EMDR

Research has shown that about five hours of EMDR treatment eliminates PTSD in 84 to 100 % of civilians with a single trauma experience including rape, accident or disaster
~Francine Shapiro

EMDR works. It's fast, simple and effective, with unprecedented success in the treatment of symptoms that have been traditionally hard to treat using CBT or talk therapy, and even medication. This success has made EMDR the most frequently sought treatment by clients, and the one most routinely prescribed by doctors and psychiatrists. Once the object of scorn within the scientific community, EMDR is now so wildly popular that its success has become a double-edged sword. 

Everybody wants EMDR!

The problem is that clients seem to believe that, because their symptoms are severe or have not responded to more conventional methods of treatment, they need EMDR, as though it were a kind of magic wand for a broad range of symptoms and problems. When all else fails, try EMDR. 

I wish it were that simple. But it is not so.

First of all, EMDR is not a broad spectrum treatment. It works only when the core of the problem can be defined and targeted by the practitioner. While its use need not be limited to symptoms of a single trauma (see above quote), when the cause of symptoms is too diffuse or undefined, i.e. a traumatic childhood, relationship or another complex cause, it cannot be treated with EMDR. There may be aspects that can be targeted but the EMDR still has to focus on one particular occurence in much the same way as radiation therapy aims at one particular tumor. It would be absolutely useless, if not to say unethical, to subject a client to EMDR to rid them of the general discomfort manifesting as, say, generalized anxiety, depression, chronic pain or low self-esteem. We would need to deal with the discomfort the same way we would deal with feathers poking through a pillow, one feather at a time. Moreover, in isolating the direct cause, other interventions may be necessary along the way.

Another thing that should be clarified is the acronym EMDR which stands for Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocesing. Though EMDR originally used eye movements to bilaterally stimulate the brain*, it was never to reach the unconscious (as in hypnotherapy). Nor is EMDR the same as tapping (EFT), mental re-programming (as in NLP) or somatic experiencing therapy 

EMDR is remarkably efficient. It is a quick fix, but it is not a panacea.

* a better acronym would be BSRT (Bilaterally Stimulated Reprocessing Therapy)

. 

fast thinking

For lent I gave up
~anonymous

They say to starve a fever and feed a cold, but I think we should starve any disease that wants to consume us. That includes addiction and any and all thoughts that lead to addiction. It also includes other diseases like anorexia, anxiety and OCD and all thoughts leading to them. Starve them before they starve you. 

Fast on ideas rather than things so as not to allow your own thoughts to consume you. This is after all the purpose of fasting, isn't it? Freedom, not weight loss or a buff physique*.

*The popular "intermittent fast" may actually feed addiction by indulging restrict-binge cycles that reinforce craving rather than freedom.

I'd rather be safe

There is a saying that goes, "Either you're right or you're in a relationship." I first came across it during Imago Therapy training. My supervisor printed it on a magnet and stuck it on her filing cabinet. 

The gist of the expression, and why it is relevant to couples, is that you cannot maintain a collaborative partnership when you're both trying to be right. It is one thing to support your view with evidence or reasoned argument; quite another to argue your point by interrupting, talking over, discrediting, demeaning or devaluing your opponent... which can further devolve into name-calling, yelling, mud slinging and stonewalling. 

Trying to be right feeds a power struggle where each party wants to win and the other side has to agree, or lose. This adversarial stance is antithetical to relationship. It feeds a warmonger mindset and has no place in relationship, let alone love. I hate it very much.

Then there are those who would rather be in relationship than be right. These are the ones who can put themselves in your shoes, see where you are coming from and validate your truth even if it is different from their own. They value keeping the peace and will agree to disagree sooner than fight over who is right. These are my peeps and I love them.

BUT

While being able to acknowledge another person's perspective is a quality that peaceful society cannot live without, it can become pathological when you are dealing with someone unable to reciprocate on this level (civil) plane. 

Relationship at any cost is popularly known as codependency*. The codependent is an unwitting passenger or co-pilot on someone else's ride. Though your original intention was not to choose someone on a power trip, to remain with a person who cannot be civil to you in a reliable or consistent way is insanity.

Another expression puts it this way: "If you're on his side and he's on his side, who's on your side?" 

Though it is good to see others as legitimate and separate entities with rights equal to our own (and treat them as such), relationships become unilateral when only one person is doing all the work. In a sense, this is as antithetical to relationship as always wanting to be right. 

Though I would rather be in a relationship than be right, when being in relationship means always being wrong, I would rather be safe, unbuckle and get on another ride.

*codependency originally referred to the loving partner (parent, sibling or friend) of someone dependent on alcohol or abusing some other substance.