 

And yes, I am assuming they are laypeople, as is apparent from the (mis)use of terminology and the general "pop psych" rationale in the arguments that they present. Or at least, the ones I have read. I readily admit I have not read every post or even every thread on the forum.

[Radagast]

It's not a requirement that all mental health professionals have experience being the client, but it certainly has helped me to understand that part of the process better.

 

That is unusual. Many countries require previous, or concurrent, therapy as a prerequisite for registration as a counsellor or therapist on completion of the MPsych or PhD.

[AnotherRound]

That is unusual. Many countries require previous, or concurrent, therapy as a prerequisite for registration as a counsellor or therapist on completion of the MPsych or PhD.

 

I'm in the US, and nope, not required here. It is strongly encouraged, and I think it is extremely valuable, but no requirement at all. I never thought about if other countries required it... I'll have to look that up, that's interesting. We did have high level professionals in our program that "weeded out" anyone that they thought was too "soft" for the field, or anyone they thought might cause harm. But other than that, nothing I'm aware of, and I am professionally licensed, so I went through all the requirements.

 

PS... can I ask where you are? Why am I thinking Australia????

[ufo8mycat]

PS... can I ask where you are? Why am I thinking Australia????

 

Definitely not Australia. Registration as a clinical psychologist requires either a masters degree by research or four years undergraduate study plus two years supervised clinical practice.

 

I find the idea of having to have been in a therapeutic relationship a very, very strange credentialling requirement.

 

Not required for nurses, social workers, psychiatrists, or allied health professionals in australia either. I have never heard of it as a requirement for any clinician.

[seren]

When I was training for my Social Work qualification we had to, as part of the psychology section of the course, undertake some very deep self examination, linking life stages to theory, showing growth etc. Empathy for the client underpinned all practice along with other core values. personal examination for this was in greater depth than that for my psychology qualification which was more academic based than personal. I too have worked in the field of mental health, the aim being to empathise while sticking to core values which was meant to ensure everyone had the same treatment (not medical treatment) and not influenced by the worker and their view.

 

IME research and published papers can be found to explain or used to discuss most situations, theories or substantiate outcomes. I could, if I had the time or inclination, find hundreds of reports or published pieces to support most views and, by association, the same number to support opposing views. I have found very few research reports to be totally non skewed. I tend to take things as they present to me at that time and if required to make a judgement, try to ensure it is not value base laden, which is very hard, we are all influenced by our world view. I used to say I left 'me' at home and that while in work the professional me was in the building. Much the same as I try to do on LS.