Anxiety

Psychologist Albert Garcia-Romeu on Psychedelics & Consciousness

An Interview with Psychologist Albert Garcia-Romeu

Albert Garcia-Romeu, Ph.D. is an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. He's a founding member of the Johns Hopkins Center for Psychedelic and Consciousness Research and the International Society for Research on Psychedelics. His work specializes in the clinical applications of psychedelics, particularly as it applies to addiction treatment.

Sara Wilson:  Hi everybody. Thank you for joining us today for this installment of The Seattle Psychiatrist Interview Series. My name is Sara Wilson, and I'm a research intern at Seattle Anxiety Specialists. We're a Seattle-based psychiatry, psychology, and psychotherapy practice specializing in anxiety disorders.

Today, I'd like to welcome with us psychologist Albert Garcia-Romeu, PhD. Dr. Garcia-Romeu is an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. His research examines the effects of psychedelics in humans, with a focus on psilocybin as an aide in the treatment of addiction. His current research interests include clinical applications of psychedelics, real world drug use patterns, diversity in science, and the role of spirituality in mental health.

He's a founding member of the Johns Hopkins Center for Psychedelic and Consciousness Research and the International Society for Research on Psychedelics. He serves on the board of directors for the College on Problems of Drug Dependence (CPDD), and is an associate editor for the journal Psychedelic Medicine.

So before we get started today, could you please let us know a little bit more about yourself and what made you interested in pursuing psychedelic research as it relates to the study of consciousness, selfhood, and therapeutic development?

Albert Garcia-Romeu:  Yeah, absolutely. So thanks for the intro. My name is Albert Garcia-Romeu. I'm a researcher here at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine. And let's see. I mean, it's a long story in terms of how I got involved here. I've been doing this work here at Hopkins for over 11 years. And so before that even, I became interested in this area.

But initially, my work in graduate school was not even focused specifically on psychedelics. It was really much more driven by curiosity about the intersection of spirituality and mental health, and also how certain types of spiritual experiences could interact with mental health in both positive and negative ways.

And so I think a really good example of that is that people can have spiritual, or transcendent, or other types of peak experiences that can be tremendously helpful for them in a developmental state, in terms of how they developmentally are able to move throughout the lifespan and help them build resilience against difficult life events that they may face.

But other people have really powerful, intense experiences that sometimes have more negative repercussions. Things like developing psychotic and delusional states and sometimes dealing with persisting mental health challenges.

And so that was the starting point for me. My undergraduate work, I had been exposed to both eastern religion and spirituality, and philosophies like Buddhism, Taoism, and Hinduism. And that also came along with practices like meditation that I found very compelling. And I had some very powerful experiences in the meditation club that I joined during my undergraduate when I was studying philosophy and psychology at Tulane University.

But that really translated later into a curiosity about where the overlap and where the divergence was between all these spiritual and philosophical schools and what they thought about in terms of mind and selfhood, and all of the Western psychology that we learned. Including things like neuroscience and behavioral and other paradigms of psychology.

So that kind of led me into studying other schools of psychology, including humanistic and existential psychology, which Maslow was a big proponent of. And one of his areas of studying self-actualization specifically also brought in this concept of peak experiences and the idea that people could have peak experiences that help them become more self-actualized.

And so that was really a jumping off point for me in graduate school to start studying these types of experiences that some people might consider altered states of consciousness, and that they have some relationship to things like psychedelics or meditation practices.

Sara Wilson:  Yeah, thank you. I think that it's really interesting, this intersection that you've achieved in your research among existential philosophy, and therapeutics, and spirituality. I think that it's very, very good work that you do.

So now, arguably there is no single thing that is more real and immediately known than our own consciousness. However, the specific constituents of this sense of self and sense of conscious experience remains highly elusive, even among the seemingly intuitive conviction that we all have. So I was wondering before we get into the nitty-gritty, what is meant by the term consciousness, and how is this distinguished from the brain?

Albert Garcia-Romeu:  Yeah, that's a great question. I would say I don't have a good answer for you. And that was something that I was very interested in early on in my research and studies when I was in undergraduate and even in graduate school. I was really curious about consciousness and what does that mean, and where does it come from?

I've gotten a little bit more frustrated with the field over the last 10 years or so, feeling like in many ways you're kind of stuck because... And we've talked about this I think in our prior email conversations, but the idea of this hard problem of consciousness is one that we're kind of at an impasse perhaps in terms of what we're able to observe, measure, and study in an empirical manner.

But consciousness is hard to define, and it's a very slippery term. But I tend to think of it as a sort of sum of all of the things that we're aware of, both internally and externally. And so we're aware of what's going on around us in the environment, and we're also often aware of what's going on in our bodies if we're feeling certain sensations or we have emotional states that we're going through. And so this is a sort of immediate first person experience that we're living in. So that's typically what many of us think of as consciousness. And of course, that's changing from moment to moment, and that can also be altered by using certain practices like meditation or psychoactive drugs.

But there's probably not one definition of consciousness that everybody would agree on. And that also makes it really hard for us to find meaningful ways to study that phenomenon. Because when we're talking about consciousness of certain stimuli, for instance, we can start to look at what are the component processes that the brain is going through to be aware of, say something like a sound, or something that we're seeing visually.

But when it comes to the whole gestalt or the whole first person experience that we're going through in a subjective experience at any point, there's really not a good explanation for the mechanics of that, how that comes to be, where it comes from, and why it even is that we have the type of experience that we have. And so that then makes it very difficult for us to be scientific about studying it, although there are lots of folks who are working on in that area, many of whom are very interested in brain related mechanisms and processes. But eventually, I sort of veered away from that and much more towards clinical work.

Sara Wilson:  Right. Yeah. I remember you saying in an interview with the American Psychological Association, that many of these trials with psychedelics, for example, are focused on how the brain is responding to these drugs. And you say that it's more of a question of how the mind is responding to these drugs, which I think is definitely conversant with the hard problem of consciousness, because that's where you start to see changes in self-identity in a way that allows someone to fully live their life. And maybe that can manifest itself in measurable behavioral changes or brain functioning, but it is hard to clinically measure. So I guess that's an enduring problem in both psychology and philosophy, I guess, and many other disciplines.

Albert Garcia-Romeu:  Yeah, yeah, I agree with you. We kind of run up against a limitation of what we're able to observe, because consciousness is in many ways, a first person phenomenon. So even the idea of whether or not other people around us are conscious, or whether the kind of consciousness that they experience is similar or not to what we experience is hard to say. I mean, we can't really tell that for certain. And so that makes it a sticky problem for something like empirical hard sciences to wrap our collective minds around.

Sara Wilson:  Yeah. So you already touched on the hard problem and the problem of other minds, so I think it's fair to move on. I was just curious, why do you enjoy studying consciousness through catalysts such as meditation and psychedelics? Why is this research important in a therapeutic context?

Albert Garcia-Romeu:  Yeah. To me, that was a really important jumping off point just because the idea that there's a sort of baseline state of consciousness as people like Charlie Tart have posited, and that we're kind in this baseline state of consciousness much of the time without knowing that, that we flip channels between being awake, being asleep, sometimes dreaming, and then that there's these other channels or modes of consciousness that we can enter, really became clear to me when I started practicing meditation initially when I was in undergraduate, and having specifically a really powerful experience practicing a meta loving kindness meditation, and having this feeling of... I don't really even know how to explain it, but there was this strong feeling of love radiating out of me all throughout the entire universe. And also just sitting there, and then all of a sudden opening my eyes when the bell rang, and just having tears streaming down my face, and a lot of really intense emotions coming along with that.

And realizing, "Wow, the way that I'm walking around most of the time doesn't mean that that's the way that I always have to be feeling and experiencing the world," and that there are these very powerful tools that we have at our disposal, these techniques or these practices, to change that way that we're experiencing things.

And that was an important realization for me that led to an ongoing fascination with what is consciousness and what are altered states. And eventually, really zeroing in on how we can use these in a way that's pragmatic and helpful.

Particularly for things like mental health conditions like major depression, anxiety, substance use disorders, where you might even think of the actual condition as almost a state of stuckness of consciousness to certain patterns. Getting trapped in these loops over and over again, thinking about oneself, thinking about negative things that could happen or that have happened, or being constantly focused on certain compulsive behaviors, or obsessive thinking about whatever it might be. Substances, for instance, is a great example. And how do we shake one out of those dysfunctional loops, so that they can get back on with their lives?

And so that was eventually where I landed. It took quite some time from initially being interested in what are these altered states and how do we elicit them, to finally getting to a point of saying, "Well, now I know more about what they are, but now we need to understand, how do we use them?" And that's kind of where I've landed most recently.

Sara Wilson:  Right. Yeah. I think that you touched on a lot of very interesting points in that response, particularly ramifications of being conscious with your sense of self and a sense of agency over self. I feel like humans have a tendency to think of the world and think of self as fixed entities that we don't have much agency over.

So I guess bringing the conversation more towards selfhood, in your article “Self-Transcendent Experience: A Grounded Theory Study”, you discuss self-transcendence. What is self-transcendence, and how do participants describe a self-transcendent experience?

Albert Garcia-Romeu:  That is difficult to pin down, because just like consciousness, the idea of what the self is isn't really any... There's no conclusive sort of definition that everyone's going to agree on throughout different disciplines and psychology and philosophy. But there is, again, a very intuitive sense that many of us have that I am this self, I am this person, and that's a collection of memories, and experiences, and also behaviors and habits that we kind of grow into and develop over time. And of course, that also encompasses our bodily sense of self, us being this being in the world that's moving around in space and time.

So the idea of that self then becoming enmeshed with or entangled with something greater than itself. So connecting with something bigger. And that's often a theme that you find in things like spiritual experiences, for instance, or these types of peak or mystical type experiences. Where the feeling of selfhood is temporarily almost offline, such that the boundaries between what I thought of as in here myself and out there, everything else, are very blurry.

And then all of a sudden, there's this sense of interconnectedness between what's inside and outside, or even this sense of non-duality that there is no inside or outside, that there really is just one entire organism or process, if you will, that's happening, and that you're just one part of that process.

And losing that sense of selfhood can both be frightening and overwhelming. And that can often happen to people when they're having experiences both in meditation and using psychedelics. But that can also be a very ecstatic type of experience, and it can lead to a lot of positive emotions, and potentially, I think psychological healing.

And that's really become one of the main areas that we've been focusing on specifically with therapeutic use of psychedelics, because these self-transcendent experiences outside of psychedelics and psychedelic research, they tend to be difficult to elicit. We can't make them happen when we want them to happen. They tend to occur spontaneously a lot of the time. When I was doing that small study that was part of my graduate dissertation work, I had interviewed a number of people about experiences that they considered transcendent, where they felt like they were in touch with something larger than their normal sense of self.

And what struck me is that there were a number of different triggers or catalysts that seemed to help people get there. And some of those included taking psychoactive substances like psychedelics. But also, others included engaging in spiritual practices, meditation, going on retreats, having different types of fasting or prayer practices that they were engaging in.

For other people though, this seemed to happen much more spontaneously. I mean, it would just come out of the blue. There wasn't necessarily any intentional practice to get there. And that was also something that maybe was elicited by something like being in nature or being around something that could be awe-inspiring like a waterfall or the Grand Canyon.

So the idea that we can't necessarily have these transcendent types of experiences happening when we want them make them very hard to study, we kind of have to do it retrospectively and try to put the pieces together.

But the exciting thing about the research with psychedelics over the last few decades has been specifically that in many people, it seems like we can, by using both careful preparation and then high dose psychedelic administration, help people get there in a much more reliable fashion. And then that allows us to study these types of experiences in a way that's much more convenient and easy to do, even in a laboratory setting.

So that's I think one of the major ramifications of the work we're doing, is that it allows us to really put these experiences under a microscope. Whether we're putting people in brain scanners, or we're just having them on the couch and then asking them about what it is that they're going through.

Sara Wilson:  What are the perceived therapeutic outcomes of having a self-transcendent experience?

Albert Garcia-Romeu:  That can be really hard to say, because it varies so widely between people. And for some people, this can be a short-lived just moment of “Aha”, this feeling of insight or realization, and going back to the way they continue to operate for some time.

For other people, it can actually sometimes be not so therapeutic, and it can be distressing, and it can lead to some destabilization, I would say. And even for some folks, in extreme cases, they can end up having delusional thinking or psychotic types of symptoms, which can be short-lived or sometimes persisting. So obviously, that's something to keep an eye on and to be concerned about.

But for other folks, there's definitely what you would consider benefits, therapeutic types of effects. So I'm just coming out of a room from a session where we're doing here for one of our studies, and the person really describing to me that the experiences that they've had here with psilocybin, which really were a powerful altered space, were really helpful in a lot of ways for them outside of the session room and in real life.

For instance, one thing that I was just told was - it was feeling that oftentimes, when people are treating her in a way that's not healthy or positive, that her gut reaction was just to let it slide, not to say anything, and just to kind of move on and suck it up. And that since she's had the experiences here in the study that she's been in, she's been much more forthright about the fact that it's not okay with her to be treated that way, that she's not comfortable with certain things, just being upfront and honest about it.

And so changing that pattern of communicating and socially interacting with people in a different way, which she also felt has been much better for her in terms of her mental health and feeling like it was really nice to get that off my chest. And that when I responded in that way, people also responded in kind and said, "I'm sorry. I shouldn't have been acting that way. That was a misstep, and I apologize."

So there's often shifts that can come along with these types of transcendent experiences that people can have, where it kind of shakes them out of some of their old patterns. And some of those old patterns might be behaving in ways that are not healthy. And if you can help instill in a person this movement in the right direction, then these experiences can be very therapeutically helpful to overcome some of those negative past patterns, and to put in place things that we hope are healthier and more adaptive.

Sara Wilson:  Yeah, I think that you definitely bring awareness to the fact that we need to be aware that not everybody is ready for these catalysts of self transcendent experience. So to be aware of important markers of when somebody might be ready to transcend the boundary of self.

And I think it definitely also speaks to the importance of acknowledging a person as a being that goes through stages of development. So I know that in major depression or the dissociative disorders, maybe schizophrenia, it's characterized by a lack of a foundational sense of minimal selfhood. So maybe in order to transcend self, it's important to still have an effective sense of self before you can get to that next stage.

Albert Garcia-Romeu:  Absolutely. And so we think about that. In different terms, you can talk about, for instance, having sufficient ego integrity. But yeah, having that sense of self that's stable enough that it can be shaken up a little bit, or that some of those boundaries can get blurred without necessarily leading to adverse reaction, or a feeling of total destabilization, or getting immersed in chaos.

I think it was... Gosh, I forget who said it, but I think it was Joseph Campbell who said, "The person who's going through psychosis is drowning in the same waters that the mystic is swimming in."

And so it's this idea that for some people at certain times in their lives, they can go into these transcendent or peak experiences and lose their sense of self, and it can be therapeutic or it can be beneficial for them in the longer term. And for others, they may not be in a place where having that kind of experience is a positive one, and it can actually lead to more disorientation, distress. And so that's something you have to be mindful of, certainly with psychedelic therapies. But even with things like meditation, where you've seen that certain folks can have difficult experiences that can sometimes lead to ongoing problems.

Sara Wilson:  Right. Yeah. One question that came to mind from an evolutionary perspective was, how could it ever be adaptive to lose ourselves? How could it ever be adaptive for any organism to overcome self-interest?

Albert Garcia-Romeu:  Well, you can think of the evolutionary purview in many ways for us to survive, procreate, keep the organism alive, basically. And so that means find food, find safe shelter, safe haven, avoid things that are trying to harm you, and find potentially a mate and procreate, and then keep the biology going. And on very simple terms, that's what we're programmed to do.

But you can also think of all of the culture, and language, and stuff that we built up in the history of humankind. And obviously looking at things like social media, or how many followers do you have, we can get very entrenched in this tunnel vision. And I think that's something that we've seen ever since post industrialization for sure, but maybe even earlier on, is that people get sucked into certain things that they're very perhaps over-concerned with. And that may be things like status, it may be things like social standing, how other people perceive us. And that can potentially lead to this ongoing over concern or rigid pattern of really reifying these things, these constructs, whatever they may be.

And so when we get stuck in these patterns and we potentially end up in pathological or unhealthy ways of being and thinking and feeling, so exactly that is when the idea that you could get outside of those loops or those patterns, I think is when we'd be able to potentially have a therapeutic intent to go in there and then shift those patterns, get somebody out of these maladaptive ways of thinking about themselves or the world.

So you can think in a very basic sense, if somebody's got just a very negative view of themselves in the world, and that's the way that they see things, and that's the way they sort of have landed in terms of their worldview and their way of thinking about things, then that would be a really nice thing to be able to transcend out of, to then potentially see other ways of seeing the world in themselves and say, "Oh yeah, I've gotten really stuck, entrenched in thinking about things this way. But there are other ways of thinking and seeing things, and maybe I can practice some of that, and maybe I can become part of my repertoire that could then lead to a healthier mental mindset."

Sara Wilson:  Yeah. I think it's very hard to extricate ourselves from a lot of our daily practices once we become so entrenched in them, and not even fully comprehending what it's doing to us, to what it's doing to our ability to interact with others, and perceive our world, and how we perceive ourselves. And I think the importance of having an existential experience related to a core selfhood is maybe one of the only ways to really get out of those patterns, of those maladaptive patterns.

Albert Garcia-Romeu:  Yeah. And sometimes, something that's adaptive at a time, at a certain stage or phase of our life or of our existence, may not be later on down the line. And so in order to get from point A to point B, we may need to transcend ourselves multiple times over time, the lifespan.

And just thinking about something as simple as object permanence or conservation from Piaget in development, when children go through these stages of not knowing that when you're playing peekaboo, that you're not disappearing, that you're still there. And then all of a sudden, having this kind of transcendent realization that, "Yes, even when I can't see them, they're still there." And then moving on up through that.

Those are in ways, key developmental milestones where all of a sudden, we've shifted the way that we understand the world around us. And so I think it's kind of inbuilt in us in many ways to continue to transcend.

However, it's also extremely common nowadays, I would say, for adults to sort of get to where they're at in perhaps their twenties, thirties, and so on, and stop developing in some ways, and becoming stagnant.

So it can lead to what my mentor and professor at graduate school, Jim Fadiman used to call this psychosclerosis, this hardening of the attitudes where we just kind of like, "Well, I know everything I need to know. I'm a fully formed person, so what else is there to do or to learn?" But if you keep having this idea in the back of your mind that there is more growth and there is more development, then that allows us to keep visiting that transcendent territory, and hopefully becoming a better version of ourselves.

Sara Wilson:  Yeah, for sure. Yeah, I love that. So we've already touched on this quite a bit actually, but could you explain to our audience what psychedelics are, and what specific altered states of consciousness can occur with psychedelic interaction?

Albert Garcia-Romeu:  Yeah. Psychedelics are a fascinating class of substances. And I even hesitate to use the term drug. I mean, you can say drug because some of them are molecules that were made by humans, but many of them are just these naturally occurring, found in nature molecules. And psilocybin is a great example.

It's something that is an alkaloid that's produced by over 200 different species of mushrooms. Why exactly do mushrooms make this specific chemical? We don't know. But for whatever reason, it interacts with our brain's serotonin receptors. And specifically what we call the classic psychedelics, including substances like LSD, psilocybin, DMT, mescaline. Many of these are occurring in nature, and then they're something that people have had a longstanding relationship with, have used for a long time. These mushrooms, for instance, that are containing psilocybin, because of their psychoactive effects. And so in terms of how they work, we believe that the serotonin 2A receptor is a big part of the puzzle in terms of the neurotransmitter, the pharmacology of the drug.

There's more to it than that. And we're slowly unlocking these mechanisms as we do more science to really drill down on what's happening in the brain when people and animals are exposed to these substances. But they have these really profound psychoactive effects, which I think is one of the reasons why people have taken them for so long.

And so for instance, we know that for thousands of years now, people have made artifacts around these types of mushrooms, showing that they have a sacred status in ancient and indigenous cultures. And the Aztec people, for instance, called the mushrooms teonanacatl which roughly translates to the divine flesh.

So for a long time, people have known about these substances, they've used them. And in terms of what they're doing, they can produce changes in our perceptions, and changes in our cognitions, the way that our mind is working and that we're thinking, and intense changes in our emotional state. And when that's happening, people are under the influence of psychedelics. It can last, depending on the substance, six hours, eight hours, or even longer.

And during the drug effects, people feel these altered states of consciousness. So their brain and their mind is working quite a different way from their normal sense of self.

But what's also very interesting and what we found in more contemporary research over the last 20 years or so, is that those temporary altered states of consciousness also seem to have an association with or can be linked to altered traits or altered ways of being in the world, and altered ways of experiencing ourselves and the world.

And that from a psychotherapist standpoint is very exciting, because one of the key things that people come to therapy for is because they want to find some way to change something that's not working for them, or somewhere where they feel stuck.

And so there's something about the altered consciousness that psychedelics can bring about that seems to lend itself to helping people make these longer term trait changes, which is fascinating because there's not a lot out there that we know of that can really do that in a reliable way.

Now, in terms of what kinds of altered states that people experience, it really runs the gamut because people can have... And it depends on the dose, which is very true in pharmacology in general. If you have a little sip of wine, it's going to be a very different experience than having a whole glass or a whole bottle of wine. And so the dose definitely affects the way that the drug is experienced.

But on lower doses, people often are having visual perceptual changes. It also depends on the drug, because they all have a slightly different pharmacological profile the way that they work and bind to different receptors.

But generally, these serotonin 2A agonist classic psychedelics are causing both these visual and perceptual changes, which are reminiscent of the types of tie-dye and paisley art and imagery that we see from the 1960s when psychedelics were a big part of the counterculture.

But then there can be certain characteristic types of experiences that people have when they're under the influence. And some of these can include autobiographical content that can come up.

I've talked to people, for instance, who have said they've taken ayahuasca, which is a DMT containing psychedelic mixture that's used in Amazonian cultures in Central South America. And what they've said about their experiences, it was almost like their brain was playing a highlight reel for them of all the terrible things they ever did in their lives, all of the things that they regretted, they felt bad about. And that in through going through, that they were also in a way able to go back and come to terms with and forgive themselves for having gone through that, and realizing maybe I knew better, and I needed to learn from that experience. Or maybe I didn't know any better, and that was just an honest mistake that I made.

But by going through that process, it can be very helpful, or at least people have told me that can be very helpful for letting go of some of these feelings of guilt and shame about things that have happened in the past.

Besides autobiographical content, though, people can have all sorts of really unusual content. Whether they feel like they're seeing imagery. And some of that imagery may be very basic geometric shapes and colors. But other times, people can find themselves in whole alternate dimensions where they see themselves in outer space, underwater, seeing themselves interacting with other creatures or beings. Some that might be experienced as having sentience or consciousness of their own.

Sometimes, people feel as though they're having encounters with higher power of some sort, and that may be a deity like Jesus Christ or some sort of incarnation of a Buddha, for instance, or saints, or visions of other types of spiritual figures.

Sometimes, people talk about having experiences where they're in contact with lost relatives and loved ones that they're no longer with us, but that they're able to re-contact during their experience.

Sometimes people can also have very challenging and frightening experiences where they feel paranoid, they feel strong anxiety, they feel a lot of disorientation. So that's something that we have to work with acutely when people are here in the dosing sessions. And it's also something that we see obviously, when people are using these substances recreationally. And sometimes they need to be cared for either by medical or psychological people, or by friends and loved ones who happen to be there.

And another big experience that we see and that we've spent a lot of time studying is this what we call mystical type experience. But I think that can really be interchangeably called a number of different things, whether we're talking about a unit of experience, or a spiritual or transcendent experience.

And really, there the key is just this sense of oneness with everything around us or with the universe. And I think that sense of unity is one of the key features that people will often describe when they go through these high dose experiences.

Sara Wilson:  Yeah. In your article “Clinical Applications of Hallucinogens”, you find a meaningful interaction between mystical experience and the big five personality traits, particularly increased levels of openness to experience. And I was wondering if you could explain these findings a little bit for our audience.

Albert Garcia-Romeu:  Sure. And so that's from some early work that was published out of this lab here at Hopkins. And what I think is more interesting now is that we've seen a shift in the data. So they're not all consistent, and that's not uncommon in science.

But what I would say is that really, the initial cohort that went through some of the early studies with psilocybin here at Johns Hopkins, this was work that was conducted by Roland Griffiths and Bill Richards, and others who were here at the time, Mary Cosimano.

And what they found though, was they took a bunch of healthy people. So they weren't people with any particular mental health condition like depression, but they actually had a clean bill of mental health. And they volunteered to join the study where we would give them a high dose of a psychedelic drug. Many of them had never taken any type of drug like that before.

And what they found in these early studies were that those people were coming in with a high level of baseline openness, higher than your average, at least average college student, which is what a lot of these data come from with psychological tests and inventories.

However, what they also found was that the greater mystical type experience they had under the influence of psilocybin, then those individuals were having increases in their personality openness, which is one of the five domains that's been proposed within this model of five factor model personality. There's openness, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness and neuroticism.

And so what we found with healthy people is that when you get people who have mystical type experiences with psychedelics, that increases their personality openness. And that's actually quite interesting, because personality openness has got a number of little subdomains or factors. But that includes things like aesthetic appreciation for art and music, and also open-minded tolerance of others' viewpoints. And so by being more open to others' views, that's something that could really be helpful in a lot of ways, if you think about what we find ourselves in contemporary culture.

Now, that data though, now that we've kind of zoomed out... And I recently came back from the Psychedelic Science conference in Denver where I went with a group of my colleagues here from Hopkins, and one of them, Nate Sepeda, was presenting on some data that we'll publish soon.

But he looked at data from hundreds of people that have gotten psilocybin in these different studies. And what he was finding was that there wasn't one clear path in terms of how high dose psilocybin was affecting your personality. But that for instance, different groups of people were showing different patterns.

So one of the things that's been found is that, for instance, people with depression, they tend to come in with higher baseline levels of neuroticism. And that tends to be something that comes down after treatment with psilocybin. And for some people, there's also increases in things like extroversion. Or basically, the ability and the desire to be social with other people.

So I guess the story here in terms of impact of psychedelics on personality is still taking shape, and it's still a little unclear. But depending on where you start, we can say that there's potentially some type of response that you may have in terms of your personality possibly being changed after these experiences. And for some people, the mystical type experience, certainly for healthy people, can lead to increases in openness. And for other people, we can see different changes like reductions in neuroticism or changes in some of these other factors like extroversion.

And so there's still a lot more to study there. But I think one of the takeaways there is that it sort of depends on what your personality is like when you go into that, which is a big maximum of psychedelic research, this idea of set and settings. So the person that's going into it is going to be impacted differentially because of who they are when they show up to that experience.

Sara Wilson:  Yeah. Okay, yeah. This leads us really nicely actually into my next question, which is, are the changes in personality elicited by psychedelics encouraging or bringing out traits that were already in the person?

Albert Garcia-Romeu:  So that's a difficult question to answer. We can't really say yay or nay on that, because it's kind of unclear where a person's, what their inherent tendencies are. You can say psychedelics are really uncovering who a person was all along, but it's hard to say yes, that's who the person was all along, in any sort of authoritative way.

But there's an idea in psychedelic therapy, this idea that psychedelics can kind of help people get in touch with parts of themselves that perhaps have been obscured or maybe covered over by life experience. And by getting back in touch with those parts of ourselves, they can help us get to where we're supposed to be going or develop more towards our true self, whatever that is, leading us towards more authenticity. So I think that that's certainly a working hypothesis that many people have brought to this psychedelic therapy and research space.

Sara Wilson:  Yeah. I guess regardless of whether it's helping us get in touch with our true self or helping us get to where we ought to be going, I think it definitely does illustrate the positive, powerful potential in the human brain as something that we can unlock certain things, whether that's who we are or where we should be going.

Albert Garcia-Romeu:  And really, what I think is more pertinent is that if you think about people, a lot of who we are is predicated on what we experience and what we're taught. And so for instance, a person who's raised in a certain family, and culture, and environment may take on lots of ideas and beliefs that they may not have chosen. They're just what were thrust upon them as they were children and then growing up.

And so what's really nice about psychedelics is that it seems like it can help people to take a step back, and reexamine those beliefs and those ways of thinking about the world and themselves and say, "Now how much of this is actually true? How much of these are beliefs that I want to hang onto and that I feel are authentically a part of who I am?" And how much of this can I say, "You know what? That was stuff that other people basically spoon fed me, and I don't think I need to be this way, feel this way, think this way anymore." So you can think of lots of examples.

But being raised in a xenophobic, or racist, or homophobic type of situation I think is a great way to think about when we're spoon-fed some perhaps not particularly healthy ways of thinking about the world, and we're able to step back and say, "Is this really who I am or who I want to be?" And then making a more conscious, informed decision as an adult.

Sara Wilson:  Why do you think it's difficult for people to address deeply rooted issues naturally, and how might psychedelics help facilitate getting in touch with our subconscious?

Albert Garcia-Romeu:  That's a great question. I think it really depends. But oftentimes, just like what we're just talking about, when we have big experiences, traumatic experiences even, they can be so overwhelming that, again, the ego integrity, our ability to really process those experiences just isn't there yet.

And so it may be something that we just don't know what to do with. It's almost like you're handed this big experience that is really powerful, and intense, and disruptive in a way to one's worldview and one's sense of self and saying, "I don't know what to do with this. I have to put it somewhere where it's out of sight and out of mind," so it can stay there for many years for lots of people.

And I should say I'm talking more now from clinical and lived experience and less from empirical data here. But it seems to me that when we go through these types of really difficult experiences... And it can happen at any time of our life. It might be childhood, but it could be in adulthood, it doesn't matter. It can be so frightening, powerful, or overwhelming.

And you can think of, for instance, a veteran who's in a combat zone and is in an experience where their life is in danger. They may see other people that they're with being harmed or killed. And again, their number one priority at that point is survival, make sure I get through this. So they may not have time to even then as adults, process that experience then and there. And it may be so unpleasant and so intense that again, it kind of gets swept under the rug.

So we have a tendency to often have these big experiences and try to get past them, move beyond them, but perhaps not really deal with them to the level that they need to be processed for us to make sense of them and to come to terms with them.

And I think psychedelics have a really powerful way of sweeping out whatever's under the rug for us to see and say, "Hey, this was important." Whether you were able to deal with it or not, now is a time for us to go back to this and look at it, and try to put this together with the rest of the life experience in a way that is cogent and makes sense, and that we can also come to some sense of acceptance or at least acknowledgement that yes, this is something that occurred. This is a part of my life story, whether I would've chosen it or not. It is there. It is what it is. And from there, I think you can get to a place where from a therapeutic standpoint, people can engage in some healing around that.

Sara Wilson:  Yeah. What would the introduction of psychedelics look like in therapy, and why is it important to couple talk therapy with the psychedelic sessions?

Albert Garcia-Romeu:  So because of the powerful alter state of consciousness, I think it's really important to have some level of psychological support around that. And it may not necessarily be a formal psychotherapy, like cognitive behavioral therapy, or ACT, or motivational interviewing, but it could be. And that's something that we've used. We've used these types of therapeutic modalities successfully in different studies here, and other labs across the country, and even overseas. And what we're doing there is a couple of things. And they're very basic, but at the same time complicated in many ways.

So the basics are that first, before there's even a real therapeutic process, we're often screening people just to assess their level of physical and mental safety to undergo this type of experience. I think this is a really important part of the process that doesn't get talked about enough, because people often want to jump right to the drug experience or to even the therapy.

But before we start the therapy, it's kind of like when people are coming in for any sort of medical procedure, we want to make sure this person is going to be able to go through this safely. And that could both mean looking at their liver and kidney function, looking at their cardiovascular function, but also looking at their past history of mental health and their family mental health history.

Because sometimes, there's clues there that perhaps this person may have an adverse reaction. And obviously, you typically are trying to avoid that, specifically in cases where you think you might trigger something like a latent psychosis or a potential bipolar mood condition. So those are the types of things we're doing before we even get started in the process.

But when we get into the actual psychedelic therapy, we're often starting with several weeks of just rapport building. Meaning if I'm sitting in the sessions with somebody, before we give them the drug, we're going to spend six to eight hours with them over the course of several weeks, getting to know more about them, making sure that they feel comfortable with us, getting a good sense of their life story. Particularly formative events.

And that can mean anything from their childhood and family history, growing up, going to school, important relationships, friendships, mentors, romantic relationships.

And then going from there, to just develop a sense that you're safe here with us. You're in a place where you can be yourself and be honest and open with us. And then developing that I think is really one of the first steps to doing psychedelic therapy safely so that even if people encounter these really scary or difficult parts of an experience, that they can work together with the facilitators to make it through that in a way that's not harmful.

The other big piece of this preparatory process is twofold. The one is explaining to people what it is that they're going to be potentially experiencing, because it is a very strong altered state of consciousness that includes intense emotions, changes in perception and thinking. That can be disorienting and frightening.

And so giving people a lowdown and saying, "This is what sometimes happens. And we don't know what's always going to happen, but we want to give you a sense for where we're at and what could occur." And finally, setting some form of therapeutic intention. Specifically when we're doing this as part of a therapy package, that typically is going to come along with some sort of therapeutic target or indication. Major depression, tobacco use disorder, existential distress related to illness.

And so part of understanding the person's life and their life story is where they're at now, and what's brought them here to us, and what is it that they're dealing with, and what does that look like in daily life when you're depressed or when you're struggling with an addiction.

And then that then sets the stage for saying, "Well, this is where I'm at." And then kind of determining, so where do you want to be? Or what would you like to get out of this process? How can we help support that? And what would life on the other side of a successful treatment look like to you?

And so really helping the person envision that, and also come up with strategies. Because it's not just a matter of, bam, take the pill and all my problems are gone. But it's really about on the ground, how do you make this something that's a sustainable change that's for the better for this person?

So that's really I think what the whole supportive therapeutic process is about, is getting somebody ready to go through the experience, providing the safe container for them to have the experience during the drug session or sessions. Sometimes, we'll go up to three sessions or more. But then also afterwards, providing a supportive process for integration where if there were insights, if there were difficult memories or difficult parts of the experience, or really anything that came up during the sessions, that you're able to work together to make sense of it, and take away anything valuable or useful from that. And put it into practice, so that it's more of a long-term change and not just, "Wow, I had this realization. But now I'm going to go right back to the way I was beforehand."

Sara Wilson:  Yeah. Okay. So in your article “Clinical Applications of Hallucinogens”, you claim that it is a moral responsibility of biomedical researchers to explore every possible treatment, which I think is very interesting. Could you talk about this a little more for our audience?

Albert Garcia-Romeu:  Yeah. Well, my main thrust there is that there was good research in the 1950s and '60s and '70s to show that when used responsibly and carefully, that psychedelics would be really potentially useful for a number of different types of mental health conditions, including things like alcohol use disorder.

Now, the data weren't always consistent. Part of the problem there being the early research, they didn't necessarily have a good grasp on what the proper model was to use these types of tools. They were very new at the time. LSD was not even really discovered until 1943, psilocybin not until 1958. And so when using these new tools, there were different results in early research, but there was still an underlying thread there that this could be helpful.

And unfortunately, this really got wrapped up in a lot of politics, the counterculture. And I wrote a little blog for Psychology Today about this as well called “Psychedelics Reconsidered”, where I really talk about more of the historical arc of this culturally.

Because at the time, psychedelics and cannabis got really associated with the counterculture, and the counterculture was seen by the powers that be at the time, and certainly the Nixon administration, but just conservative politicians in general as a real threat to the status quo.

And so as a result, there was a huge amount of energy put into stigmatizing this idea that these were dangerous, that they're going to destroy your children's lives, and that they're something that need to be banned, put under lock and key. And as a result, it became very taboo to think about doing the type of research that we're doing now from 1970 on.

And so it took several decades until you finally start to see that thaw, where scientists like Rick Strassman, Roland Griffiths, Franz Vollenweider and others begin to set the modern era of research underway, Dave Nichols. And they're really starting to bring it back to, "Okay, let's see, can these things be useful? Or are they just these dangerous drugs of abuse, like many people have been saying for years?"

And come to find now that absolutely, there are ways that we can use these therapeutically, and they seem to hold a great deal of potential. And there's a lot there that we don't know yet, but there's been studies from various labs around the world showing robust, rapid acting antidepressant effects.

And when you're dealing with a large number of people who are struggling with major depression, and a not inconsequential number of people who are refractory to treatment, meaning that we give them the best medications and talk therapy that we have, and that they're not getting much better, then I think it is our moral responsibility to explore all the avenues available. And psychedelics represent one area of that, but there's lots more going on.

So it's a pretty exciting time, I think, for mental health research. And we're seeing a lot more outside the box thinking, which is I think a good thing.

Sara Wilson:  Yeah, certainly. So I don't think that there's an obvious answer to this question, but feel free to postulate. Your studies really illustrate not only what consciousness is and the current metaphysics of mind, but also what consciousness can be, and what it can mean to be human. Based on the research you've pursued, do you think that there's a higher level of consciousness that can be achieved, and maybe what might this look like?

Albert Garcia-Romeu:  Yeah, that's a really interesting question to sit back, and ponder, and hypothesize about. Lots of different people are going to have different answers to this question.

I think one of the most compelling accounts that I've seen of this type of thinking of higher levels of consciousness is really from philosophers like Ken Wilber, and others whose work he based his work on, like Jean Gebser. Beck and Cowan who did Spiral Dynamics.

So these thinkers have sort of postulated that just like a regular single human being is going to go through different phases of development in the lifespan, and just like we're talking about with cognitive development and Piaget, and this idea of developing object permanence or getting to a level of understanding conservation.

As we move through these stages, one might say that it's a higher level of consciousness, or one might say simply it's a different level of consciousness, where we've reached a different level of understanding, again, of ourselves in the world. Now what's higher or lower, what's better or worse? Some of that can be relative. And certainly, there's also cultural differences that come to play here.

But I do think if you want to step back and look at us as a species of creatures that live on a planet with finite resources and other creatures on the same planet, that there are certain things that work better than others. And if we're going around, for instance, killing off all the other species, or even harming each other, whether it be across racial boundaries, or across territorial or religious boundaries, those are not necessarily outcomes that are desirable.

And so many thinkers like Wilber and others have seen that as humans develop over time and go through different phases and stages of development, that perhaps cultures also do the same thing. And that in that regard, perhaps higher states of consciousness and cultural development as well are those that are leading us to live in more peace and harmony with ourselves and with other cohabitants of the planet where we are.

And so that's probably my best answer, my best guess as to an answer is really anything that leads us towards having a more peaceful and harmonious existence with one another and within ourselves. And so coming back to the individual level is, how do we get to this state of optimal well-being? And how do we then put that into practice by hopefully having positive and peaceful interactions with the people and creatures around us?

Sara Wilson:  Yeah. So as this very stimulating conversation is now coming to a close, I wanted to ask you, is there anything else you would like to share with our audience about avenues of research you are finding most exciting right now, or just more broadly?

Albert Garcia-Romeu:  Yeah. I mean, there's a lot going on with the field of psychedelic research, which I'm heavily involved in. But I find it really exciting to see both this area of clinical and therapeutic research is really taking off, both doing bigger and more well controlled studies and conditions like depression and substance use disorders.

But also starting to explore new conditions. Alzheimer's disease, chronic Lyme disease, different areas that we're starting to dip our toes in the water to see, can we use psychedelics for these populations? Can we help people with end of life existential distress? Can we help people with chronic illnesses?

So that's a really exciting area. And we're seeing more and more research too on the mechanisms of, how in the world do these drugs exert these long-lasting changes and benefits that people are reporting? So brain research, neuroimaging, animal research, cellular molecular research is elucidating the mechanisms of how these drugs work, which is, I think, really exciting.

And then the other stuff that I think is also really important and is a little bit outside of the medical arena is the idea that we can also use psychedelics in other areas. Not just for people with mental health conditions or with physical illnesses, but also with people who are healthy and who are wanting to have spiritual or different types of altered states that may be helpful for their development.

And so as Bob Jesse puts it, for the betterment of all people, using psychedelics for people who are healthy in ways that have nothing to do with illness. But are really about promoting health, wellbeing, and even creativity.

And this was something I was just talking about a little while ago with a reporter from Scientific American. But this idea is not a new one, which is that in the 1960s, they were studying psychedelics as agents to enhance creative problem solving. And lots of people like Steve Jobs, Kary Mullis, and others, who have talked positively about the impact of psychedelic experiences on their own innovative ways of thinking, and the products that then led to down the line for them.

And so it's, I think, really exciting to think about using psychedelics outside of the medical model. But for people who are wanting to connect more with their spirituality or people who are wanting to change the way that they're thinking, or view themselves, or different problems that they're working on from a different perspective, which could potentially then lead to some new ways of approaching some of the big problems that we're facing now. Whether we're talking about climate change, ecological crises, etc., there's a lot of problems that need to be solved. So anything that we can use as a tool to help us solve those more quickly or more efficiently, I think is welcome.

Sara Wilson:  Yeah, thank you. Well, thank you so much for joining us today. This was such a cool discussion. And I really think that every human being, no matter your discipline, can learn something incredibly valuable from your practice. I think that this has major promising implications not only for personal well-being, but as you were speaking about, societal harmony, and how we treat each other, and our environment more broadly. So thank you for having this conversation with me.

Albert Garcia-Romeu:  My pleasure. Thanks for having me on.

Sara Wilson:  Of course.

Please note: The views expressed by the interviewee are for educational and informational purposes only, are not meant to diagnose or treat any condition, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Seattle Anxiety Specialists, PLLC.


Editor: Jennifer (Ghahari) Smith, Ph.D.

Social Worker Elizabeth McIngvale on treating OCD & Anxiety with erp

An Interview with Clinical Social Worker Elizabeth McIngvale

Elizabeth McIngvale, Ph.D., LCSW is the Director of McLean OCD Institute in Houston, and a Lecturer at Harvard Medical School. She specializes in obsessive compulsive disorder as well as anxiety disorders.

Tori Steffen:  Hi everybody. Thank you for joining us for this installment of the Seattle Psychiatrist Interview series. I'm Tori Steffen, a research intern at Seattle Anxiety Specialists. We're a Seattle-based psychiatry, psychology, and psychotherapy practice specializing in anxiety disorders. I like to welcome with us today clinical social worker Elizabeth McIngvale. Dr. McIngvale is the director of McLean OCD Institute in Houston, and a lecturer at Harvard Medical School. Dr. McIngvale specializes in obsessive compulsive disorder as well as anxiety disorders. She founded the Peace of Mind Foundation and ocdchallenge.com, which is a free self-help website for OCD, which is live in six languages and serves nearly 4,000 individuals. So before we get started today, Dr. McIngvale, could you let us know a little bit more about yourself and what made you interested in studying OCD and anxiety disorders?

Elizabeth McIngvale:  Yeah, absolutely. So I'm actually a clinical social worker. I do have my PhD, but not a clinical psychologist. And I think for me, I really entered the field because of lived experience. I've lived with OCD since I was a young adolescent and went through intensive treatment that saved and changed my life. I then really led into advocacy and started doing a lot of advocacy work around talking and giving back in different ways, which led me into this field. So I ended up doing my undergrad master's and PhD in social work and really was just, and continue to be just really excited to be able to do for others what people did for me.

Tori Steffen:  Awesome. Yeah. Thank you for sharing that. Well, getting down to the basics around our topic, could you explain for us what exposure and response prevention, or ERP, is?

Elizabeth McIngvale:  Yeah. It's actually exactly how it sounds. So it's an exposure with response prevention. So what we mean by that is that from an OCD perspective, individuals with OCD have intrusive thoughts, triggers, things that scare them, and they engage in a lot of compulsive behaviors. And these compulsions or rituals are done to try to alleviate the distress caused from the obsessions. So when we talk about ERP, what we're encouraging patients to do is an exposure. So they face their fear, maybe they touch a doorknob that feels contaminated to them or they do some other exposure, but we're going to ask them to engage in response prevention. So we want them to prevent the response they usually do. So we want them to prevent rituals. So if you typically would wash your hands after you touch something contaminated, we want you to touch that doorknob and not wash your hands. So response prevention is that not ritualizing part. That's really important.

Tori Steffen:  Got you. Okay. That makes sense. Is exposure therapy similar to ERP in any way or how might they differ from one another?

Elizabeth McIngvale:  Yeah. It's a great question. Obviously there's a ton of overlap, and it's very similar in the sense that you are facing your fears, you're doing exposures. We see exposure therapy be really useful in trauma work, in social anxiety work, for phobias, you name it. But what we know is that individuals with OCD, if they're doing exposures, but they're also ritualizing, they're reinforcing their OCD. So for OCD, the big difference is that it's still exposure work, which is very similar, but we have to no longer do the ritual. If we follow the exposure with a ritual, we reinforce OCD versus being able to reinforce treatment and treatment outcomes.

Tori Steffen:  Okay. Awesome. Yeah, that definitely makes sense. And what are the main goals of ERP as a treatment? Are there any specific things that a clinician expects to see?

Elizabeth McIngvale:  Yeah. I mean, obviously we want to see a decrease in the anxiety in the disability and in the hold that someone's OCD has on their life. But across the board, the bigger pictures, we really want to start to change individual's relationship with anxiety and their relationship with their OCD. So we want to be able to teach them that anxiety and OCD isn't dangerous. It feels really dangerous because of how we respond to it, and that actually if we change the way we respond, we get to change the power that it has. So I think the bigger goal of ERP is that individuals understand how to change their relationship with anxiety, how to change their relationship or the way they feed their OCD so that this treatment can not just apply to any future OCD or anxiety triggers, but also to life as well.

When we think about fear in general, we either feed our fear or we fight our fear, and sometimes we think that what we're doing makes sense because it gives us short-term relief, but it actually just makes the fear bigger. If my daughter is afraid of a dinosaur in a room and I get rid of the dinosaur so I don't have to deal with her anxiety, I'm actually reinforcing that dinosaur's scary and that you aren't capable of being around it and being calm. Where instead, if I do exposures, I teach her to lean in and to not be afraid of it and to be with it, she can change her relationship with fear. She starts to realize that, "When I'm scared I don't have to run from it. I don't have to ritualize to make it go away. In fact, I can approach it," and that fear will go away.

Tori Steffen:  Okay. Awesome. Yeah. It sounds like almost a training of coping mechanisms in a way.

Elizabeth McIngvale:  It is a little bit. I think the thing we want to be careful about when we think about coping mechanisms is a coping mechanism often makes us think that we're going to give you a tool to make you feel better. Actually, what we're really doing is trying to allow you to change your relationship with distress. So when you have distress, we don't want to just get rid of it or make you feel better, we want you to learn that you can sit through it and you don't have to respond to it, and it doesn't have to be dangerous.

Tori Steffen:  Okay, great. Thank you for explaining that. So when might a clinician know that ERP is the right treatment option for a client?

Elizabeth McIngvale:  So ERP should always be the first line treatment for OCD, it is the most evidence-based and has the most research to support it. So we always want to start with exposure and response prevention. When we're treating a patient with OCD, of course, the most common treatment is a combination of ERP and medication, and that's often the route that most individuals will go, but we definitely always want to start there. We never want to start with other modalities that are not as proven because I mean, we want to start with what we know has the best chance of success and the best chance of helping our patients. What I will say is that it's really important if you're an outpatient clinician or a clinician who specializes in ERP, if a patient is not making progress, it's really important to sit back and understand why instead of to just keep trying the same thing we're doing.

So some of the reasons why, it could be that a patient... It appears they're trying to do ERP, but maybe they're actually holding on, maybe they are still ritualizing, maybe they're doing mental rituals or avoidance behaviors, and they're still feeding OCD or anxiety somehow. Maybe they need a higher level of care, maybe their OCD is so severe, so debilitating that they're not able to do ERP on an outpatient basis in the sense that if they just come and do it for 45 minutes with you every week, but they go home and they're ritualizing, we're not going to see progress there either. So they may need some support, maybe they need a more intensive treatment program. So lots of things to think about when we're doing ERP with our patients as well.

Tori Steffen:  Okay. Awesome. Could you provide an example for us of an ERP treatment for a client that has a specific phobia, maybe fear of dogs?

Elizabeth McIngvale:  I mean, I think that typically for phobias, we're going to do more exposure therapy than ERP, so it's really going to be getting them to approach that dog. So we might start with looking at pictures, watching videos, and eventually we want to get them working up to being able to hug their family dog, be with their dog, live by their values. I want them to tell me why being able to be close to dogs is important to them, or the reasons that if they don't do it will impact their life in a negative way. We want to really push on those values. I guess if it was an OCD fear, so for example, if the dog is contaminated, we want to do the exposure of getting them close to touching the dog and the response prevention of not washing their hands or not changing their clothes or not engaging in cleaning rituals that they may normally do.

Tori Steffen:  Got you. So it's important for them to understand that even if the dog is contaminated, it's not going to kill them or give them a disease. Would you say that that's true?

Elizabeth McIngvale:  Yeah. So it feels like that's what you'd want to tell the patient. You'd want to give them that reassurance, but actually we want to lean more into the fact that like, hey, people touch dogs all the time and there's value behind it. It's more important for us to focus on doing an exposure and touching our dog, but we don't want to reinforce that, I'm safe. It's okay. Nothing's going to happen. People don't get sick because the reality is that people could get sick. I can't guarantee if you touch a dog, you're not going to get sick. I also can't guarantee that if you touch a dog, you will get sick. So we want to focus less on confirming or denying our certain fears and more on living by our values and not responding to our fears, letting that fear be there that, well, what if I get sick? Being able to acknowledge that and not respond to it. So not try to make sure you don't.

Tori Steffen:  Okay. Awesome. Thank you for clarifying that. What does the process of habituation look like in therapy? How is it usually conducted?

Elizabeth McIngvale:  Yeah. So habituation is a term we don't really use as much anymore in ERP. Habituation traditionally is the thought process that when you face your fear, when you do something challenging, while it will be triggering, eventually your anxiety will subside, you will habituate. It's like you go into a locker room that smells, if you choose not to leave, eventually you'll get used to the smell. The smell doesn't go away, but you habituate to the smell that you were experiencing. And that's really the thought process behind habituation, especially for OCD, is that if you face your fear and don't do anything about it, eventually your anxiety will drop and you'll see that you didn't need to do that ritual to feel better.

We have transitioned in recent years to what we call inhibitory learning, and the point of inhibitory learning is for us to recognize two things. The number one thing is that not everybody habituates the same, and so we don't want to give you the thought process of like, you're going to just sit in habituate, because some people, it takes a couple of hours or their anxiety lingers, and I want them to be able to go do what they want to do and be able to live their life, not sit there and feel like I have to wait to habituate first. But the second, which is more important, is what is the message of habituation versus what we call inhibitory learning? Habituation is an old school model where you might sit and touch something that's contaminated if this is contaminated, and the thought process was you just sit there and you sit with the distress until it goes away.

The problem with that is that what we're teaching you is that you can't move on until you feel better, and we're putting a lot of emphasis on the anxiety and distress. On like okay, the success measure is if you start to feel better, that means that you can face this habituate. What inhibitory learning says and what we're learn, what we learn and really want to practice is that actually you can face challenging things. You can lean in all the way and you can still move on while you're experiencing some distress.

So we want the emphasis to be much less on the distress because again, we don't want you to believe the distress is dangerous, and we don't want to send that message that the distress is really important. It's actually not that important, and it will subside if you don't feed it. But what we don't want to do is sit and wait. We want to make sure that we're emphasizing the distress less, and we're more living by our values. So you're touching this contaminated thing. You're still slowing down to lean in to feel the distress, to think about the fear and choosing to move on and go do other things even if the distress is still lingering.

Tori Steffen:  Got you. Okay. That definitely makes sense. What can a client expect to experience when ERP is working correctly for them?

Elizabeth McIngvale:  I mean, alleviation across the board, they should start to see their intrusive thoughts come with less frequency and with less intensity, and they should start to feel like they're able to get back to their life and functioning the way they want to. They should be able to envision living by their values and OCD not having a grip. My biggest piece is that I want all my patients to be at a place where OCD no longer makes any decisions for them or their life, and instead they're making those decisions for themselves.

Tori Steffen:  Okay. Awesome. How can a clinician tailor ERP for a client? So for example, how might ERP differ for a client with OCD versus panic disorder?

Elizabeth McIngvale:  Yeah. So again, remember with panic disorder, you're going to be doing more exposure therapy because there's not going to necessarily be as many rituals. There will be avoidance. So we're going to get patients to avoid less, start living their life, and we're going to encourage them to engage in exposure therapy. We may also be doing some CBT skills with panic disorder because there may also be a lot of distorted thinking, or maybe there is some ruminating after certain events that we want to help break that cycle. But there's not as many outward rituals with panic disorder, and so the emphasis is much more on exposure compared to OCD. It's going to be much more focused on exposures and preventing those rituals or responses.

Tori Steffen:  Okay. Awesome. How can a clinician train a client to continue ERP or exposure therapy on their own, even outside of therapy?

Elizabeth McIngvale:  Yeah. This is a great question, and really this is about that bigger piece we talked about early on is what do you want patients to get out of ERP? What we don't want them to get is just that they succeeded because their symptoms went down. While that feels like that's successful, what's really successful is that their symptoms go down and they understand the why, and that learning actually took place. So the goal with ERP treatment is that patients understand across the board that they've truly changed their relationship, their responses to anxiety and to OCD.

And if they've done that, then they get to do what I call ERP as a lifestyle where all the time you're having opportunities to face anxiety, to feel it, to lean in, versus to respond to it in a way that you run from it, or you try to get rid of it with a ritual. So ERP should be something that it shouldn't have to feel like sometimes when you're first stepping down from treatment, you need to do more dedicated ERP, but eventually it should just come innate. It should be natural that I'm responding to my life, to my values, not to my OCD, which means I'm doing active ERP all the time. But it shouldn't have to feel like it's active ERP, if that makes sense.

Tori Steffen:  Okay. Yeah, that definitely makes sense. Is it ever possible for ERP not to be effective?

Elizabeth McIngvale:  Absolutely. I think that we definitely see ERP not to be effective if there's a lot of comorbid conditions. I think for me, one of the big things I want to know is if ERP isn't effective, why? We want to understand the why, and oftentimes it's because the patient's not ready or able to do ERP yet. So just because ERP is not effective right now, it doesn't mean it won't be in the future. For example, if a patient is dealing with a lot of distress intolerance difficulties, they're struggling to emotionally regulate, they may need DBT skills first so that they can do ERP. ERP probably wouldn't work right then for them. If their emotion regulation skills were really poor, their insights really poor, but it may be able to in the future.

Tori Steffen:  Okay. That's great to know. How might a clinician move forward? Let's say ERP isn't working for the client, and yeah, that definitely makes sense with DBT. Is there any other ways that you might move forward in that scenario?

Elizabeth McIngvale:  Yeah. I mean, I think the biggest thing when ERP isn't working is to make sure that your patient's ready for ERP. So we need to slow down. We need to think about motivational interviewing, we need to think about rapport building. We need to make sure that they understand why we're asking them to do this, that they're bought into it. No patient should be doing ERP because we're telling them to, they should be doing ERP because they see the value in it and they want to be doing it.

Tori Steffen:  Okay. Awesome. Well, do you have any final words of advice for us, Dr. McIngvale, or anything else you'd like to share with the listeners today?

Elizabeth McIngvale:  I think the biggest thing is just to remember that help and hope are always available, and what I want to make sure people know is that there is evidence-based treatment for any diagnosis you're going through. Make sure you figure out what that is and that you find somebody who has specialty training and background in that area.

Tori Steffen:  Awesome. Great advice.

Elizabeth McIngvale:  Okay. And for OCD resources, please always check out iocdf.org, which is an incredible nonprofit for OCD and host an annual conference, and is a great way to continue to get connected with the community.

Tori Steffen:  Awesome. Well, thanks so much for sharing your knowledge with us today, Dr. McIngvale. It was great speaking with you.

Elizabeth McIngvale:  You as well. Thank you.

Tori Steffen:  Thank you guys, and thanks everybody for tuning in.

Please note: The views expressed by the interviewee are for educational and informational purposes only, are not meant to diagnose or treat any condition, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Seattle Anxiety Specialists, PLLC.


Editor: Jennifer (Ghahari) Smith, Ph.D.

Social Worker Erin Maloney on the Innocent Lives Foundation

An Interview with Social Worker Erin Maloney

Erin Maloney, LCSW is the Director of Wellness for the Innocent Lives Foundation. She is a licensed clinical social worker specializing in trauma, addiction, ADHD, anxiety, depression, and other mood disorders.

Theresa Nair:  Thank you for joining us today for this installment of the Seattle Psychiatrist Interview series. I'm Theresa Nair, a research intern at Seattle Anxiety Specialists. We are a Seattle-based psychiatry, psychology and psychotherapy practice specializing in anxiety disorders.

I'd like to welcome with us clinical social worker, Erin Maloney, who is the Director of Wellness for the Innocent Lives Foundation. Erin earned her Bachelor Degree of Science and Psychology from St. Joseph's University in Philadelphia, and a Master's Degree in Social Work from Widener University in Chester.

She is currently a licensed clinical social worker specializing in trauma, addiction, secondary trauma, ADHD, anxiety, depression, and other mood disorders. Thank you for joining us today, Erin.

Erin Maloney:  Thank you for having me.

Theresa Nair:  Before we get started, can you please tell us a little bit more about yourself and what made you interested in studying clinical social work?

Erin Maloney:  Absolutely. I am a little bit about me. I am a mother of three. I also have a husband and a dog. I live in Scranton, Pennsylvania, like “The Office”. I have always been interested in mental health, actually since a very young age. I told my mom probably about five, six years old that I wanted to become a therapist and she just pushed me along to do whatever I wanted and follow my dreams.

I did, I entered into psychology and I loved it and I worked for quite a bit with my Bachelor's doing case management type work, but I realized I needed to further my education. While I was finished with my Bachelor's, I saw a plethora of therapists in the company that I worked for. It was a nonprofit behavioral health clinic and I saw everybody from LPCs to LSWs, LMFTs, every acronym in the book.

But my immediate supervisor was an LCSW and I found that she had the most, at the time for me, the most variety of opportunities. She could be a director of a program we might have had for behavioral health for children. Or, she could have actually done private practice type work, and I liked that because I could see a lot of settings.

That's when I decided to embark into Widener. I worked full time but got my Master's at night, and I really enjoyed finding that I wanted to keep pursuing from my Masters to license into the clinical license. That's how I got started in it. Always had an interest, always had an interest in people's minds and how it worked.

Theresa Nair:  That's great. It's wonderful when you feel like you're pursuing your purpose and even your calling.

Erin Maloney:  Yes, yes.

Theresa Nair:  For those who are not familiar with your organization, I'm wondering if you can tell us a little bit about the mission of the Innocent Lives Foundation and how it works to bring anonymous child predators to justice?

Erin Maloney:  Absolutely. I just want to say at this point, just a quick little trigger warning. My foundation does deal with trauma related to children and exploitation in any sort of assault. So just a little trigger if anybody is listening in to take care of yourself before or after. I don't think much will come up, but I always like to give that in advance.

Innocent Lives Foundation, what we do is our mission is to do that. We try to get the predators who are hiding online behind the scenes who are trying to exploit children or publish and/or share materials of, we call CSAM, Child Sexual Assault Material. That's our biggest mission is to bring to light the people hiding, to get them out of the dark and get them prosecuted properly.

Now, one of the things I always like to mention is we are non-vigilante. That is a very important part of our mission. We do not set ourselves up as young children. We do not try to entrap perpetrators. This is actually information we find on the open web. It's unbelievable what you would find on the open web, but we use what they call OSINT, which is open-source intelligence. It's basically anything any of us could find on the web, but they know where and how to look specifically for predators laying right within our children.

What we do at the ILF is we get leads and it could be come from, we have a form right on our website that people can enter. It could be a parent concerned about maybe who their children are chatting with. We might get law enforcement to say, "Hey, we could really use some good computer diving hacking skills to find out this case."

Or, it could actually come directly from somebody who might give it to us. Or, our researchers actually are doing the research and they can find a lead. Just be so maybe a username or somebody having an inappropriate photo up. We have, at ILF, different aspects that I wanted to go into because it sounds very confusing. What are you guys doing?

We have three distinct teams. We have what we call The PIT, which is Predator Identification Team, and they're our researchers and they are phenomenal hackers. We call them good guy hackers. They use their skills for good and they're all volunteers. But what they do is they are literally the ones behind the computer doing all the research for us finding this.

We have Education and Outreach Team, which those are our people who are more about putting out blogs, putting out educational materials, fundraising for us. They're really good for caregivers who might be struggling with anything like this.

Then lastly, we have a Development Team and what they do is they actually protect our PIT by developing tools that they can use to protect our PIT people from what they see. One of the big things we have is a blur tool so that our researchers are not seeing actual skin, they just see a blurred image and they can unblur it enough to maybe see a face if they need it, but it's to help them not be exposed to so much content in terms of that.

Those are our three distinct teams, and so what we do at ILF is we all work together in tandem to basically have that one common mission to help bring predators out of the light.

Theresa Nair:  That's great. I mean it's really interesting that you have the blur tool.

Erin Maloney:  Yes.

Theresa Nair:  Because I was wondering, how do you search for this without seeing all of it? So, that would be helpful.

Erin Maloney:  Yes, yes. We very much try to protect. Unfortunately, sometimes the text cases are some of the hardest because you're reading it and your mind goes there, but we still try to protect as much as can.

Theresa Nair:  Is that on the general internet or what's referred to as the dark web?

Erin Maloney:  Yes. Yeah. There is a whole dark web that we are aware of, but we actually try to leave that to law enforcement to do themselves because it is such a gray area. We keep everything above board. Like I said, we're trying to not be vigilantes, not get ourselves in trouble.

Everything people do, even our researchers do things on a device of ours so they're never caught with any sort of material or viewing. We would never want anybody be in trouble of any sort, so everything is done through a computer they have from us with tools and things like that to protect them.

Theresa Nair:  Okay, that's good. That helps to clarify how you even do something like this?

Erin Maloney:  Yes, yes, exactly.

Theresa Nair:  You spend a lot of your time working with volunteers within the organization, the people who are using their skills in order to help identify child predators. You're providing counseling services, I believe. Can you explain why it's important to provide this type of service to the volunteers, and what types of mental health impacts can result from this line of work?

Erin Maloney:  Absolutely. As this started, my CEO he realized quickly, he actually started Innocent Lives Foundation by accident. He is what they call a pen tester. His company does do security breaches for companies to help them learn how to improve the security of their companies.

In doing so, he accidentally stumbled upon child sexual assault material on somebody's device and was able to turn that into law enforcement. It was very validating and reassuring for him and he thought, "I did this so easily, why couldn't we do this as something like a nonprofit or a mission?" He started it from there, which really led to, but he knew the importance of the mental health piece. He said, "If we do this, we have to make sure we're not harming anybody in doing so."

That's how it's always been a proponent since day one. I'm part of every aspect from when they get onboarded. We have a very extensive onboarding. People go through various interviews, and one is a wellness assessment with me because again, we are trying not to damage anybody. If there's significant trauma that's maybe unprocessed or raw still, we're not going to want to have somebody in that capacity working right now with us.

By doing that now you had said, so there's the component of me meeting them early on and then I actually meet with them once a month if they are what we call The PIT, so at minimum they have to meet with me once a month. If you are in another aspect of our team like Education Outreach or Development, you only have to reach out with me once every three months because obviously they're not dealing with the content as much. Like I said, it's different timeframes for different people.

So, that's how I work with them. Now, if somebody has a already current mental health... Now remember, these people are coming voluntarily and not all of them have a psychological disorder. Not all of them have an Axis 1 diagnosis. However, some do and when they do, I make it very clear that I'm more of a wellness piece. If they need extensive work, if there's somebody that I sense needs almost weekly sessions or if they have an addiction they're struggling with or anything even more significant, then I definitely refer them out to a private therapist in their area and/or medication management or other resources.

Then I actually collaborate with any of the people they need me to collaborate with because it is such a unique setting situation. If a therapist needs a little bit of advice or what we do where we do, I'll consult with them as well. I'm involved with them quite a bit, at least once a month and I have a very good rapport with all the volunteers.

Theresa Nair:  Do you find that people may need more services the longer that they do this? Or maybe after particular incidents? Are there maybe something in particular that they find or is it steady?

Erin Maloney:  No, you know what it is? Actually, it's not the work that I notice, it's life changes that impact their volunteering with me. When I say that, we have new parents, for example. Let's say a volunteer has never been a parent, but suddenly they're a parent and they might be one of our researchers. They may not suddenly be able to stomach what they once stomached, and so they may very well say, "I cannot."

We actually have a pause program which is completely non punitive. It's something the volunteer can initiate, or myself if I really sense somebody's just not doing well, I'd encourage that. Really, up to 90 days they can just quietly stay with us. They can join meetings if they want, they can meet with me if they want, but they're not required to do any sort of minimal work for us to keep them active as a volunteer, which is nice.

Then the other option is we also have moving around. We had one PIT member who had a hard time, again with children, and almost sometimes people could actually put their child's face on a victim, which you'd never want to see happen. That is, we never want to damage anybody. So, that person actually still wanted to be with our mission so they stepped aside to Education Outreach and they write educational blogs, or they might speak publicly at a local community event for themselves.

It's really neat. You can still move around and help with that very same mission, but not damage yourself psychologically if you are struggling. I don't find the work... I feel like if people are already here in the mindset to do this type of work, then they've either been exposed to things or they're pretty prepared to compartmentalize their brain to step into this work and step out of this work.

Theresa Nair:  That's interesting because you would assume that maybe it was something that they saw. But it's interesting that it's more life changes that they might be going through.

Erin Maloney:  It truly is. Yep.

Theresa Nair:  And what they're able to view at different points in their life.

Erin Maloney:  We have a very strong level system, that when they start, they start at a very bare... it's more just finding leads. Maybe finding usernames that might be connected to something, and then there's levels. We're not going to have somebody brand new coming in exposed to something that might be very horrific.

I don't even, age is a big factor. Maybe younger children might be too difficult for them, so we're not going to do that. We're going to have them work up in levels and so that they're not really exposed to anything too much too fast because they could process with me the whole time they're doing it whether they're okay or not with that.

I'll check in on them with their case and how it's affecting them and generally fits good and they seem like they're confident with it, then they can move up in the level system, if you will.

Theresa Nair:  Sounds like there's a lot of options for volunteering.

Erin Maloney:  Yes, yes. We do not let it damage or harm anybody because they're helping us. They're volunteering for us, so we would never want to do anything that could hurt somebody.

Theresa Nair:  Okay. I know you've mentioned, and it says on the webpage as well, that you use cognitive behavioral therapy to assist your work with Innocent Lives Foundation.

Erin Maloney:  Yeah.

Theresa Nair:  Could you talk a little bit about how you use that, and then also if there's any other techniques that you find to be productive?

Erin Maloney:  Absolutely. Like I said before, my wellness sessions are typical check-ins. How are you doing, tell me what's going on in your life? But what I listen for and people know, all the volunteers know I use cognitive behavioral therapy because I'm listening for any sort of negative or illogical thoughts and they know that and they know when I can pinpoint that, what I might hear.

If I sense that somebody's really struggling with something, then we will start using cognitive behavioral techniques to see if we can figure out whether this is something more pressing, either a budding anxiety disorder. Or, if this is just something in their lives, maybe an adjustment to something that they're dealing with.

I do a lot of reframing. If I initially hear them say something negative, I might put it in a different reframe. If they're like, "Oh yeah, yeah, yeah" and they get that and I don't hear it again, then I realize they might have just been dealing with something. What I do a lot of with the volunteers is activity scheduling in terms of cognitive behavioral therapy. Because what we do is you would not be able to necessarily do this work in front of your family in the middle maybe of a work day. There's a lot of this content that cannot be exposed. We have to activity schedule, is it best to do this maybe an hour? But you don't want to do it right before bed either. Maybe there's an evening hour that this is best for. Or, perhaps you have a quiet hour in the day with nobody around you. We do that to find the best for a person to pick the time that they can do this type of work.

Role playing. If somebody's struggling with anything really in their lives, but in particular maybe wanting to switch gears in ILF, I might help role play with them. Maybe if they want to approach that with our COO and how they might be able to switch over into a different capacity.

So, I do a lot, now again, if I sense it's something more, then I will encourage them to seek out therapy on an ongoing basis so they can do real true weekly or even twice a week sessions if needed. But generally with some cognitive behavioral therapy, I could figure out if it's something more or not, and that's what I tend to do.

Theresa Nair:  Okay, and do you tend to see any increases in anxiety or depression from the volunteers when they work for maybe an extended period of time on this?

Erin Maloney:  Well, it's funny you said that. If I do sense that, then that's again where I will go into that pause option. "Hey, do you need to pause? Are things getting too much for you?" But it's funny you say that, I've actually seen it go both ways. Where I've seen it in the negative might be, again, if they have a, let's say they're starting a new job position and this is their volunteer position, they might have too much on their plate and so their anxiety's increasing and then they have guilt about not doing their volunteer work, then there's all that.

If I sense that, then we definitely encourage a pause and again, a pause could be 30 days. It doesn't have to be 90 days, but we just encourage that you take a little mental break, take a break from us and come back when you're refreshed and ready.

However, it goes on the other side where this work is very validating sometimes. Because a lot of our volunteers may either have been a survivor of assault in their past. They could have been groomed as a child themselves, or they have a family member who this maybe impacts. When they have a case that's a win, that is completely validating. It's a way to take power back from maybe where they've felt powerless in their past. It can actually be very, very good mentally as well.

The only struggle with that is the reality is we don't always get feedback from law enforcement of how our case is? We hand in a report to law enforcement, but it might not always be clear whether that case went to trial, whether that person was convicted.

We don't always get the information, and so I have to make sure the volunteer's okay with that, that we're not always going to know every win. Are you going to be able to stay motivated on cases you don't know the answer to? There's a lot of areas to poke around in there.

Theresa Nair:  That is interesting. There's that sense of empowerment, right?

Erin Maloney:  Yes, yes.

Theresa Nair:  When they're able to do something, but I'm sure it's a little frustrating when you just never know what happens?

Erin Maloney:  Yes. Exactly, exactly. But that's not our role. We don't want fame, we don't want to be associated with putting somebody away. We are really truly just totally behind the scenes trying to help. We have the computer skills to find a lot of people and we try to hand that over to law enforcement, and so we don't always get the answers.

Theresa Nair:  Do you think there's other areas of volunteer work, or perhaps other professions in general that would benefit from providing these types of mental health services to volunteers or to employees?

Erin Maloney:  Yes. It's funny you say that. We have some volunteers who are either currently or ex-military, or current or ex law enforcement. They have said many times that if they had somebody at their office to talk to, it could have made a major difference for them with some of the things that they endured or witnessed.

I know there's a lot of EAP programs for companies, but I think there is something at me being here every day for them that makes a very big difference. They just know. I get to know them very well. It's a stable, long-lasting relationship, and so they don't have to re-explain themselves to somebody new. I'm part of the team itself and employed there, so it makes a big difference I think in that consistency that they know I'm here and they could come to me at any time.

Theresa Nair:  It seems it might also be beneficial that you have a regular scheduled monthly meeting at least with everybody.

Erin Maloney:  Yes.

Theresa Nair:  Because I think sometimes in workplace mental health services, people are afraid to use them because they're afraid of being stigmatized even if somebody sees them going to talk to the person, or if the boss finds out that they're talking to the person. Do you think it's helpful just going ahead and scheduling appointments with everybody?

Erin Maloney:  Yeah, I really do. It's so funny you say that. Yeah, because I could definitely tell there's a resistance. Our team, for the most part, it is a lot of people who happen to be in cyber security type industry. When you're in that industry, you actually tend to be, not to stereotype an entire group, but sometimes you tend to be introverted and private.

Therefore, I do think this forces people a little bit out of their comfort zone and then they do realize, "Oh, this isn't so bad." Because I'm not deep diving way into their past, Freudian style. It is non-confrontational. I go at their pace and whatever they choose to talk about. Obviously, we talk about case work, but anything else they might need to address.

It gives them a huge shift if they already had a fear or resistance to therapy where it's not so bad for them after a while, once they get to know me better. Yeah, I agree. I think it's very good that it's almost forced upon them and I send out reminders and I reach out.

If they avoid me after a certain amount of time, then we have to do the whole, "Are you trying to pause? Is there something you need?" So, it's nice, but that's rare that I don't hear from somebody

Theresa Nair:  Then it's, "Well, I'm talking to her anyway. I may as well have a real conversation, right?"

Erin Maloney:  Exactly. The other thing to this is that again you mentioned, you asked about different fields. Well, law enforcement or some other heavy content type professions, they can't turn to their family or their loved ones and just spill what happened in their day, similar to this type of work. They're not going to turn and say, "Guess what this case is about?" You can't. You want to protect your own loved ones and family and friends.

A lot of our volunteers are anonymous, so this gives them a direct place to process what they need to process without feeling they're burdening anybody. Without feeling like they're going to hurt or harm anybody. It's just a safe space for them dedicated to them, and I feel like it gives them that open door.

Theresa Nair:  Then they can talk about that case work that they maybe couldn't discuss with other people.

Erin Maloney:  Exactly, exactly.

Theresa Nair:  I think that's a great model. I wish more places would do that.

Erin Maloney:  I do too. I do too. It's very nice, and I do feel like with law enforcement in particular, I think of that field and just the things that come home from, or anybody on the front lines really. After a really rough day of what you might witness or see or hear, and then you have to go home with that.

That's where I feel for people when they don't have any place to just unload that on, and making the time. That's the other thing you had mentioned. We all have a hard time making the time, and at least with this, it's mandatory so it's part of your volunteer. We ask people to volunteer if they're volunteering with us for about 10 hours a month if possible, but that includes a lot.

We have a team meeting, which is once a month. We have myself, would be an hour so that's already detracting right off their volunteer hours for us, so it helps that it's just built right in for them.

Theresa Nair:  Right, and then they don't have to take the initiative to seek out speaking to somebody. It's just a part of it.

Erin Maloney:  Exactly, exactly.

Theresa Nair:  Well, as someone who specializes in cognitive behavior techniques to support the mental health of those engaged in volunteer work, do you have any parting words of advice or anything else you'd like to share with our listeners?

Erin Maloney:  Sure. I mention this to volunteers all the time, and I would like for your listeners to know. I think balancing life is the key. You really have to balance your life, and volunteering is actually a very worthy and beneficial cause to you. This really helps fuel your soul. But if the plate's full and you just need to get rid of something, then that's generally, unfortunately some self-care things or things we do for ourselves might be some of the first things to go.

So, I just always say, "Stay balanced." But if you are realizing you can't manage everything, you can't problem solve, you're losing your focus, you don't want to burn out. Really, I always say we cannot, you do not want to burn out. Before you start, that's where, going back to the cognitive behavioral I therapy, I listen for the negative.

If I start hearing negative comments and negative thoughts that are just kind of untrue, I really try to help reframe. But if it's not possible, then we have to look at what they might have to cut out of their lives? What they might have to do to manage things? Balancing life, self-care is very important, but you need to know when you need to step back and maybe make some changes.

Theresa Nair:  That's great advice. Well, thank you so much for making the time to speak with us and participating in our interview series.

Erin Maloney:  Thank you. Thank you for having me. I just want to make sure I tell you guys that you can always go to our website, innocentlivesfoundation.com. There are great resources and tools on there. If anybody ever had to make a report of anything they were concerned with, again, it could be a parent, a caregiver, a teacher.

If somebody's concerned about maybe what a child's posting or who a child's speaking with or they're unsure of things that are online, you can always submit a report right there and we'll reach out and see what we can help investigate for you. Please use us as a resource as needed. Again, we have great blogs and articles on there and things that you might find very helpful.

Theresa Nair:  That's great, and we will also link to that website underneath our interview so that people can find it easily.

Erin Maloney:  Wonderful. That sounds great.

Theresa Nair:  Okay. Thank you so much for joining us today.

Erin Maloney:  Of course. Thanks for having me.

Please note: The views expressed by the interviewee are for educational and informational purposes only, are not meant to diagnose or treat any condition, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Seattle Anxiety Specialists, PLLC.


Editor: Jennifer (Ghahari) Smith, Ph.D.

Psychiatrist Lantie Jorandby on Addiction Recovery

An Interview with Psychiatrist Lantie Jorandby

Dr. Lantie Jorandby is a board-certified psychiatrist with certification in addiction psychiatry and addiction medicine. She is currently the chief medical officer of Lakeview Health Addiction Treatment and Recovery in Jacksonville, Florida.

Theresa Nair:  Thank you for joining us today for this installment of the Seattle Psychiatrist Interview Series. I'm Theresa Nair, a research intern at Seattle Anxiety Specialists. I'd like to welcome with us psychiatrist Lantie Jorandby. Dr. Jorandby is a board-certified psychiatrist with certification in addiction psychiatry and addiction medicine. She is currently the chief medical officer of Lakeview Health Addiction Treatment and Recovery in Jacksonville, Florida. Dr. Jorandby also has a blog on Psychology Today's website, where she regularly writes articles on topics related to addiction and addiction therapy. Before we get started, Dr. Jorandby, could you please tell us a little more about yourself and what made you interested in studying addiction?

Lantie Jorandby:  Thanks, Theresa, for having me. Yeah, I would love to share that. It's a personal journey of sorts. I had gone to medical school, thinking I wanted to do obstetrics and gynecology, and ended up just falling in love with mental health. And part of it is that I have family members, my father specifically, who really struggled with anxiety, depression, and then addiction. So, it was really a tug for me to go into. And another feature around it was that I was working with veterans early on in my career. Veterans coming back from the wars, Afghanistan and Iraq, and a lot of them were struggling with not just PTSD, which seems somewhat obvious, but they also had addictions that they developed on the battlefield, and they were also dealing with these co-occurring kind of disorders that you see. So, this all came together for me, and really spurred me to go ahead and do a little bit more training. And that's why I went into addiction. And being in addiction really just feels like exactly where I need to be. It's a field that I love. It's very challenging, and it's an addiction that affects everybody in that person's life. So the family members, loved ones, partners. It really is wide-ranging. So when you help that one person, you're helping several more people that are in their lives as well.

Theresa Nair:  That's wonderful. It sounds like you've really found your calling. You mentioned how you can tell that it's what you should be doing, right. It feels right. So.

Lantie Jorandby:  It really does. It feels like just where I should be, especially during the pandemic. That obviously is something I'm sure we'll talk about a little bit later too. But we have seen such a side with people struggling with relapses, and overdose rate is high, higher than we've ever seen. And so knowing that here I am in this treatment center, not having any clue that we're going to be facing something unprecedented and then being at the forefront, being able to, where a time that of the world really haven't seen at this level before. It's very rewarding.

Theresa Nair:  I'm glad that you found that way to make a difference and have a positive impact. Since we are a psychotherapy practice specializing in treating anxiety, I'm wondering if you could talk a little bit about the relationship between anxiety and addiction, and if individuals who suffer from anxiety are at a higher risk of taking on addictive behavior.

Lantie Jorandby:  I think that's a great question. So, one of the things that we see a very high rate of here is what I mentioned earlier, co-occurring disorders. And those are disorders like anxiety disorders or depressive disorders that go hand in hand with addiction. So a lot of our patients, I'd say at least 50%, sometimes higher, have something else in common. So they're coming in primarily with, let's say, alcohol problems, or addiction to heroin or something else. But they also have these underlying conditions that really, if you are not aware you can treat, they will have a lot harder time into recovery, being able to prevent relapses. And so that definitely is a big issue. What I know is that for instance, our female population, we see about 75% of them have trauma. And trauma, I know the DSM waffles about this diagnosis being an anxiety disorder specifically, but for me, it is an anxiety disorder.

It's an anxiety of, or disorder of heightened awareness. Difficulty with their environment, difficulty with relaxing and being able to connect with others. And so, when we have the high level of trauma in our female population, being able to be aware of that and address it while they're also getting treated for their alcohol use disorder or their opiate use disorders is just super-critical. And then if we look at, for instance, panic disorder, social anxiety disorder, we see high correlations with, for instance, alcohol and sedatives. And if you look at the data, for instance, social anxiety disorder has a high hand-in-hand with alcohol. There's popular TV shows and movies about people that have such social or crippling social anxiety that they have to have a drink in their hand to be able to go to a party or meet somebody new. And that becomes a behavior, often, that can lead to addiction. And so we are very aware here when I work that we really need to look for and be aware of other conditions like social anxiety, like panic disorder, PTSD, to really get to the root of issues.

Theresa Nair:  That's interesting. I have seen that on shows before. It's almost kind of modeling that that's how you deal with anxiety, is have a drink in your hand, or-

Lantie Jorandby:  One of my favorite shows is The Big Bang Theory. It's off now, but they have that main character. And that's the only way he can talk to women is he has to have some alcohol in his system. And it's kind of a running joke, but towards the end of the show, they do show that he starts to get in trouble with alcohol. And it isn't, I don't think, anywhere to the level of addiction, but he is progressively becoming a pattern for him, that kind of behavior. And it's no longer the effective coping tool. It's become a behavior that's really causing him some trouble. And so that, when I think about addiction, and I feel like this is a message that gets lost, it's a progressive disease. And so, for the patient, a lot of them may have started out with something like alcohol or marijuana. That it wasn't initially problematic, but you add in stressors or bad coping skills, or even co-occurring disorders that might develop, and it eventually becomes a problem you can't ignore. So, I just feel like that's a very important message to share.

Something else, speaking about anxiety disorders, especially with addiction, is the idea of perfectionism. There is an interesting term I read in The Atlantic. This was actually pre-COVID. They talked about women specifically who get caught up in maybe alcohol addiction. And one of the things that's still out there, this myth of the superwoman, she can do everything. She can have a full-time, high-powered career. She can have a family at home, take care of the children, be at the soccer game, go to the board meeting. And then this article connected all of that, those demands on women now, with the idea that, okay, when they get home the end of the day, and they're making dinner for the entire family and still multitasking, they're going to have a glass of wine. And then maybe that leads to another glass. There is this connection of these demands that we put on people in society, women specifically, that if you go down that road, seem to be connected with patterns with alcohol, for instance. And I'm not saying every successful woman that's trying to do everything is going to end up with substance use problems. But more and more through the pandemic, we've seen women coming in, seeking treatment with those kind of behaviors and environment in their lives. And I think just following that context, I think we're going to see this more and more as we get past COVID.

Theresa Nair:  Speaking of that, and you mentioned a little bit about relationship between trauma and addiction, and you've talked a little bit about COVID and addiction. We've gone through such major historic events lately. It's been referred to in some articles as a cascade of collective trauma between COVID-19 and increasing political tension, racial tension, economic instability. Are you seeing in general an increase or any type of relationship between what's currently happening and addiction in your office?

Lantie Jorandby:  I would say yes, but it's interesting. What we saw in the midst of COVID, we go back to 2020 and even last year, people were still coming into treatment. But I think there was a delayed response. Like they were still in survival mode, and they weren't really recognizing all of what you just listed. You're right. Unprecedented global pandemic, all this political and this violent tension. And so now that we are, and I'm certainly not saying we're even past COVID, but it has shifted our priorities a bit. And now what I'm seeing here in the treatment facility and now, and I do talk to other colleagues in other areas of the country. They're seeing the same. Now there's this big rush to get into treatment. People are starting to recognize that two years later, their behaviors or their addictive patterns are no longer working.

It's like that progressive disease I mentioned earlier. In the thick of it, I feel like people weren't quite recognizing it. And now that we're getting a little perspective, a little bit of distance from COVID, people are recognizing now, "Wow, this has just been tremendously hard on myself and my family, and on my network. And I need help." And so that is good to see, that recognition. It's hard, though, because I mentioned earlier around 75% of the women we see seeking help are traumatized. And now we're seeing a higher uptick with our male population, younger adults in their early 20s or late teens are also struggling. And I do think the social isolation that came with COVID, the heightened use of substances to manage all of our collective stress and trauma is starting to show. It's really starting to manifest now.

Theresa Nair:  That's really interesting. So is that because people thought they were just doing these things temporarily to cope? They're stuck at home, there's a lockdown. And then they find when all of that's over, they're trying to return to normal life, that it's maybe harder to quit than they thought it was.

Lantie Jorandby:  It is. One of the things that I've talked a lot about over the last year is that you have people that have been working from home, those Zoomers. And one of the things about Zooming and working from home is that it sometimes is easier to hide your substance use. Say someone's going to drink at work. You can put your camera off, which I think in this time and age is a sign that either you didn't get up early enough to put on makeup, or maybe there is something more serious going on. And so initially, I think that a lot of us ended up just thinking, "Okay, this isn't going to stay forever."

And then it kind of did. And now, we're looking back on it, and we're coming back in the office. And I read all the time about companies that are struggling to get employees back, and some of the bumps in the road. And I think that is what we're seeing now, is that people hunker down for two years, develop some habits that weren't healthy. And now they're realizing that those don't work, now that you're back in more of a normal time or a normal environment. And so that's where they end up seeking for help.

Theresa Nair:  That's really interesting. Yeah, I think we're definitely in unprecedented times. Right? And so everyone's trying to figure out and cope, and figure out how to return to some semblance of normalcy. Right?

Lantie Jorandby:  I agree. And I think this is my own opinion, not basing on it on research, but I think we need to take stock of these last two years and understand that life is precious. There are a lot of good things in life. We've lost a lot of people that we love. And so to take each moment that we have here and just make it meaningful. Engage in something that you find enjoyable, whether it be art or nature, just take that moment because we're not really promised what's next week or even tomorrow. And so really understanding that, because COVID, I feel like, all of the terrible things have happened that shed a light on our national kind of work. Our work balance in life and understanding what's important.

Theresa Nair:  That's a good point. Yeah. I think there's a lot of people reevaluating. What is most important, right? It might as well face what matters most in life and reconsider our priorities. Switching gears a little bit, you had written an article recently about the benefits of ketamine with alcohol addiction. I was wondering if you could talk a little bit about recent research with that, and why you think that's a beneficial treatment method?

Lantie Jorandby: Well, I would say we haven't necessarily gotten to the point where you're absolutely proving beneficial results to treat alcohol addiction. So you look at the history of ketamine. It evolved from the beginning as an anesthetic drug on the battlefield in Vietnam to a club drug that was abused in the 80s and 90s, to a therapeutic drug now in the psychiatry scene. And the therapeutics of it are pretty well-studied for depression, and in fact the FDA has approved it for people that have depression that's refractory, meaning they've been tried on an anti-depressant, and haven’t improved or even those people that have --

Theresa Nair:  It's cutting out a little bit. I'm sorry. Could you repeat that?

Lantie Jorandby:  What I was saying is that the FDA has looked at and approved an inhaled form of ketamine, that looks to be beneficial for people with refractory depression. Meaning that they've been on a lot of other medications that haven't worked, and it's also where it appears to be pretty effective for people that have chronic suicidality. So we have seen ketamine go from one type of therapeutic use in anesthesia, to an abused drug and now to a therapeutic. So, some of the more recent research shows that there may be some benefit for addiction. And a lot of the research right now, most of it in the area of alcohol. What we are finding out is that ketamine can show good results if you pair it with therapy. It can be, show some really interesting data. People in the studies are able to interact better with their therapies to address the addictions or to address the appropriate resource, and so it's really interesting.

One of the things about ketamine, of course, is what I mentioned earlier. Usable. People can get addicted. It's not as common other drugs, but there is kind of this fine balance. So if we're going to use it to treat people that have an addiction, we really have to be very careful about who we're choosing to use ketamine on. You have to be aware of things like trauma in that person's past or in their current issues. You have to be aware of how they cope with their coping strategies, their support system. Because if you introduce something that is addictive, and they don't have some of those other things in place, it can cause more problems than you're looking for. And then the other thing I think really that I came away with looking at the research is, therapy is really key to this. You can't do anything in isolation. Ketamine is not that quick fix that we're all, I think, looking for. Just like an antidepressant isn't a quick fix, either. I firmly believe that medicines can be very helpful, but if you're not pairing them with change. Whether that change is being navigated with a therapist or with someone else that's helping person, someone support them or change their coping styles, you're not going to get as far as you need to. And so that's where I think the real message is, that ketamine looks exciting for this population, but there's more data to learn. And I think ultimately we're going to use it in conjunction with a lot of other tools in the toolbox.

Theresa Nair:  That gets to another topic I wanted to discuss. Where in a recent article, “The ‘Aha’ Moment in Addiction Treatment,” an article that you had written, you talk about how once individuals get through the detox phase, the real work can begin. But people are often terrified at that point. So how do you work with individuals to get past that point when they have detoxed? And then they're just terrified, how do you get them to move forward?

Lantie Jorandby:  What I really love to do with people who do absolutely have their fingernails, just clinging to the side of the pit, and it’s just scary. Especially when they have with no history of treatment. So, this is brand new. What we really find helpful is peers. People that have been in the facility a little bit longer, been in treatment a little longer, can help them navigate. Who can really speak to them with credibility, knowing that they've been down that thing there.

We also engage family. I think family is so important. They are often the reason people come to treatment. The family members giving them an ultimatum, whether it's a husband or a partner or a parent. And so they're here, somewhat unwilling to be here or against their will. And when you engage family, it can be very impactful. And in fact, a lot of times, to get people past that terror moment, we will ask family to send us impact statements, things that tell that loved one that's in treatment. "I'm so proud of you. I'm so glad you're in treatment. This is why. Because in the past we have struggled with seeing you hurt yourself. We have struggled with seeing your health go down. You have not been present with us, and we love you." And so having family within can be very, very powerful because they're a big reason these groups come into treatment. And then just having them understand. And I do this a lot with our medical team, is just walking them through the medical piece of it. Because a lot of times, they may not be aware that their liver function is not doing as well. Or they may not be aware they've developed a pneumonia because of their alcoholism. And so going through the clear basics about that. And then finally, I always like to encourage folks. This is a fine balance, but really encourage them to understand, being in treatment and having the addiction doesn't mean that they're bad people. It doesn't mean they have a character flaw or something wrong with their personality. But they've really developed it, unfortunately, a progressive disease. And it's disease of brain activity. And so destigmatizing it some can help them, our language.

Theresa Nair:  You were just mentioning the importance of involving family. And often, if a family member or a loved one has someone in their life with addiction, they're told to take them to detox or to take them to rehab, and to get treatment. Do you find that if a person is coerced into going and seeking treatment, and they're just going for a family member that it's beneficial, is that the best approach for family members to take if they have loved ones with addiction?

Lantie Jorandby:  I think it's a fine line. Honestly, people that come in with family coercion, they do very well, as much as the folks that are coming in on their own. But I think it's really a surrender moment. If those folks are being coerced or somewhat encouraged strongly to come into treatment, often they kind of get fixated on, "Okay, I'm only here because my husband said that he's going to file for divorce." Getting them to go beyond that and just render and see all the other things that are happening in their lives, beyond just feeling like someone's turned on them, is really important. I speak with the experience of having a loved one who had an addiction. And it's hard to sit down with that person, especially as a parent and just say, "I'm so worried about you."

"This is what I'm seeing. X, Y, and Z. Please go to treatment." Because it feels in some ways, a lot of times, that person's going to take it as a betrayal. And so, you have to separate yourself from that feeling and just do the best that you know from that person. And getting them into treatment is the best thing. If you think about, this is the way I see addiction is often that person's been taken hostage by the drug or the alcohol. And you have to be that hostage negotiator of sorts, to try and get them freed. And sometimes the only way to do that is to get them into some form of treatment inpatient. Doesn't always have to be inpatient, but often it does. And that's where the real work starts. It's tough. I mean, it's really an individual case by case, but I think both sides can be very successful. The person that comes in separately, and then the person that comes with family.

Theresa Nair:  Okay. So that's interesting. So you don't necessarily have to wait for that person to realize on their own that they have a problem.

Lantie Jorandby:  We have a young woman here now who I'm so proud of. She came on her own. And what she shared with me a few days ago was that her family just took a collective sigh of relief when she told them that she was going in, because they were ready to agree. And they were just so worried about her. She was doing some really interesting stuff. So it's great when they have the insight like that, when someone can see, "Okay, this is really unhealthy. I'm starting to understand." But you don't always get there. And so that's where you kind of have to take that initiative.

Theresa Nair: Okay. Well, I think that's good for people to know that it can still be beneficial, even if you're pushing somebody to go in for treatment.

Lantie Jorandby:  Absolutely.

Theresa Nair:  Another thing you've written about are the changes in the brain that take place during addiction. I'm wondering if, when somebody goes through recovery, if you see those changes reversed, or if there are any other changes within the brain that occur when somebody has gone through treatment. Do you see a reversal in the trends that had occurred during addiction?

Lantie Jorandby:  Yes, we actually do. Usually, those changes start to show up around 30. Really, I want to say 30, but up to 90 days is really where the beginning stages of change start to happen. We see it with their behaviors, kind of that "Aha" moment I mentioned earlier in the blog I wrote. You just see everything click for them. They start to engage in the groups. They're starting to show positive peer relationships. They're often voted by their peers to lead for the week. And so those are really positive things to see. And it's so rewarding, but it can take some time. And the reason is, if you get into some of the science behind it, the brain, it's part of that reward center of the brain that can be taken over by drugs and alcohol. So that individual thinks they need a chemical to survive.

They need heroin, or they need alcohol, or they need a Xanax to just survive day to day. So, it's going to take some time to take that part of the brain back, and to also rewire it. Not to get too technically, but we know that neurotransmitters are unbalanced. We know that particular pathways are affected and injured during addiction. And so, to really rewire all of those pathways and rebalance the chemicals, we see that it even takes up to a year to 18 months. But in that first 90 days is really where you start to see the behaviors manifest. And I think that's what keeps all of us in this field is that when we see people change and their lives the better, and then their families come in for the family workshops, and they see the changes, they just can be so transformative for the whole system.

Theresa Nair:  That's wonderful. I'm sure that's just a great experience to be able to see somebody come back, right. Come back to who they are and-

Lantie Jorandby:  Absolutely. Yeah, it really is.

Theresa Nair:  Great. Did you have any other parting words or advice, or anything you would like to share with our audience?

Lantie Jorandby:  You know what, I feel like education is so important for addiction in the field. And for so many years, even 20, 30, more years or longer, it's been a field that has a lot of stigma to it. People are ashamed to tell someone that they have an alcohol problem, or they're ashamed to tell someone that their family members have a problem with addiction. And so really getting education out there about what addiction is, how it affects the brain, destigmatizes it. And when you destigmatize treatment, more people go.

I'm going to call out some celebrities, people like Demi Lovato, or some popular stars that have a lot of recovery, like Eminem or Pink. And they've been very vocal about all of their struggles and how they went to treatment and how they got healthy. Really helps in some ways, it obviously very alluring to see stars getting help, because we're all fixated on gossip and stars. But it's also really rewarding for me to see this, because the general population sees them and think that they're so successful, but they don't understand that these people have also fallen prey to addiction or to mental health issues. And so they see them getting help, that destigmatizes it so they can work and get help too.

Theresa Nair:  I think that's a great point. I think there are a lot of people who still want to keep these things as a family secret, not discuss-

Lantie Jorandby:  Yeah definitely, it happened in my family. Yeah. And it goes on and on. So you have to break that pattern in your own family, and just be very willing to break down those barriers. Because people, this is a treatment with these. If I was to say one more thing, and I could say many more things,

Theresa Nair:  That's OK.

Lantie Jorandby:  If I could say one more thing, this is an issue that's treatable. People can get healthy and then can lead healthy lives and be happy. It's not the end of the world, but they have to get into treatment first to do it.

Theresa Nair:  I think that's an important point. That it can, I don't know about cured, if that's the correct word, but you can get past that. You can move on from it and-

Lantie Jorandby:  You can, but I love to see, yeah, we have a very strong alumni group that they have their own private Facebook page, but periodically some of our staff will share just some positive stories that come out of the alumni group. But it's so nice to hear, because people will say, "I've had five years sober, I've had 10 years sober." And they will even have little clocks on their phone, and it'll show that the days that they've been in recovery. It's great, because they have transformed their lives.

Theresa Nair: That is great. It just has me thinking one more thing I'd like to ask you here, last minute. Do you have advice if somebody is seeking for a program as to what types of programs they should look for? I know you hear sometimes that maybe some treatment programs might just be scams. What should a person look for if they're looking for a successful treatment program?

Lantie Jorandby:  I think you want to make sure that it's accredited by JCO, or Joint Commission, I think that's very important, because that is an organization that goes around the country and looks at these to make sure they have the basic elements of treatment. So that means nursing care, physician or provider medical care, therapy. That they're meeting standards. So, I think that's very important. I also think it's important to have a strong medical presence at the facility. Because people that are coming into treatment with addiction often have medical issues that need to be addressed, whether it be liver disease or infections, or problems with heart disease. There's a lot of different things that go hand in hand with addiction, and so you want to be able to treat those medical conditions. And then being a psychiatrist myself, I feel like having a very strong mental health presence in that facility. And so having someone that's going to treat co-occurring disorders and evaluate for more serious conditions, and be able to treat them is also very critical.

Theresa Nair: Thank you. That's wonderful advice. I appreciate you speaking with us today, and thank you for participating in our interview series.

Lantie Jorandby: Well, thank you for having me. I appreciate it.

Please note: The views expressed by the interviewee are for educational and informational purposes only, are not meant to diagnose or treat any condition, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Seattle Anxiety Specialists, PLLC.


Editor: Jennifer (Ghahari) Smith, Ph.D.

Attorney Wendy Patrick on Predators & Manipulation

An Interview with Attorney Wendy Patrick, J.D., Ph.D.

Dr. Wendy Patrick is a deputy district attorney, author, media commentator, and veteran prosecutor. In addition to her law degree, Wendy Patrick has earned a doctorate in Theology. An accomplished trial attorney, Dr. Patrick’s research focuses on a variety of topics related to interpersonal violence and sexual assault.

Amelia Worley:  Hi. Thanks for joining us today for this installment at the Seattle Psychiatrist Interview Series. I'm Amelia Worley, a research intern at Seattle Anxiety Specialists. I'd like to welcome Dr. Wendy Patrick. Dr. Patrick is a deputy district attorney, author, media commentator, and veteran prosecutor. She's completed over 165 trials, including cases of domestic violence, hate crimes, stalking, human trafficking, and first degree murder. She has also been involved with the San Diego Domestic Violence Council, the San Diego Child Protection Team, and the Sexual Assault Response Team. Dr. Patrick researches, advises, and publishes on a variety of topics related to interpersonal violence, sexual assault, and working with victims, including her book, “Red Flags: How to Spot Frenemies, Underminers, and Ruthless People.” Before we get started, Dr. Patrick, can you please let us know a little more about yourself and what you made you interested in dealing with dangerous people, sexual assault, and domestic violence?

Wendy Patrick:  I've been a prosecutor for my entire career, I would say since before you've been born, but it lends a little bit of credibility to what I'm talking about. For whatever reason, during the 25 years plus I've been a prosecutor, I've dealt with a steady stream of dangerous people. One of the things that really struck me, Amelia, about this is the sometimes very worldly, intelligent, savvy victims, people you wouldn't expect to be victims because they don't strike you as particularly vulnerable in any arena, yet there they were. I went back to school to earn a Master in Divinity and then a PhD mid-career. It was my mid-career crisis if that's a term, and really became in love with research, as I suppose I was. That's what led me to want to go on and further my education because there's an enormous amount of research behind why, why people fall for dangerous people, how dangerous people corner victims, how they manipulate even very street smart savvy professionals. It is with that combination of the anecdotal, the empirical, and I would say the experiential, given the work that I've done for 25 years, that really brought me to a lot of the information that I cover in that book.

Amelia Worley:  Yeah. That's great. To begin, can you describe the acronym “FLAGs” that you created to separate the dangerous from the desirable?

Wendy Patrick:  Well, my first book was the revised version of the New York Times bestseller “Reading People,” which I coauthored with a famous jury consultant. That talked about the seven colors of what somebody looks like, how they behave. Red Flags is a deeper dive. Flag stands for focus, lifestyle, associations, and goals. Let me explain each one of those so your listeners can understand a little bit about why this gives you more of an idea of who is this person behind the persona.

Focus is the F, and the reason I wanted to use that for flag, it also talks about focus being attention reveals intention. For example, I think on the back cover of the book, the publishing company has the red flags on a first date, your body, your brain, or the ball game. What is somebody focused on when they're with you? Well, that tells them what they're interested in. If they're not interested in you, why are they spending time with you. Oftentimes in the child predator world it's because they're interested in the child. I cannot tell you how many trials I've had where you've had spouses and girlfriends and boyfriends that had no idea that honestly believed they were the prize. They were the ones that the perpetrator was after, but if they looked back at the focus, that was never really it.

Lifestyle is what you might imagine. I sometimes call this red flags after five. If you want to know what somebody is like, you have to know more about what they do during the work day. You may see them all day at work, nine to five, and have no idea who they really are unless you know what they do when they're off the clock. I say, lifestyle is personality revealed. What are their hobbies? What are their interests? Where do they go if they have a free day.

Now, Associations stands for who do we spend our time with? When I was growing up my parents used to say, show me your friends and I'll show you your future. My law students now tell me that, I suppose, the updated version of that is show me your friends and I'll show you who you are. Either way, it proves the point, birds of a feather. What sort of company do we keep? Are we guilty by association? I mean, who do we choose to spend our time with if we have a choice? What organizations do we belong to? What philanthropic activities capture our attention.

Then Goals is really a profile in priorities. If I knew, for example, Amelia, what you prayed for at night or what you wished for when you toss a coin into a wishing well, you're too young, but we used to do that back in the day, I would know a lot about you. Knowing what somebody's goals are tells you a lot about them as a person. All four of these FLAG areas taken in combination gives you a much deeper picture of what a person is really like.

Amelia Worley:  Yeah. What are some recognizable signs of people who have ulterior and self-serving motives then?

Wendy Patrick:  Well, one of the things you really have to look at goes back to that focus component. It would be like, I'm a Rotarian, so I'll use the rotary example. Lots of people join service organizations, but why are they there? Are they there to put it on a resume? Are they there because they genuinely want to help serve the homeless? When you're looking at somebody's motivation, some of the signs have to do with where they focus their attention and on what aspect of belonging, I'm just using that as an example, are they interested in when they go to a social hour or a networking event? If you look at their focus, if you look at the fact that they're not necessarily interested in building business, but gathering business cards to maybe put on a mailing list. So, it's really paying attention to what somebody does.

We used to say a picture is worth a thousand words. Actions speak louder than words. That is the takeaway from being able to tell what a person is really like. A dangerous person, their actions speak for themselves. They're not philanthropic actions. They're only asking questions designed to elicit the kind of information that might give them an idea of an area of vulnerability. I gave the example of the focus and some of the women, in particular, that were married to child predators or married to pedophiles. They would often find that looking back, right, that's always sadly the way that many people look at red flags, looking back, there were tons of signs that they really only wanted, they were almost only a conduit, a way in which the predator could gain access to the person they were really interested in. Some predators use people to gain access to resources, time, money, favors, all the kinds of things in a workplace setting, for example, that shows they're not really interested in a coworker, but in what that coworker can do for them. It's that end game that sometimes we have to really keep an eye on.

Amelia Worley:  Yeah. In your book, “Red Flags: How to Spot Frenemies, Underminers, and Ruthless People,” you talk about how dangerous people use selective attention to manipulate their victims. How and why does this work?

Wendy Patrick:  Well, it works because to somebody that's not used to receiving attention, that can be the most intoxicating experience of their life. I'll give the example of somebody that isn't drop dead gorgeous, somebody that's perhaps not attractive is not used to getting attention really from anybody. It's a terrible situation. As a Christian, my heart goes out to those people. They're the most beautiful people sometimes that I will ever meet, but their experience is not getting double takes on the street by men in whom they might potentially be interested in. If a manipulator, and we see this a lot in the human trafficking arena, if a manipulator, a trafficker, somebody that has ulterior motives, swoops in and gives them the kind of attention they've only dreamed about receiving, that is uniquely attractive to somebody that's not used to receiving that type of attention. Of course, a predator, a manipulator, somebody that's interested and has ulterior motives, of course they're going to use that approach.

Now they have to be careful because sometimes people that are not the most attractive people in the room might be the smartest, so they have to be very subtle about the way in which they're approaching these people so they don't raise the antenna. Let me tell you what the research shows. This is going to surprise some of our listeners and viewers. Sometimes, even when you have somebody that suspects somebody has ulterior motives, even they can't help being flattered by the attention. How do you like that? It's almost like an emotional cognitive override. Emotionally it feels so good that even though cognitively you suspect ulterior motives, you still respond favorably to the flattery. That is the bread and butter of people, dangerous people that have ulterior motives is knowing that people are susceptible to that kind of attention.

Amelia Worley:  That's really interesting. What role does physical appearance play in misjudgment and wrong perceptions? I know you've talked about this a little bit, but additionally, how does this relate to the halo effect?

Wendy Patrick:  Well, the halo effect stands for, and all of our psychiatrists and psychologist guests will appreciate this, as they know, it talks about this phenomenon that if somebody looks good, sounds good, is pretty, is attractive, we tend to ascribe to them all of these positive qualities they don't have. Some of the research, there's a lot of research behind the halo effect, maybe some people that work with you have even authored some of the studies, but it has to do with us saying things like, “Oh, I bet she's a really good mother. I'll bet he can be trusted,” only because they're good looking. There's many studies that show that attractive criminals, which is of course my line of work, are treated more leniently. They sometimes get more favorable plea bargains. Juries give them the benefit of the doubt.

I've tried about 160 cases. That's a lot of cases if you're a lawyer. In that time period, I've had the opportunity to speak to almost all of my jurors that have waited around after the fact and found that they often really do give my pretty defendants a break. It's one thing to say, this woman is charged with being a child molester and sleeping with her students at school and all the rest of these nasty things, it's quite another to look over and see those jurors smiling, looking at the pretty lady in the polka dot and pearls sitting at the defendant's table. That sometimes translates into a very lenient verdict or a non verdict in the form of a hung jury. It is very difficult to overcome the halo effect because, again, it's something that is emotional, not necessarily cognitive.

I'll tell you one exception of that. There's been some research that has shown that if a jury finds that a pretty or a handsome defendant used their looks to facilitate a crime, they don't like that because that's almost a counterintuitive backdoor way of using what they might otherwise have been susceptible to as the triers of fact in the way that they committed the crime.

Amelia Worley:  That's fascinating, actually.

Wendy Patrick:  It is.

Amelia Worley:  Also in your book, you talked about helping behavior. How can this create a power imbalance and eventually lead to a dangerous situation?

Wendy Patrick:  Well, helping behavior creates dependence. Many of the cases that I've tried have involved predators, child molesters, sexual assaulters. They gain access into the victim's life. They weaseled their way in by being helpful. They're the handyman. They can do anything. They can fix the internet. They can fix the car. If they engage in enough helping behavior, a victim becomes dependent. There have been some cases in which that's been illustrated, sadly, in grand fashion where you have a neighbor that's interested, for example, in a next door neighbor's child. He becomes indispensable to the next door neighbor. I mean, he's over there fixing her car, fixing anything that goes wrong in the house, sometimes even beginning to show up unannounced. It's a boundary probing kind of insidious progression, creating vulnerability.

Sometimes when he shows up unannounced, the neighbor that is so used to this man fixing everything, doesn't even stop him because she doesn't want to lose access to that free labor. Nothing's free. It's only a matter of time before this man will ask to babysit a child. Now, is it true that there are some really kind people that are helpers? Absolutely. That's why there are four flag areas and not just one. You just want to make sure that if something seems too good to be true that sometimes it is. Make sure you go through all the areas of interest, that some people are as good as they look, but not everyone. I'll leave it at that.

Amelia Worley:  Yeah. Once you realize someone in your life is manipulative or deceptive, it can be anxiety-inducing or depressing. What steps should you take when you realize someone like this is in your life? What if it's someone you love?

Wendy Patrick:  Ah, depression and anxiety are something that everybody struggles with. Those are conditions that transcend any kind of boundary, socioeconomic. I mean, no matter who you are, where you live, what you do, you're vulnerable. Part of the reason you're vulnerable is exactly what you just mentioned. Sometimes you find out the hard way that it's somebody very close to you that's manipulative. One of the ways in which you deal with this is exactly what you do in your line of work. You got to talk to somebody about it. People think, oh, I can handle this on my own. They can't. However, it's often very empowering to speak with those who've also gone through the same kind of circumstance. In my line of work, we call those survivors. Human trafficking victims are often helped along towards the path to survivorhood by other survivors who have been through the exact same thing.

So too, those who've had the wool pulled over their eyes, those that have been manipulated, who have been fooled by somebody they thought really loved them, are sometimes very much helped by others who have been there. Sometimes reviewing the red flags will empower them not to fall forward again. Part of what I often teach in connection with these programs I give, because I do this as a speaking series, I've done it all over the world, and I'm going to give you some takeaways along the lines of how can you prevent yourself from being in a position that you're asking a question, what do you do once you recognize you're in that scenario. Maximize first impressions. In other words, don't trade in your reading glasses for rose colored glasses. You're wearing reading glasses when you first meet somebody or first go on a date. Perceive as much as you can when you are most objective.

Be wary of under exposure. If there's an area of somebody's life that they don't share with you like that unaccounted for hour or two after work, you want to know where they are. Why are they off the grid during certain times of the day or night? Most people are very transparent. Sometimes we make the joke TMI, as my students say, too much information, that's preferable to too little information because secrets breed suspicion. Time lapse photography is the next one. You notice I'm on a photography theme, which of course was a thing when I was growing up. Observe somebody's behavior over time. You can't tell what somebody's like if you just have a snapshot of their day. Maybe a continual snapshot, like you work with them. You only know what they're like when they're on the clock. You have to know what they're like in different settings and across time to be able to get a good read on them.

That would also be, I suppose, using a wider angle lens. You're looking at behavior in different settings, in different contexts. Solicit multiple exposures. Introduce people to your friends and family. You may trade in your reading glasses for rose colored, but I guarantee you, your family and friends will not. Anybody who has been second guessed by an objective sounding board, i.e., parents, spouse, family, good friends, colleagues, coworkers, they're going to tell it like it is because they care about you. We live in a day and age of vision enhancement. You can go online and look at social media. Sometimes you look at other dating sites if that's the way you met somebody and see how they describe themselves on other dating sites. Shocker, news flash, yes, people use multiple dating sites and don't go off of those sites just because they start dating you.

There's a lot of information available to make sure that you are not the one that ends up in that scenario where you are involved and are just now recognizing that you're involved with the wrong person. Now, let me temper all of that with what we'll call, I don't know if we really want to put a word on it, but the tendency we have to believe. It's easier to believe. It's cognitively more challenging and difficult to doubt. When we first meet somebody, we're disinclined to go online and look up and fact check everything. Nobody has the time for that, and we don't want to do it because we're sometimes enamored with a new love interest. Those are some of the reasons that even very smart people sometimes fall for the wrong individuals.

Amelia Worley:  Yeah. That's really helpful. Thank you. Lastly, do you have any advice or anything you want to say to someone regarding dangerous or deceptive people?

Wendy Patrick:  I think I just said it. I think that laundry list of ways that you would make sure you don't allow somebody to get too close to you until you've gone through all of those steps is probably the best way to prevent yourself from being in that scenario to begin with. The reason my book has all those chapters, it talks about all the different ways that we are captivated by somebody when we don't really know who they are. That's one of the reasons that there are just so many ways, counter intuition, when the optics don't match the topics, make sure you use all of your senses all of the time when you're getting to know somebody. That is the single best way to make sure you are not fooled.

The last chapter in my book, as you know, is green lights because I don't want anybody to think that my years as a prosecutor made me a skeptic. Some people are as good as they look. Go figure. I'm going to give a big amen to that, because that sometimes is what we find out when we get to know somebody better is it's authentic, it's genuine, and that creates a healthy, happy relationship.

Amelia Worley:  Well, that's great. Thank you so much, Dr. Patrick. It was wonderful having you on our interview series today.

Wendy Patrick:  Thank you for having me.

Please note: The views expressed by the interviewee are for educational and informational purposes only, are not meant to diagnose or treat any condition, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Seattle Anxiety Specialists, PLLC.


Editor: Jennifer (Ghahari) Smith, Ph.D.

Therapist Amanda Ann Gregory on Trauma & Roe v. Wade

An Interview with Therapist Amanda Ann Gregory

Amanda Ann Gregory, LCPC is a psychotherapist, national speaker, and author. She holds licenses in the states of Illinois, Texas, and Missouri, and has EMDR certification. She specializes in working with trauma survivors.

Anna Kiesewetter:  Hi, thank you so much for joining us today on this installment of the Seattle Psychiatrist Interview Series. My name is Anna Kiesewetter, and I'm a research intern at Seattle Anxiety Specialists. I'd like to welcome today with us the trauma psychotherapist, Amanda Ann Gregory. Amanda is a trauma psychotherapist, national speaker, and author. She holds licenses in the states of Illinois, Texas, and Missouri, as well as an EMDR (Eye Movement, Desensitization, and Reprocessing) certification and a National Counselor certification. Amanda has provided individual, group, and family therapy for more than a dozen years in outpatient and residential settings, and is currently in private practice in Chicago.

Her work has appeared in Psychology Today, Psychotherapy Networker, Happiful Magazine, Addiction Professional, and other magazines. Amanda has also served as a presenter for clinical conferences, employee trainings, and community events and has spoken for the American Counseling Association, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, the Missouri Department of Mental Health, the Missouri School Counselor Association, Prevent Child Abuse Illinois, and the Missouri Association of Marriage and Family Therapy.

Before we get started, could you please tell us a little bit more about yourself and how you came to work as a trauma psychotherapist?

Amanda Ann Gregory:  Yes. How I came to work in trauma was actually by accident. My very first job out of graduate school was at a very specialized residential treatment center for teenagers, which specialized in treating developmental trauma, which especially at that time really wasn't well known and it’s trauma that basically occurs in childhood over a period of pivotal development. And when I was there, I absolutely loved it. I loved working with trauma survivors, and I didn't want to leave it. And so I took those skills into the outpatient world in community mental health centers. Now, I'm in a group practice. And so this is a population that I just fell in love working with. And later, honestly, realizing that I'm also a developmental trauma survivor, and so, really feeling that I'm connected to this population. I was able to do my own work, my own trauma treatment, which is a big part of being a trauma clinician. And so really it's twofold. It's a wonderful population to work with, and also I consider them my people, my tribe, so to speak. Yeah. And I just always feel grateful to be able to do this work.

Anna Kiesewetter:  That's really beautiful. Thank you for sharing that with us. What does this therapy generally look like for you?

Amanda Ann Gregory:  And can you say that again?

Anna Kiesewetter:  Yeah. What does therapy generally look like for you as a trauma therapist?

Amanda Ann Gregory:  Right. Dealing with trauma, it's a little bit different sometimes from other types of therapies. When we think of therapy, sometimes we automatically think of talk therapy, which is typically cognitive behavioral therapy, but with trauma work, it's a bit different because you have to bring in other interventions to address those earlier developing parts of the brain. And so therapy for me really depends upon the trauma survivor, what they've already been exposed to, what work maybe they've already done, or is this their very first time participating in treatment? I tend to combine a lot of methods, so I'm attachment based. There's a big focus on the relationship with the client and creating that safety to start. And I bring in a lot of interventions to help the brain such as EMDR, somatic experiencing, maybe even at times play therapy, animal assisted therapy, internal family systems. It's really eclectic depending upon what the client needs, but it does look a little bit different at times from what people may think of as that talk on the couch type of therapy.

Anna Kiesewetter:  That's really interesting. Could you tell us a little bit more about how it differs from the talk therapy practice... It sounds like it's a little bit more hands on for the things that you do. Is that right?

Amanda Ann Gregory:  Yes. It could definitely be more hands on and a bit more interactive. Here's an example. Let's say I'm working with a client about, let's just say one experience that they've had that they've really kept with them. It's really blocked them in areas of their life. And we would call that trauma. Some people, if they're working with a client, they may want to talk through it. They may want them maybe to create a narrative of their experience, which can be wonderful. My type of therapy is bringing more things, for example, the body. When you recall that memory, what do you notice in your body? Connecting with that sensation, helping that sensation to process.

With EMDR, we do a lot of that bilateral stimulation to desensitize the actual impacts of those experience and reprocess adaptable core beliefs. Instead of the client telling me what happened and going through the story of it, I might move their eyes back and forth, back and forth. I may have them hold onto these vibrating tactiles that go back and forth, back and forth in their hands. And that's what's helping them process and I'm going to help them along. I'm going to be right there. It's definitely not hands off, but it does tend to be a bit more experiential in nature.

Anna Kiesewetter:  I see, yeah. Thank you for explaining that. Awesome. Okay, now that we've gotten to know a little bit about you and the therapy work that you do, today, I'd like to address a topic on a lot of our minds. On June 24th, 2022, the Supreme Court overturned its Roe v. Wade decision in the US, ruling that the right to an abortion is not protected under federal law and delegating jurisdiction over abortions to the states. Following that ruling, abortion has become or will become illegal in over a dozen states whose legislatures had passed automatic trigger bans, as reported by the New York Times. In a recent article that you wrote, you write that this ruling is particularly harmful to trauma survivors. I'm wondering, what are the implications of this ruling on survivor's physical and mental health?

Amanda Ann Gregory:  Yes. The issue about this ruling that tends to threaten, sorry, trauma survivors is it really does threaten that sense of safety. And if we can just use that as a foundation: just safety. And if we look at trauma, trauma is usually created by an experience or a bunch of experiences where that safety wasn't there, or perhaps that agency or autonomy wasn't there and that's created this response. If we take these folks who've had those experiences and then we have something like this happen, which does strip people of that agency and that autonomy, that does not feel safe. And so basically what we're asking now is trauma survivors to try to heal, try to recover, try to not offend others because of their trauma, which at times has happened. We want them to do this work, but we're not going to provide that safety.

It's kind of like you get healed, you do your best, but we're going to take some of that safety away. And in trauma treatment, any trauma therapist knows that doesn't work. There has to be maybe not 100% safety, but some foundation of safety for trauma survivors to be able to work on this and to be able to really move past surviving to thriving. And this ruling makes that so much more difficult, because it really does strip that safety and really specifying that, and I'll just use the word agency, taking away that agency, that bodily agency, that relational agency, which directly has a negative impact on mental health.

Anna Kiesewetter:  Right. Yeah. Thank you for that. And here at Seattle Anxiety, we focus a lot on anxiety disorders. I'm wondering with the implications of this ruling on trauma survivors, how this impacts anxiety disorders or any anxiety symptoms in survivors?

Amanda Ann Gregory:  Sure. If we look at anxiety, we just take trauma out of it for a second, trauma is anxiety. They're very much mixed up, but if someone, let's say, has a generalized anxiety disorder, and they're in this world, this is definitely going to create some anxiety because it's, well, now my choices are restricted. Now I may have to worry about this and that. And even if you feel like it doesn't apply to you, for example, if you are someone capable of giving birth, you don't want to do that at all. Don't want to even be involved in that. Knowing that somebody else is restricted in some capacity in their choices could make you really feel unsafe and it could lead to a lot of additional worrying. Folks who experience anxiety tend to struggle with racing thoughts, worrying, issues like that. And this could really infiltrate that and actually make that significantly worse.

Anna Kiesewetter:  That makes sense. And then on the physical health aspect, I know you write also a little bit about how there is a continuation of trauma and often being more exposed to the source of the trauma if you are put in a place where you're forced to carry a pregnancy to term. Could you talk a little bit more about that and the continuation of that trauma?

Amanda Ann Gregory:  Right. If we go back to safety and look at that agency being stripped, it's like you're suspecting to be back in that situation again, or you already feel like you're back in it. And so actually, I believe the United Nations actually believes that forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy is a crime against humanity. And so I think that's interesting that they have that set and then yet we have that overturned here. And if you just think about the restriction of that, and if we look at relational trauma. Okay. If somebody has a relationship, it could be with a parent, it could be with a romantic partner, it could even be with a friend or a community member, and that relationship is not safe. Let's say it's toxic. Let's say there's abuse involved. What do we tell these people as a society? We say, “Get out.” Right? “End the relationship, have some boundaries, get out.”

Okay. But what if certain decisions made by other people are forcing you to stay in that relationship in some capacity? There are states that a rapist can sue for parental rights of a child. And that means that you will need to have a relationship with this person in some capacity going forward. And so you can't just get out. You can't just have these boundaries because that's very much restricted. And so let's just take rape out of it for a second. Let's say you're in a relationship and it is abusive and you get pregnant. Would you be required to carry that child to term? And is that going to hold you to that other person for at least 18, 19, 20 years, maybe the rest of your life, honestly? Is that going to help you or is that going to traumatize you or is that actually going to feed more of those trauma responses? And it will. The thing about trauma is it compacts upon itself. It's very rare just to have this one event.

Now, some people do have one traumatic event that I need to address, but when it comes to developmental trauma or complex trauma, it compacts. It's a series of these progressive experiences. And what we sometimes see with trauma survivors is their old coping mechanisms, what they needed to do to survive, they keep doing it into adulthood. They just keep doing it. And so this can create situations for folks to continue to have that trauma compacted upon itself.

Anna Kiesewetter:  Right. Yeah. That's very important. You also write about the implications of this ruling on the messaging it would send to children about consent and bodily autonomy. Would you be able to tell us a little bit more about how this ruling affects childhood development?

Amanda Ann Gregory:  Sure. A couple of ways, one, I'll talk about the children being around the adults and then just the children. And so when adults don't feel safe, when adults don't feel like they have a sense of agency, children pick up on that. They do. And we try to keep that from them. We try to protect them, but we have to understand that we're actually putting that off in all this nonverbal communication all the time and children constantly pick up on that. When a child is with an adult who, let's say, is their primary attachment figure and the adult is struggling, then the child's going to pick up on that in some capacity. And so now we have parents who may not feel as safe as they did before this was overturned. And we have those children in the home who are going to also pick up on that.

And if you think of it from a child's point of view, I'm requiring, I'm really relying on this adult or this set of adults or maybe multiple adults to keep me safe. But if they're struggling, if they don't feel safe, how are they going to keep me safe? And these aren't words that are spoken. It's very nonverbal. That's one thing that may negatively impact children. Second is as some cultures, we tend to struggle at times with teaching children about bodily agency and consent. Sometimes we will do these things of “Give me a hug, give me a kiss, go hug grandma, go do it.” We send those messages, which isn't great, because it doesn't really line up with what we say and “Hey, if anybody touches you, you need to tell us. These are the places that they can't touch.” We have to provide that education, but then somebody in your family or somebody that your parents trust can just do whatever they want and you have to consent to that. We do tend to send some mixed messages to children, I think.

And there is a movement in child psychology to really encourage parents to request children to provide physical intimacy if they would like. For example, “Would you like to hug grandma? Is that something you would like to do?” Or asking a child, “Can I give you a kiss?” Things like that could actually build up more of that sense of teaching a child, “This is your body - yes, within reason, some adults may be making some medical decisions or things like that for you, but I'm going to expose you to the fact that this is your body. You get to decide what you do with your body. You get to decide who touches it, who doesn't touch your body.” And those messages can be pretty mixed. And now we're in this society with this Roe versus Wade being overturned, which well now, what are we telling children? Are we telling children that only the boys have controls over their body? Where is that line there between, we're trying to teach them to be safe, but then we're not providing this global safety or this national safety for them. For children, very, very confusing.

Anna Kiesewetter:  Right. That makes a lot of sense. Still on the topic of children, you've written another piece on how to talk to children about the experience of growing up in the era of school shootings, in light of the mass shooting in Uvalde, Texas. I was wondering if we could relate this a little bit to this question and think about how you would approach conversations with children about abortion rights.

Amanda Ann Gregory:  Right. When it comes to these big national events, it could be very intimidating for us to talk to children about that and to know what to do, whether it's a school shooting or a decision being overturned that really impacts us and them. I always tell parents, start with curiosity. Don't assume a thing. Sometimes we come to children and we assume they know nothing. And then we get all this information about things they've heard. And of course in our digital age, it's just one click away for them to find all of this information. Even very small children know how to do that. We don't know what information they've already been exposed to. The first thing I tell parents is, just be curious. Approach the conversation with calmness, just very gentle, and just be curious, "Hey, what have you heard about this?”

“What have you know about this? What are their friends saying?” Just be very curious and to listen first. We want to jump in. We want to give insights and advice. And sometimes, especially if a child reports not feeling safe, we want to fix it. We'd be like, "You're safe. I'm going to keep you safe. It's not going to happen to you." Well, hold on. Let's listen first. Do they have any concerns? Do they not feel safe? Do they have any questions? And then really validating what are they going through? If a child is confused about this, validate that. Absolutely it's confusing. This is a really tough thing to understand. If a child doesn't feel safe, validate that. If a child doesn't care, they're just like, "Ah, I don't really care about that." Okay. Validate that and acknowledge that. And notice that there's so many steps before we get to actually implementing or speaking. We're being curious. We're listening. We're validating.

Then I think if we need to, we can move into problem solving. We can move into providing them maybe some education or some information, but not before we go through all those steps, because that really opens up the line of communication and it keeps it open. Because things like this, whether it's a school shooting or Roe versus Wade, it's not going to go away. These things are going to keep happening. They're going to keep developing. With kids, we really want to keep that line of communication open. We want them to know it's safe to come to me. It's safe to talk about this.

Anna Kiesewetter:  Yeah. Thank you for that. I think that's going to be really helpful for parent listeners. I'm also wondering: what do you think that the mental health community and psychotherapy can do to help survivors post-Roe?

Amanda Ann Gregory:  Yes, there's a couple of things. First off, when it comes to mental health providers, and I'm sure they're already facing this, it's so important to allow clients, members of your family, people in the community, really a safe space to process this. And that's really exploring their thoughts and feelings related to this. Sometimes we want to shut that down. We want to move people over here, over here, but what if we just step back and we just allowed them to process. There were quite a few clients the next day and this week in my sessions with them that they needed that time. They needed that space. And as a clinician, it may be tempting to say, "Whoa, hold on. This isn't what we're working on. We're working on your trauma or we're working on this or that. Let's focus on that."

No, you can't. You have to address what's happening in their lives here and now to not only support the relationship you have with them, but free them up, get these wheels going, get that processing going. And when it comes to trauma survivors, we can't pick and choose. We can't say, "Okay, well this is something going on now, but let's focus on your past." It's interwoven. It all comes together. I think it's really important to give the people in our lives the time and the space to really explore this. And that can be really difficult. And again, when putting this to members of the community, it's the same thing. We're all going through this together. And it's regardless of if you agree with the decision or if you don't agree with the decision. I think this is really stressful for everybody. And I think when we provide those safe places for people to explore that, it's one of the best things that we can do.

Anna Kiesewetter:  Yeah. Thank you. I think that's very important. With that, do you have any final thoughts or insights that you'd like to impart to our audience, on the Roe v. Wade decision or about children or school shootings? Anything that you'd like to talk about?

Amanda Ann Gregory:  Yeah, I do have one more point. This might be a little controversial, but this isn't political. If you really take a step back and look at it, whether if it's Roe v. Wade, whether if it's the war in Ukraine, whether if it's a school shooting, it's not political. And I think we sometimes use that as a mask or a band-aid to hide these things. And as a clinician, I had people reach out to me and say, "Thank you so much for just talking about, for just writing about this because we don't really see this from a whole lot of clinicians." And that shocked me.

And I saw just online and in social media, there was this movement to try to get counselors therapists, social workers, to stop talking about this. People were saying, "This is political. You need to just treat people. You need to keep this out of the conversation," but that doesn't work so well. We don't live in a vacuum and if we are devoting our lives to treating these folks and helping them, then it's very difficult to stay quiet when things happen that we know is going to have a direct negative impact upon them and could very easily sabotage treatment and make it so much more difficult. And so I did hesitate before writing that article that you read or even doing this interview.

There were some people that said, "Oh, you're not going to get certain clients" or this and that. I was like, "I get that. That's a risk. But I can't pretend that it doesn't impact the same people that I'm trying to help." And so I guess I would say that if something is going on that impacts your clients, think about that. Do I want to say something? Do I want to advocate? Does that feel right for me? And if not, simply allowing your clients or the people in your life that space to process that and process that with you might be another good option, but when it comes to these events that cause trauma in folks, that really perpetuates trauma, it's not political not anymore.

Anna Kiesewetter:  Right. Thank you. I think that's so important. And thank you so much for everything that you've talked with us today about. I think you have a very powerful message and it's really important at this time to have that. We wish you the best and hope to have you back for another interview in the future; thank you again for coming. And that'll conclude this installment of The Seattle Psychiatrist Interview Series. Thank you all so much for listening and we hope that you'll tune in next time.

To read more about Amanda Ann Gregory, click here.

To access our PTSD Self-Care page, click here.

Please note: The views expressed by the interviewee are for educational and informational purposes only, are not meant to diagnose or treat any condition, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Seattle Anxiety Specialists, PLLC.


Editor: Jennifer (Ghahari) Smith, Ph.D.

Internist Howard Schubiner on Mind-Body Connections

An Interview with Internist Howard Schubiner

Howard Schubiner, MD is an internist and both the founder and director of the Mind Body Medicine Center at Ascension Providence Hospital in Southfield, Michigan. Dr. Schubiner is a clinical professor at the Michigan State University College of Human Medicine and is an expert in the mind-body connection, as it relates to one’s health.

Nicole Izquierdo:  Thanks for joining us today for this installment of the Seattle Psychiatrists Interview Series. I'm Nicole Izquierdo, a research intern at Seattle Anxiety Specialists, and I'd like to welcome with us Dr. Howard Schubiner. Is that how you pronounce it? Is that correct?

Howard Schubiner:  It is.

Nicole Izquierdo:  Okay. So Dr. Schubiner is an internist and both a founder and director of the Mind Body Medicine Center at Ascension Providence Hospital in Southfield, Michigan. He is a clinical professor at the Michigan State University College of Human Medicine and is a fellow in the American College of Physicians and the American Academy of Pediatrics. He has authored more than 100 publications in scientific journals and books, and lectures regionally, nationally, and internationally. So before we get started with the official questions, would you like to share a little bit more about yourself with our listeners, and what made you interested in becoming a physician?

Howard Schubiner:  Well, that's a great question. First of all, it was a long time ago. It just seemed like a good idea at the time, I guess. I wanted to do something that would be useful and meaningful. I wanted to work in a community. And I was in university at the time, and I don't know, I just thought I would see what it was like. I took a few science classes and I found them to be not too difficult, and it just kind of led from there. I started volunteering at a free clinic and learned more about healthcare and medicine and some of the problems in medicine, frankly. Even way back then in the 1970s, it was becoming very clear that the biotechnical approach to medical problems had tremendous potential and tremendous value, but it also left things lacking. And it turned out, as my career has meandered and wandered over the years, that I've come to a place now where my main work has to do with the failings of biotechnological medicine and the promise of more simple and more patient-centered approaches.

Nicole Izquierdo:  Thank you. Thank you for sharing that. So you specialize in the mind-body connection as it relates to one's health. Do you mind defining what that is to our listeners?

Howard Schubiner:  Sure. Everyone knows the brain and the body are connected. The mind and the body are connected. When you get embarrassed, your face turns red. When you have to give a speech, your stomach may flip into knots. Everyone knows that. But it turns out it goes much, much deeper. It goes deeper in the sense that we have learned, in the last couple decades or so, that our brains actually create all of what we experience. Which is really a revolutionary concept. And it's called predictive coding or predictive processing. And so when you touch a hot stove, it's not your finger causing pain. It's actually the brain. The nerve signals go up to the spinal cord into the brain, but the brain makes a decision. It sounds weird, but the brain makes a decision whether to turn on pain or not. And we know that, because a lot of times, people have injuries without any pain. And we also know that the brain can activate pain or anxiety or fatigue or depression or insomnia when it's under stress. It's like a warning signal.

And so pain is a protection. We need pain. The reason we have pain is that it warns us that there's something wrong, usually wrong physically in the body. But our brain can turn on pain, the same pain, exact same pain, when we feel trapped or emotionally in danger, and that pain is real. And so it's really important for people to understand that pain and anxiety and depression are actually generated in the brain, and they're generated in the brain as a warning signal, as an alarm, like a smoke alarm.

And so it's up to us to figure out what the message is, why that's happening. If you have pain in your back and it's a kidney stone, then that's the message. You need to deal with the kidney stone. But if you have pain in your neck because you're in a
job that's untenable and harsh or you're in a relationship where you get betrayed, then that's the message. But the pain can be exactly the same. The anxiety can be exactly the same. So once you understand that the brain creates what we experience, now you have an inroads for understanding how we work, what makes us tick, and how to deal with it.

Nicole Izquierdo:  So would you say that those instances where it's more like a psychological stressor causing let's say neck pain or a headache or back pain, would that be, what's the term, psychophysiological disorder, or is that something else?

Howard Schubiner:  No, that's exactly right.

Nicole Izquierdo:  Okay.

Howard Schubiner:  In the old days, they used the term psychosomatic. They still use that term in Europe, but we don't use it here because it seems mean. But the fact is, since our brain controls what we experience, it's not mean. The fact is that we are psychological beings, we are emotional beings, we are social beings. And so the fact that we can get... If I have pain and I know it's from my brain as opposed to from my body, I'm happy. It shouldn't be stigmatizing, because the symptom is real. It's not imaginary. I tell people, anyone who says the pain or the anxiety or the depression or the fatigue or the insomnia is all in your head, it doesn't understand how things work. It's real. It's not your fault. It's not because you're crazy. It's not because you're weak. It's not because you're deficient. It's not because you want it. It's because your brain is sounding an alarm. There's something important that's going on in your body or in your life, and so it's up to us to figure that out.

Nicole Izquierdo:  Yeah. That's nice that the terminology is changing to capture that change of... Because it is invalidating, telling someone, "No, it's fake. It's not as bad as a 'real' injury or 'real' pain." And "real" in quotation. Are there any specific examples of these disorders? Like diagnostic names, diagnostic criteria?

Howard Schubiner:  Well, yeah. We have developed a lot of diagnostic criteria for these disorders. And, well, first of all, people who develop these mind-body conditions or what I sometimes call neurocircuit conditions are more likely to have stressful childhoods, more likely to have histories of trauma, more likely to feel like they have been criticized or feel they are not good enough or put other people first and not stand up for themselves. They're more likely to be in difficult situations currently in their life.

And the symptoms that they have are more likely to turn on and off, to shift or move. And we see, what's interesting is we see, because as we understand the brain creating these conditions, we frequently see that some people may have headaches for a while, and then the headaches go away, and then they get back pain, and then the back pain goes away, and then they get anxiety, and then the anxiety goes away, and they get fatigue, and then the fatigue goes away and they get irritable bowel, and the irritable bowel goes away and they get depression. And these can shift and move, sometimes within days or hours or weeks or months. And you can see the pattern where you can see that someone's been under stress and their brain has created a variety of different warning signals. And so we're looking very carefully at people's stories and listening to them. And, as you said, validating them, caring for them, being compassionate toward them, and helping to understand them and understand that their symptoms may be reversible, as opposed to being incurable.


Nicole Izquierdo:  How would you recommend that sometimes to get to that point, once you check everything else off the list that is let's say a kidney stone, for the back pain. How would you recommend going about it so that patients that do struggle with this aren't also struggling with the toll of going through a bunch of tests or the cost associated with those tests?

Howard Schubiner:  Yeah. That's a great question. We always recommend getting testing. If you have anxiety, you need to have your thyroid checked to make sure that you're not hyperthyroid. If you have anxiety, you need to have your heart checked to make sure you're not having a tachyarrhythmia or something like that. If you have depression, you need to have your thyroid checked, you need to have your hormones checked. These are obvious. If you have back pain, you need to get your back checked.

But we don't want to over-interpret things and we don't want to make people think that just because their symptoms are chronic that means that they're incurable. There has been a lot of research showing that, for example, in neck and back pain, that most people have abnormal MRIs. The MRIs are going to be abnormal. They're going to have degenerative disc disease, spinal stenosis, things like this. But those things are common in people who have no pain at all. So you shouldn't be saying, "Oh, that's the cause of your pain, because you have these mild abnormalities that everybody else has."

Similarly, with anxiety and depression, I feel strongly that we shouldn't be telling people that... And I know this is controversial and some people in your groups may disagree with me, but when we tell people that the problem is inflammation of the brain or it's genetic problem, what we're telling them is that it's not fixable. What we're telling them is that they're doomed and that they'll just have to cope with it. And that's the same thing doctors tell people with back pain when they see an abnormal MRI. And so we're trying to break out of that rigid biotechnical model to embrace this mind-body model or this predictive processing model, because it's much more optimistic and much more hopeful about making changes and getting better.


Nicole Izquierdo:  So one of your books is titled Unlearn Your Pain, and we actually have several clients that come to us seeking relief for chronic health issues, many of which included chronic pain. So without giving the entirety of the book away, can you explain how this could be possible?

Howard Schubiner:  Sure. Well, it starts with what we've been talking about. It starts with understanding predictive processing. It starts with understand how the brain works. And then it's an assessment, so it's making an assessment to make sure that there's nothing actually structurally wrong. And most people with chronic pain do not have a structural condition. Most people with headaches, fibromyalgia, irritable bowel, chronic abdominal pain, chronic pelvic pain, chronic neck and back pain, do not have a structural problem in their body, and I would assert the same is true for people with chronic fatigue, insomnia, anxiety, and depression. So the first part is that assessment. And then after that, there's three types of things that we help people to work with. One is we call pain reprocessing therapy. The second, we call emotional awareness and expression therapy. And the third is making changes in someone's life and dealing with their current issues in their life.

Pain reprocessing therapy can also be used for anxiety and depression, and what it is, it's a process of changing your relationship to the sensations you have in your body. Instead of fearing them and focusing on them and trying to figure them out and trying to fight them, it's actually being with them and tolerating them and knowing that they're not serious, that they can't hurt you, that you're going to be okay, and it's practicing graded exposure to gradually do more and more and tolerate the sensations of these uncomfortable, unpleasant physical sensations, and by changing your relationship to them, you're calming that danger alarm mechanism in the brain, which will then turn down the symptoms. That's the first step, the first treatment.

The second treatment is emotional awareness and expression therapy, which I developed with my colleague, Mark Lumley, and that involves dealing with the emotional issues that people have been through. Dealing with the emotions of anger and fear and grief and sadness and guilt, and moving through those to compassion for one's self. And it's a process instead of trying to just moderate the emotions to actually feel them, identify them, feel them, and express them in safe and healthy ways.

And then the third step is what do you have to do in your life? Sometimes, people need to make a change in their life. You need to set boundaries or make changes in their relationships in order to free their danger signal from continuing to create the pain or the fatigue or the anxiety or whatever.


Nicole Izquierdo:  Thank you for sharing that. Would you say that there is an evolutionary reason for something like the brain turning on those pain signals when there is no physical or structural issue?

Howard Schubiner:  Yeah. It's speculative, of course. We can't really go back in time and understand. But the way I think of it is that pain is a protector. Anxiety, depression, fatigue, they're protectors. Our brain is turning them on as a message to protect us from something, to alert us to something. When we get a broken ankle, our brain turns on pain in order to tell us to stop walking on that ankle, get rest, get help. So way back in hundreds of thousands of years ago, Neanderthals lived on the earth and homo sapiens did. Neanderthals were bigger, smarter, faster, they had bigger brains, they were better hunters. Why didn't they survive? Homo sapiens survived because they worked in clans. They got together in groups and they communicated and they hunted together and they looked out for each other. And that's, we think, why we, so to speak, survived.

And so if you were back in those days and you got bit by a tiger, obviously, your brain, you want pain. You break an ankle, you want pain. But why would you want pain or other symptoms in an emotional situation? Well, if you survive because of your clan, if you get kicked out of the clan, you might die. That's a life-threatening thing, to get kicked out. Why would you get kicked out? Because of shame, because of guilt, because you did something wrong, but you beat up somebody or you betrayed somebody. And then the group would enforce the rule by shaming you or yelling at you or criticizing you, or whatever. And then you would be in danger of ostracism, which could mean death. So from my point of view, it makes sense that our brain would turn on a very strong reaction not only to a physical injury but also to an emotional injury. And I think that's why that occurred, but it's a bit of speculation, of course.


Nicole Izquierdo:  So you were featured in a new documentary titled This Might Hurt, which follows three chronic pain sufferers and offers solutions to such suffering. So your paradigm for diagnosis and treatment was found to be effective in several randomized trials, and it was actually listed as a best practice by the HHS's taskforce to combat the opioid epidemic. Can you speak a little bit more about this film and what has led to the ongoing opioid epidemic in the US?

Howard Schubiner:  Sure. The film is This Might Hurt. It was directed and produced by Kent Bassett and Marianne Cunningham, two young people. Kent himself had chronic pain and cured himself by changing his mind, changing how he related to it, changing his understanding of it, without any medical intervention. He had very severe chronic pain that it was incapacitating for quite a while. So he wanted to make this movie, and the movie kind of shows the real-life issues that people with pain have. One of the women in the movie was bedridden for eight years with chronic abdominal pain. And after going through this program, she got up, she got out of bed, she could work. She went back and got a job. I mean, it's amazing what can happen when you have this different way of looking at it, as I was describing, this whole different way of looking at it and different way of treating it.

Because the main paradigm for treating chronic symptoms in our medical world, chronic pain, is that you're going to have to cope with it. We'll give you medications, injections, physical therapy, acupuncture, meditation, all these things to help you cope with it better, but they're not offering, actually, to make it better. And the research shows that the coping method doesn't work all that well with chronic pain. And similarly, I would argue, with anxiety and depression and chronic fatigue, we're finding that the coping model of doing a little bit of this and a little bit of that doesn't... It has kind of a ceiling effect. You're saying, "Well, you can get better, but you can't get all the way better." And so you're stuck in this danger signal in your brain. And so we're trying to think of these things in a different way, which I think is actually scientifically valid. It's not pie in the sky or just rose-colored glasses. It's actually based on the neuroscience of how the brain works.

And so the opioid epidemic was a response, but it was a kind of neurobiotechnical response. You have pain. There must be something wrong in your body. We have to treat the pain. We'll have to give you medication because there's nothing else we can do. And so over time, more and more people got more and more medications. Of course, the drug companies were complicit in this, in trying to tell doctors that these medications weren't addicting or weren't as addicting as people were concerned. And in addition to that, our society has basically been falling apart in a lot of ways. And so that clearly weighs on people's minds and makes people much more likely to turn to pain relievers, because their lives are so difficult.


Nicole Izquierdo:  Thank you. So our practice specializes in treating anxiety and anxiety-related disorders, and so we were particularly interested to see you have another book titled Unlearn Your Anxiety and Depression. Do you mind elaborating on how this might be possible, and whether this is something that someone can do by themselves, or whether it has to be under the care of a mental healthcare provider like a therapist or a psychiatrist?

Howard Schubiner:  Yeah. Good question. When I started working in the field of pain, and so I saw a lot of people with pain and I learned a lot. I've been doing this for almost 20 years now. So I just learned a lot about pain, and what I saw over time was that frequently, the people who had chronic pain also had anxiety or depression. If you're in a counseling center and you're seeing people with anxiety and depression, about 50% of your patients are going to have a chronic painful condition. So there's a tremendous overlap in these conditions, number one. Number two, there's tremendous interchangeability of these conditions, as I mentioned before, where you see people where symptoms will kind of come and go, and anxiety may be replaced with pain and pain may be replaced with fatigue and fatigue may be replaced with insomnia and then depression. And so when you see that in people, you can see, well, gee, the brain may be turning on one set of symptoms and then may be turning on another set of symptoms.

And what I've found over the years is that if you apply the similar diagnostic assessment tool mechanism to people with anxiety and depression as I did with people with chronic pain. Again, really not a structural problem, and looking for the clues that suggest that it is a neural circuit problem, number one. And then number two, using the changing your relationship to the symptoms. For example, if someone has anxiety... What I'm doing is not rocket science, not super complicated, but it's very optimistic, and it's saying that you can change.

And so if someone is having anxiety in a certain situation, in elevators or in work meetings or in family situations, the first step would be to have them imagine that situation in their mind. And when you imagine that situation in your mind, what happens in your body? What response do you get? And so if you're imagining being in a work meeting and your stomach starts to flip into knots and you feel a little bit trembly, then that's your brain turning that on. You're not actually in the situation. You're just imagining it. And that's a low-level exposure. And then we help people to smile at that, to calm their brain, to soothe the brain, to treat the brain like a scared child lying in bed, fearful of a monster in the closet, and to give themselves love and compassion and caring, give their brain love and compassion and caring. Recognizing their brain is not the enemy, it's just afraid. It's just afraid of the situation.

And then we use these techniques to help calm those symptoms, calm the stomach, calm the trembling. And then go back and imagine the situation again, and then calm the sensations. And then imagine the situation again. And you keep doing that, and then it's just like the old classic way of treating a
phobia of snakes. Desensitization. And then you gradually get people to go into those situations with this calmness, with these techniques. And the techniques are not all that brilliant. They're just the normal calming techniques. But it's knowing that you can do it. It's knowing you're going to be okay. Knowing it's just your brain that's afraid. And that's the key that can really help people to propel themselves to changing their symptoms. And then, of course, certain people may also need to deal with some of the traumas in their life, some of the emotional situations. And that's what we talked about with the emotional awareness and expression therapy part of it, as well.

Nicole Izquierdo:  So you would say it's ideal for this to happen under the care of a practitioner, developing the exposure hierarchy? Or even having someone there when you're experiencing those stressful situations to make sure they're not in danger?

Howard Schubiner:  Yeah. I mean, some people clearly need help and need a therapist. But there's not enough therapists in the world to deal with all the people who have chronic pain and have chronic anxiety and depression. There's nowhere near enough therapists in the world. So my view is that a lot of people can do this on their own. A lot of people can learn these techniques. And that's why I've written these books into a self-help guided recovery program that people can use. And I get emails all the time from people who are using these on their own.

And so it's really a question of what level of worry and concern and what level help people need, and what level of underlying trauma people have, what the severity of their situation is. So I think it's kind of a mixture. When I work with people, I work with them individually, but then I give them lots of homework, and I say, "Here's how you can start to practice this on your own. Here's how you can do this on your own." Because ultimately, we want people to be in charge of their own health, as much as possible.


Nicole Izquierdo:  Thank you. Yeah, I see something similar with that and what we're trying to do with our website with interviews and writing articles. Because some people can't afford to start treatment or continue treatment forever, so.

Howard Schubiner:  Absolutely.

Nicole Izquierdo: Nice that that was your goal with those books. I appreciate that. So we're approaching our final question. As a doctor specializing in the mind-body connection, do you have any other words of advice or parting words for our listeners?

Howard Schubiner:  No. I really think that the most important thing is
compassion. So many people who have been brought up in difficult situations have learned that it's much easier for them to be compassionate to others than to be compassionate to themselves. We see this all the time. And if they can begin to do that, if they can begin to look out for themselves, stand up for themselves, speak up for themselves. If they can recognize that they are, it sounds silly, but, worthy and deserving and worthy of being loved, just as everyone else is, that is just such an important step for people to take. And there's ways to do that, and there's books written about self-compassion, for example, that people can follow and learn to take care of themselves. Because what's happening is that their brain is reacting out of fear and worry, and some of the fear and worry they're actually putting on themselves because they're feeling inadequate. And so, to me, it really starts with compassion.

Nicole Izquierdo:  Thank you. So to wrap things up, we just wanted to let our listeners know that Dr. Schubiner has a series of animations on YouTube that are very insightful, so we will be linking those on our website. And I just wanted to say thank you so much for joining us and sharing your knowledge, Dr. Schubiner. We really appreciate you taking the time to speak with us, and we wish you the best.

Howard Schubiner:  Thank you. It's a pleasure. Thank you for doing what you're doing. I appreciate it.

Nicole Izquierdo:  Thanks.

Please note: The views expressed by the interviewee are for educational and informational purposes only, are not meant to diagnose or treat any condition, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Seattle Anxiety Specialists, PLLC.


Editor: Jennifer (Ghahari) Smith, Ph.D.

Psychologist Bethany Brand on PTSD & Dissociation

An Interview with Psychologist Bethany Brand

Dr. Bethany Brand is a Clinical Psychologist and Professor of Psychology at Towson University. She is an expert in trauma and specializes in the assessment and treatment of trauma-related disorders, including PTSD and dissociative disorders.

Amelia Worley:  Thanks for joining us today for this installment of the Seattle Psychiatrist Interview Series. I'm Amelia Worley, a research intern at Seattle Anxiety Specialist. I'd like to welcome Dr. Bethany Brand. Dr. Brand is a professor in the Department of Psychology at Towson University. She also maintains an independent practice in clinical psychology, specializing in the treatment of trauma disorders, including dissociative disorders and post-traumatic stress disorders. She has numerous publications on trauma and dissociative disorders, including one of her most recent publications on the topic, “An Examination of the Relations Between Emotional Dysregulation, Dissociation and Non-suicidal Self-injury Among Dissociative Disorder Patients.” Before we get started Dr. Brand, can you please let us know a little more about yourself and what made you interested in studying trauma?

Bethany Brand:  Yes. Thanks for having me. Well, if we go way back, I had a friend in high school and she had been traumatized, and so had her sisters, and they had very different responses, and it just intrigued me trying to figure out how could people go through similar traumas and have very different outcomes? So then when I was in graduate school, I started pursuing it more seriously and asking supervisors if I could treat trauma. Then, I did my master’s and my dissertation on trauma. When I looked for my first position after grad school, I found a postdoc at Sheppard Pratt, and at that point they had a trauma disorders unit that was just opening. So, in that case, I was at the right place at the right time, and I got to work on their unit, which had mostly people with serious dissociative disorders, so I got great training early on.

Amelia Worley:  Wow. So, to begin, would you mind defining what dissociation is?

Bethany Brand:  Sure. Dissociation is a disconnection of what are normally integrated psychological constructs or functions. So, for example, a person may feel disconnected from their body. They may literally see themselves at a distance and be looking down on themselves, or they may feel very numb when they should have emotion. It's an emotional time. They're talking about something with that they might normally feel terrified about or ashamed about, and they feel nothing. So, that's that kind of disconnection. You can also have disconnection from your environment. So, it may be they're in a place that's familiar or with somebody they know well, and suddenly they don't look familiar or they don't recognize fully who that person is. They have some sense that they know them, but they can't really place them. They may have a disconnection in their memory where they feel like there's gaps in their memory.

They can't recall, it might be hours, days, or even potentially, from childhood. There might be years that they really don't recall. Within their identity, they may have a sense of being kind of fragmented where they feel like, more than people who are non-dissociative because we all have parts, but they may feel like they act so differently, seem so differently, behave so differently that at different times they feel as if they're almost different people, although nobody can have more than one person inside them. It's states, dissociative-self states. They also may have disconnection from behavior. So, they may find themselves doing something, see themselves doing it, and they literally can't stop what they're doing. Those are just some of the examples.


Amelia Worley:  How is dissociation linked to trauma? Are some traumatic experiences more likely to cause dissociative disorders?

Bethany Brand:  Yes, they are. So, we know that if it's particularly life-threatening, you might be more prone to dissociation. We know that
children are more likely to dissociate, and they lose that ability a little bit over time. So, for example, if there's ongoing childhood abuse, and especially if it's done by a caretaker, somebody who's in charge of the child, should be protecting them, and instead they're betraying them, we know from betrayal trauma theory that they're more likely in those situations to dissociate. So, it's particularly severe, ongoing trauma, but it can even happen for a one-time really serious car accident. Like I know somebody who, when they were in a car accident, they were actually seriously injured, but they didn't feel any of the injury. It wasn't, they hadn't had nerve damage. It was that they were at for a little while having what's called very traumatic dissociation, which is dissociation during the actual trauma itself.

Amelia Worley:  Wow. How might someone know whether or not they're suffering from trauma-related dissociation? What does it feel like?

Bethany Brand:  It's a good question, but it feels very different according to which one of those constructs is, they're disconnected from. So, do they, generally speaking, have emotions? Do they generally feel like the body is theirs or do they sometimes feel like that's not my body? It's not like, it's not a person getting older and looking at themselves thinking, that's not how I look. It's more profound than that. Like they might look child-like, or they may feel like they look at themselves and suddenly they look decades older, and it just, it's a strange sensation. They may look in a mirror and not recognize themselves. If a person is, has experienced or is experiencing a number of the things I've talked about, problems with feeling connected to their body, connected to their emotions, connected and oriented and aware of their surroundings, that probably means that they don't dissociate much.

But if sometimes their surroundings look far away, even though let's say, if they're hand looks like it's a mile away, like their arm has suddenly grown, there's really a huge distance, that's a type of depersonalization. Or if, let's say they're talking to a therapist and suddenly the room looks foggy, that's derealization. The world around them looks different. Or they can't hear their therapist speaking, even though there's nothing wrong with their hearing, that's a type of derealization. So, if somebody's experiencing any of these things, that might give them some indication that they possibly have trauma-related dissociation, and of course, have they been exposed to some kind of trauma? That's a prerequisite for trauma-related dissociation.

Amelia Worley:  So, what can trigger dissociation in an individual after the traumatic event has occurred?

Bethany Brand:  It may be that they're just hearing a sound that reminds them, a trigger. It could be a sound, an image of the light being a certain way. They might hear, they might smell a certain smell. Smells are very, very likely to trigger traumatic associations. So, it's when they feel triggered that then they may also start to dissociate. So, I'm careful, I'm a little cautious that some listeners might be a little triggered about what I'm going to say. So, I'm going to advise them if they want to just tune me out for a minute, but let's go with the example of smells. So, if somebody was traumatized by somebody who'd been drinking alcohol, if later, they smell alcohol, they can be triggered by that, and start to have their heart race, feel terribly vulnerable, like something dreadful is going to happen, or they may do that for a bit, and then disassociate, start feeling numbed out, kind of like things around them looking surreal in some way, or they might just really rapidly go to a dissociative state.

Amelia Worley:  That's really interesting. In your publication I mentioned earlier, “An Examination of the Relations Between Emotional Dysregulation, Dissociation and Non-suicidal Self-injury Among Dissociative Disorder Patients”, you talk about how this idea of emotional dysregulation. Can you explain what emotional dysregulation is, and how it relates to trauma-related dissociation?

Bethany Brand:  Yes. So, you know how we like to have very big terms in our field? Emotion dysregulation is basically difficulty dealing with emotions. Okay? So, people who have got, who've experienced a lot of trauma, whether they're highly dissociative or not, they tend to feel too much or too little. So, for example, let me go back to that past trigger example I gave you. Maybe that person normally has normal feelings. They can feel some happiness, some sadness, some anxiety before a test, whatever. But when they get around, let's say they are abused by a man. When they get around men, then they start feeling really scared. Their heart starts to race. They feel like, oh, I've got to watch behind me. I've got to watch this guy. That's feeling too much. The opposite can also happen where they feel too little. The examples I gave where somebody is numbed out, they don't feel connected to their body.

So, emotion regulation is when you have the capacity to know what you're feeling. They can identify the emotions, and emotions, how do we know we're feeling emotions? It's in our bodies. So, if somebody's angry, they might feel I'm imitating it for anybody who's not watching the video. I'm clenching my hands. I'm kind of raising my shoulders. I'm tensing up muscles. A lot of people feel that kind of muscle tension and agitation energy in their body when they're angry. If you're feeling, if you go back and forth between too much feeling, too little, if somebody starts getting angry and they're very uncomfortable with that emotion, they may shut it down and disconnect from their body. Maybe
anger is very scary, because maybe they were in a relationship that was physically abusive, and so they disconnect if there's anger. So, what happens when somebody's traumatized, trauma by its definition, it's overwhelming.

They may feel at risk for their life, and so the feelings are huge, way, way, way too big. Like that example I gave earlier with somebody who had peritraumatic dissociation, if you're so terrified, sometimes the brain, it's an automatic kind of a brain-based response, may start shutting down emotion. The person's not willing it to happen. It just starts to happen. Parts of our brain start kind of metaphorically going offline. They're not very active. So, later on, if that happened during trauma, that the person started dissociating when they felt too much, if later on after the trauma, they're starting to get overwhelmed with feeling too much, they may get scared of that, and at first, they may consciously, like, I don't want to feel this. I don't want to feel this. I don't want to think about this, and they kind of push it away.

That's normal
PTSD is you try and push away emotions and remembrances and memories, images. But over time, if somebody's also disassociated or starts to learn to dissociate, they can numb out and disconnect. If they avoid thinking about something enough or it's so awful, they really just, they're, they don't go there in their minds. Over time, they may have less access to that memory, and so they start maybe having the memory problems I talked about earlier. So, emotion regulation is intricately tied in with dissociation, because dissociation is a way of dealing with emotion, and a terribly threatening situation.

So, what we've looked at in some of these studies is, can we teach people who have very high levels of trauma-related disassociation other ways to identify what they're feeling, to not be so afraid of emotions, help them learn how emotions are helpful, and how to healthfully manage them in a range that's tolerable, so they're not flooded. They're not numbed out. They don't have too much or too little emotion. We found in this treatment study we did with dissociative disorders, folks, that as you teach them emotion regulation skills, then dissociation began to decrease some. They weren't needing to dissociate so much. We also found that self-harm decreased, PTSD symptoms decreased. Helping people learn to regulate their emotions is a really fundamental, crucial skill, in other words.

Amelia Worley:  So, continuing on that idea, can you talk a little bit about the most effective treatment approaches for trauma-related disassociation?

Bethany Brand:  Yes. So, the study I was just referencing indirectly is one called “The Treatment of Patients With Dissociative Disorders.” It's TOP DD, and that's for people who have really serious dissociative symptoms. We're in the process of doing a randomized controlled trial treatment, where we're checking out the program I was just referencing. So, we get people who have very high levels of dissociation, plus their therapist, who agree to be in the study. We have a number of videos where we teach them what trauma does in general, various symptoms related to trauma, then we get to dissociation what it is and how that was helpful, but also how in adulthood, when you're safer, if you're safer now, how it can get in the way. So, somebody not always knowing what they're feeling, maybe they're tuning out some important clues from their body, from their mind that a relationship's not safe, but if they're not in touch with their emotions, they may not feel that.

So, we know from research that people with lots of dissociation have high rates of being re-traumatized in adulthood. So, it's really important to help them learn to identify their emotions, and to gradually use less dissociation. So, we're, in that program, that's some of things that we're teaching and that's in general, whether somebody's in that treatment study or whether they're working with a therapist. The therapist, generally speaking, teaches them what dissociation is, the symptoms of PTSD, because they often have both. Then there's a technique called a grounding technique. So, let me, and I'm talking this out loud, just in case somebody can't see the screen. Dissociation’s on a continuum. At one end of the continuum is somebody is grounded and oriented in present reality. They can feel their body. They know where they are. They know what the date is. They're really hooked into present reality.

The other end is profoundly dissociated, where they don't necessarily, they don't recognize where they are. They're not feeling their body. They're really severely dissociated. Then in between, there's this whole range. What a therapist can help a client learn to do is recognize the early signs that they're beginning to dissociate. So, they might feel spacey or tingly. Those are just examples. So, the client learns when they start recognizing that warning sign, then they use these grounding techniques, and I'll just explain a very basic one that lots of people know. You can use this with
panic attacks, all kinds of things, not just disassociation. But you put your feet on the floor. I'm going to do it, because when I teach people, I always do it along with them. So, I'm pushing my feet into the floor, and trying to really notice what that feels like. That is using muscle movement, contractions, and trying to get them to feel that part of their body, assuming they're okay with feeling that.

Then I would also be having them look around where they are. If it's a Zoom therapy session, look around the room where they are. If we're meeting together, look around my office and find something that they can describe with all the senses. So, I've got a cup of water here. If they've got something to drink, can they feel the weight of the cup? Can they feel the coldness or the warmth, taste it, using all their senses? That actually helps wake up metaphorically, the parts of the brain that have shifted, and kind of gone offline while they're dissociating. So, you use the senses, all five senses to get the brain back online in the normal way that it should be. Those are grounding techniques. So, a therapist would be teaching them grounding techniques and having them practice that in session, and then also, out of session. Those are just some of the basic tools we use when folks have got a lot of trauma-related disassociation.

Amelia Worley:  Wow. Lastly, do you have any advice or anything you want to share with our listeners suffering from trauma-related disassociation?

Bethany Brand:  Yes. I would say one of the most important things you can do is to learn exactly what I was just talking about. Learn grounding techniques, and practice them, and learn healthy ways of taking care of yourself emotionally. So, many, many, many people who've been terribly traumatized feel ashamed of themselves, feel dirty. They feel like they're bad people. That's, those are symptoms of being traumatized. It's not the reality of who they are. It's a symptom. So, hopefully they can start thinking about that, looking into that. There are good books out there to read for trauma recovery. If somebody has a really serious, a lot of dissociative symptoms, if they have a therapist, if they want, and they can look into this treatment of patients with dissociative disorders study, TOPDDstudy.com, and we have that website. They can go there and look and see if we're still running the study.

There's also a professional website that has a lot of information for consumers and therapists. I'll say it slowly. It's ISSTD. It stands for the International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation. That organization does a lot of training for therapists, and they have frequently asked questions on their website about disassociation. They have some questionnaires, people could even try and fill out and find out do they seem to be scoring fairly high, and learn a little bit about, do they have dissociative symptoms, where to go to get help. They have a Find a Therapist page on that website.


Amelia Worley:  That's great. Well, thank you so much, Dr. Brand. It was wonderful having you on our series today.

Bethany Brand:  Thank you so much. It's been an honor to be here.

Please note: The views expressed by the interviewee are for educational and informational purposes only, are not meant to diagnose or treat any condition, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Seattle Anxiety Specialists, PLLC.


Editor: Jennifer (Ghahari) Smith, Ph.D.

Therapist and SAS ED Blake Thompson on Psychotherapy

An Interview with Therapist Blake Thompson

Blake Thompson, LMHC, MA is a Psychotherapist and Executive Director of Seattle Anxiety Specialists. He is a clinical supervisor and also provides both individual and group psychotherapy.

Nicole Izquierdo:  Hi, everyone. Thanks, Blake, for joining us today for this installment of the Seattle Psychiatrist Interview Series. This is a special one, it's called Meet the Team. I'm Nicole Izquierdo, I'm a research intern at Seattle Anxiety Specialists.

So Blake here, he is the practice's executive director. He serves as a clinical supervisor and he also provides individual and group psychotherapy. The first question for today is telling our listeners a little bit about yourself.

Blake Thompson:  Hey, thanks, Nicole. Yeah, that was a good introduction. Oh man, what to say about me? Well, I am married and I have a one-year-old daughter that keeps me up at night, but whom I love very much. I love reading. I find people really complicated and fascinating. A big part of what draws me to therapy still and to the field is that the more I learn, I feel like the more questions I still have. I feel like I haven't gotten bored yet. I still feel confused, so staying curious.

Nicole Izquierdo:  That's good. Let's start off with, what is it that got you interested in becoming a therapist?

Blake Thompson:  That's a good question. Well, one of my big inspirations for becoming a therapist was a comedy movie. I don't know if you've seen “I Heart Huckabees”. No? Yeah, older Dustin Hoffman, Lily Tomlin, Jude Law film. Great movie, very funny, but yeah, I think that put the idea in my head. I had been to therapy when I was younger and I think that experience really shaped me. Being a client, I think, was really impactful. But yeah I'd been really interested in philosophy in school and I don't think I ever really considered, you know, psychology. I think I took one psychology class in all of college. I was really not interested in psychology. The idea that I would do something professionally that was related to a subject that I just wasn't really interested in wasn't super appealing to me at the time, but as I went to graduate school in philosophy, more and more of the stuff that I was interested in philosophy started to bleed over into psychology and I got more and more interested.

In philosophy, a lot of what we're doing is conceptual analysis. We're thinking about not minds and brains, but the stuff that are the constituents of thoughts. We're really focused on ideas like justice and the good life and truth and causation and all of these ideas that are really central to the thoughts that we think on a day-to-day basis. I just got more and more interested in the machinery that realizes that and more and more aware of thinking processes as processes, and not just as like, you know, and less and less focused on abstract.

By the end of grad school, I think I was starting to think about a jump into psychology, away from philosophy. I was talking with people about just what there was in that professional space, and the idea of becoming a therapist hadn't yet coalesced, but I think talking with folks about what therapy was like as a profession, what was interesting in it, how it was different than other forms of healthcare, yeah that was definitely, those conversations really helped shape that direction.

While I was in grad school, I really didn't like teaching very much. That was not something that I found super rewarding, but I loved tutoring, doing one-on-one work with students. I think really reflecting on that process and how much more I liked tutoring than I liked teaching helped also solidify for me that I would like doing therapy, because it looks a lot like tutoring in a lot of ways.


Nicole Izquierdo:  With that extensive background in philosophy, how would you say it has impacted your therapy style and the way that you go about counseling?

Blake Thompson:  Yeah, cool. That's a good question. I think so much of what we do as therapists is we reframe things for clients. Clients come in with, something's happened, there's an event, a situation, or even just themselves presenting in a certain way, the various processes that make up our lives, and they've got a particular perspective on it. That perspective is part of what explains the way they feel, the way they're acting. We help clients to see different ways of looking at their lives, of looking at the situations that they're navigating. That helps them develop the psychological flexibility, helps them develop this ability to look at things from different perspectives and to free up the way they feel and free up the way they act to become less rigid, less stuck.

A lot of what philosophy is, is conceptualizing and re-conceptualizing things. It isn’t so much, it's not an empirical discipline, it's a discipline where we're thinking about, okay, well, what's a different way of looking at this, what's the right way of looking at something? It might not be contesting facts, it might be, it's often a question of what's the right frame to put on something.

So yeah, in terms of what philosophy looks like, there are a lot of similarities. It's less often a matter of what are the right facts and more often a matter of what's the right way to conceptualize a particular thing. So too for therapy, it's often not a matter of what are the right facts, like this person is just dead wrong about something, it's more a matter of like are they applying the right conceptual scheme to it?


Nicole Izquierdo:  Thank you. Are there any areas or disorders or age groups that you specialize in?

Blake Thompson:  I pretty much only work with adults, rarely see adolescents and I don't work at all with children. I don't work with couples. Yeah, I pretty much just work with adults. I work with a pretty broad range of people, but I really enjoy working with folks who've got cluster C personality disorders, like avoidant personality disorder, dependent personality disorder, obsessive-compulsive personality disorder (OCPD).

I really enjoy working with folks who've got high functioning or low support needs, autism adults that are like, especially folks who struggle with deficit in theory of mind, which is really pretty common for folks who've got high functioning autism. They might not necessarily lack social skills, which I think is often how that gets conceptualized, oftentimes they lack awareness of how social interactions work and how other people think. One thing that I find really rewarding about working with those folks is that a big part of the work is explaining how other minds work to them and working with them to help them see that. That project is, for me, really rewarding. It becomes a really interesting, like theoretical discussion about how to make sense of other people and how to understand interactions with them and how to navigate those interactions. Yeah, it ends up looking a lot like philosophy tutoring.


Nicole Izquierdo:  I know you've touched on this a little bit, but would you mind describing how your treatment approach is, to make it simplified for the viewers? Is it solution-focused, do you help them manage stress with CBT techniques, or do you have other ways to go about it?

Blake Thompson:  Yeah. I'm somebody who thinks that the different approaches to therapy are all valuable, for the most part. Maybe not all of them are valuable, there's certain things, like primal scream therapy, that maybe deserve to end up in the dust bin. But among the well-regarded extent approaches to therapy, those pretty much all have a place in my mind. First, second, third wave CBT I think is great, and that stuff is especially great for what used to be called axis one conditions: major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, social phobia, OCD.

I use
exposure therapy, I use ACT, rely on DBT principles. You know, sort of like broad, everything that fits within that broad CBT umbrella I think is super valuable, all of these insights from behavioral psychology and cognitive psychology. That stuff, in some ways it can be really solution-focused, it can be really focused on symptoms, but yeah, at the end of the day, it's evidence-based and often it doesn't take a million years to see some positive impact in someone's life.

There are other people who come into therapy who have more characterological, what used to be called axis two, issues, like maybe they're struggling with narcissism or entitlement, maybe it's like they find it impossible to stand up for themselves, they're constantly subjugating their needs, maybe they're perfectionists or workaholics struggling with unrelenting standards, chronic sense of defectiveness that they can't shake, behaving in ways that kind of perplex them, like they find certain behaviors necessary or are driven to do certain things that in retrospect they can't really make sense of but in the moment feel like they have to do them.

A lot of that stuff is the stuff that when it's more intense, we would call it a personality disorder, but most people struggle with some of this stuff to some extent. We used to frame this stuff as just neuroticism. Neuroticism has taken on a technical meaning in personality psychology, but it's the kind of stuff that would make you a really great sitcom character. Depression doesn't really make you an interesting sitcom character, but an inability to stand up for yourself makes you a great sitcom character. Narcissism, entitlement, particularness, perfectionism, workaholism, all of these things make someone an interesting character. Yeah, I find working with these folks really endearing.

I think psychodynamic therapy is a really, really helpful approach for this kind of stuff. I think even the CBT world has really acknowledged this, that the best way to help folks deal with this stuff really is a more autobiographical approach to therapy, it's an approach to therapy that is focused on looking back and reprocessing the unmet emotional needs that were the foundation for these behaviors, that were the foundation for these, what at the time were adaptations, but are no longer adaptive.

There are still other reasons that people come to therapy. Sometimes it's not that somebody has a mental health disorder, it might be that they just have a lot of environmental stressors. There isn't something wrong with them, there's something wrong with their environment. If you're the director of an environmental nonprofit and the head of the EPA is cutting all of the funding to protect the wetlands or something, you're scrambling to figure out what to do, you're sweating bullets, something that you really care about is under threat, you might lose your job, whatever, therapy could be helpful for you, but probably it might not look like CBT and it might not look like psychodynamic therapy.

It might look more like supportive counseling, it might look more like Rogerian supportive counseling, where maybe the thing you need is not to explore your relationship with your parents, maybe the thing you need is not to identify cognitive distortions. Maybe you don't have any cognitive distortions, maybe the reason that you're so stressed out is that you're seeing things accurately, but you need to process that stress. You need some place, someone to be a sounding board and to help you think through what you could do that would be an adaptive coping response. That, I think, is a big part of the work too.

A lot of people come to therapy not because they've got generalized anxiety disorder, but maybe because they just found out that their spouse is cheating on them or their kid just died or they lost their job or they just graduated from college and they don't know what they want to do with their life. There are these reasons that people come to therapy that don't have anything to do with having a disorder. All of that stuff might be causing stress, but it's not anxiety in a clinical sense. CBT and psychodynamic therapy might not really be well-suited to addressing those issues. I think that, what's often called the third wave in psychology, like Rogerian therapy, I think is really, really well suited to working with folks who are navigating normal life stressors and do want support with that stuff.

Yeah, and again, I think they're even more like what's the right theoretical orientation. It depends on the person, there's going to be for couples, Gottman approaches, EFT approaches. I think existential therapy is really helpful for folks who struggling with questions about meaning and purpose and identity. Those are things that CBT might not be able to tap into very well, psychodynamic therapy might not be able to tap into very well, Rogerian therapy might not be able to tap into very well, but having a working understanding of some sort might provide you with a leg up as a therapist to help you tackle these questions.


Nicole Izquierdo:  Yeah, I like that. There's not a one-size-fits-all approach, every client is unique with unique needs and unique environments and pasts. I like that, thank you.

How would you describe therapy to someone who's not familiar with it at all, or who's hesitant to start treatment, especially with the stigma on mental health treatment? Like you just said, I feel like there's a big misconception that people go to therapy because they have a mental health diagnosis disorder, but some people just go, like you said, when there's overwhelming environmental stressors and they need help with coping mechanisms. How would you describe it or reframe it to encourage those people that are hesitant?

Blake Thompson:  Yeah. I think people are hesitant for different reasons, and I think getting clear on our own hesitancy can be really helpful. We're often afraid of things that we don't know and afraid of things that have been stigmatized. A lot of men don't go to therapy because they find it hard to get help from other people. I mean, there's the cliché about men not asking for directions, not asking for help at the store. I think there's an extension of that for a lot of men around therapy, that they shouldn't open up, they shouldn't be vulnerable, they shouldn't share things. A lot of that is culturally normed. If that's what someone's struggling with, I think recognizing that is really the first step.

But there are other reasons why people don't come to therapy. In terms of OCD, for example, sometimes people have horrible intrusive thoughts, thoughts of like murdering people, for example, thoughts of deviant sexual acts. They might worry that if someone, if their therapist were to hear this from them, they might think that they intend to kill someone or kill themselves or what have you, and so they don't go. Suicidal people might not go to therapy because they're worried about getting committed to inpatient, or people struggling with
substance abuse might not want to go because they're ambivalent and don't really want to stop drinking or using whatever product they're using.

Often when people are struggling with the question of whether or not to go to therapy, there's some ambivalence within them. There's some part of them that wants to go and some part of them that is repelled by the idea. I think that it might be the right decision. I mean, I'm really open to the idea that therapy is not for everyone. Therapy is not this perfect cure-all that is going to save us from ourselves. It is really helpful. I became a therapist and I'm still a therapist because I really do believe that it is really, really helpful, and for some people really profoundly helpful.

But I think really what we can do, what we ought to do, is identify that ambivalence, try to articulate it. What is that, what is this tension? What's this part of me that, A, wants to go, why is that, and what's the part of me that's telling me not to go? What is that? Where is that coming from? There's a little microphone in my brain and who's at the microphone? Who's like issuing the instructions? This fear, is that being put into me by my culture, is that put into me by like my parents, is that my bully from my youth speaking to me? Trying to get some clarity on where did I get this idea from that I need to be afraid of this thing, why am I hesitant about this, just spending some time investigating that for ourselves, sitting with that ambivalence, trying to unpack it. I think that's really productive.


Nicole Izquierdo:  Thank you. You're also executive director at the practice. Can you tell me a little bit more about what this role entails?

Blake Thompson:  Yeah. As a mental healthcare practice, we've got a number of administrative functions that are just important on a yearly basis. We have to renew our malpractice insurance every year, we've got to renew our lease with our landlord, we've got to make sure that we've got working internet, we've got to make sure we've got tea and coffee for our clients, we've got to make sure that staff are getting paid on time. Basically, it's all of this kind of behind-the-scenes stuff.

Our office manager,
Jonathan, he focuses on really the day-to-day administrative functions of the practice. He's answering the phone, he's sending faxes, he's scheduling people, he's dealing with billing issues and all that kind of stuff. I deal with the longer-term administrative stuff, so I'm talking to our lawyers, I'm talking to our insurance companies, I'm talking to our landlord, I'm making sure all our contracts are in order, making sure paperwork for our clients gets updated as it needs to be. It's not like the most glamorous stuff, but it's important. It's all stuff that allows our therapists to just focus on being therapists and not have to worry about all of those questions and concerns that come up when you're in solo practice. Part of the benefit of being in a group practice is that, for most of the clinicians, not me, but most of them, they get to just focus on being a therapist, which is really nice for them.

Nicole Izquierdo:  This question is steering into the more personal direction, but how has becoming a parent impacted the way you view the world or the way you interact with your clients? Because it's this whole new identity, parenthood, that you're grappling with. If you don't mind.

Blake Thompson:  No, no, that's great. It's definitely opened my eyes to what parenthood is like. Obviously, not what parenthood is like for everyone, I have my own experience of parenthood. But I think being a parent is a lot more difficult and a lot more rewarding, both, than I sort of imagined it would be. I think it really does change the way that I look at, the way I think about my clients who are parents. It's helped me understand their perspective a lot better. It's also helped inform the way I interact with clients who are struggling with the question of whether to have kids. It's given me a lot of perspective there. I think in both of those areas, it's really had a positive impact on my work.

I think the area where it's had a negative impact is I get a lot less sleep sometimes now and that has unintended consequences. I think even during this interview, I'm probably rambling more than I would normally, but I'm running on like four hours of sleep. It is what it is.


Nicole Izquierdo:  Thank you. Thank you for sharing that. Again, another personal one, but where do you see yourself in five years?

Blake Thompson:  Oh, cool. Well, I'm really excited to continue to kind of grow SAS. I mean, I think that the one thing that we haven't done much of up to this point but that I'd like to see us do a lot more of is develop continuing education. I think that's an area that I'd like to have us devote more resources to, I think both in terms of providing good local, evidence-based therapy education, which is the thing that there's often not enough of, but also my particular background and my particular strengths as a therapist, I think having a background in philosophy, also having a background in psychology, I'm, I think, really well positioned to both provide existential therapy, but also to provide good instruction in it. I think over the next five years, I'm going to really work on developing curriculum so that I can provide really good continuing education in existential psychotherapy.

Nicole Izquierdo:  That's great. Last one, if you have any last words of advice for our listeners or anything else you'd like to add.

Blake Thompson:  Oh, well, if you watched, thanks for tuning in. The one thing that I'm really, I think, struck by, and that is, there are plenty of trainings in plenty of different kinds of psychotherapy, but one approach to therapy that I think doesn't get enough press time that I think is a really, really innovative and really, really helpful approach to therapy is ACT, A-C-T. I would encourage anyone who's a clinician or who's a client who's trying to figure out what else they can do to promote their own personal development, their own personal growth, either as a provider or as just a person in the world, I don't think ACT is everything, like I said before about approaches to psychotherapy, I don't think that any one approach can fully capture everything there is to being a person and address every sort of concern that we have, but I think ACT is uniquely helpful for how simple it is. I think it is remarkable how beneficial it is and how intuitive it is.

There's a great self-help book by Steven Hayes, who is one of the main developers of ACT, called “Get Out of Your Mind and Into Your Life.” There are millions of copies of this thing that have been printed, but I would encourage anyone who has any questions about how to apply therapeutic principles to their life, how to take the next steps. Sometimes therapy is too expensive, sometimes therapy is inaccessible, sometimes you feel like the therapists that you're finding aren't a good fit for you. There are really, really great therapeutic workbooks out there that are based on evidence-based psychology. This book by Steven Hayes, “Get Out of Your Mind and Into Your Life,” it's a phenomenal book and the ACT principles that it's based on are super, super helpful. I'd encourage anybody who's considering therapy, who's ambivalent about it, checking it out. Again, it might not be the thing for you, but it's about as close to a one-size-fit-all, helpful across the board approach to therapy that I've ever found. I really want to shout from the rooftops, everybody should know more about ACT than they probably already do.


Nicole Izquierdo:  Well, thank you so much for sharing that, and thank you so much for joining us, Blake. We really appreciate you taking the time to speak with us.

Blake Thompson:  Hey, thanks, Nicole.


Editor: Jennifer (Ghahari) Smith, Ph.D.

Therapist Jim McDonnell on High-Stress Employment

An Interview with Therapist Jim McDonnell

Jim McDonnell, LMFT is a Psychotherapist at Seattle Anxiety Specialists. He specializes in working with clients in the tech industry and high-stress environments. Jim also has extensive training and experience providing couples therapy and family therapy.

Anna Kiesewetter:  Hi, thank you so much for joining us today on this installment of the Seattle Psychiatrist Interview Series. My name is Anna Kiesewetter and I'm a research intern at Seattle Anxiety Specialists. I'd like to welcome with us today our own Seattle Anxiety Specialist psychotherapist, Jim McDonnell. Before becoming a therapist, Jim had a successful career in technology across two decades. With his experience as a researcher at NASA's Ames Research Center, as a senior program manager at Microsoft, and also as a senior business intelligence analyst at T-Mobile, Jim is an excellent resource for clients working in high-stress careers. So before we get started, could you please just tell us a little bit more about yourself?

Jim McDonnell:  Sure. Hi, Anna. Nice to meet you and thanks for organizing and running this. A little about me. I grew up in New York. I was raised just north of New York City. I've spent years in the restaurant industry, and then I transitioned into technology. I worked in startup companies in Silicon Valley and then moved up to Seattle, worked in the tech industry in Seattle for a number of years. I'm an outdoor enthusiast. I like being outside in the woods. I love to exercise and keep my body in shape. It helps my mind stay clean and clear. I'm a father, my daughter's in college, and I don't know what else to say beyond that. Yeah.

Anna Kiesewetter:  Yeah. That's awesome. So you mentioned you worked in tech in Silicon Valley before you came up to Seattle. Could you tell us a little bit more about what got you interested in making that switch?

Jim McDonnell:  Sure. The switch from being in tech to a therapist?

Anna Kiesewetter:  Yeah.

Jim McDonnell:  I've always enjoyed helping people and making people feel better. When I was younger I used humor a lot to do that. I can make people laugh relatively easily, and if a friend had fallen down and hurt himself, or if something happened, I would sort of employ goofiness and jokes and physical comedy and stuff to bring someone out of their sadness into happiness and laughter and sort of lighten the mood. And I really leaned into that early in my life. I was a joker, a jokester, a prankster, and I just liked laughter.

I also loved gadgets and technology and loved programming and trying different... I was always sort of buying the latest gadgets when I was a kid. I had these electronic dictionaries in the early '80s when they were super rare and I loved them. I was a bartender and I was going to college. My undergrad is in industrial organizational psychology. I had a research methodology focus so when I graduated, I got a job at a startup company doing statistical analysis and database programming. I really loved that.

And so I sort of left the helping laughter stuff behind and really leaned into this, and the whole country and the world was sort of embracing this and I thought maybe I was going to be a gazillionaire and get all sorts of stock options and stuff like that. And I pursued that for many years, but in the background was always this desire to be a helper.

And I should point out that I originally wanted to be a therapist when I was in college. And I had an advisor who, for whatever reason, I'm assuming their reasons were sound, but they advised me against it. So I was in a bit of an existential crisis, like, “Who am I? What's my purpose in this world?” And so I leaned into the research methodology. I still wanted to be in the psychology domain, but I, for whatever reason, just accepted that fact that I couldn't be a therapist. So I went that route.

And so for many years I was leaning into that. I really enjoyed my time in technology, in the tech industry. I really loved the people that I was working with and the projects I was on. But there was this sort of transition in my mind where I was becoming a bit disillusioned with the industry. I wasn't finding deep meaning in it. And it wasn't really resonating with this core value of wanting to be helpful to the world and to reduce suffering.


And so, as I progressed through my career, I started getting closer to a point in my life where maybe some people have a midlife crisis or something like that, and I just was like, "I'm no longer satisfied. I'm not happy." I was actually super anxious. I was having panic attacks and anxiety attacks in the workplace. And then I decided to make a change. So I had some people in my life that were pushing me towards this. They recognized that I had particular skills and personality temperaments, and some gifts and traits that would be really, really helpful to people. I actually received formal training in being a therapist.

So I made the choice to just try. I applied to a couple of graduate programs. I was accepted and I kept saying, "Okay, I'm going to do this for a semester. If I don't like it, I can always just drop out and I still have..." I was working full time my first year in graduate school. So I was holding down a 50-hour-a-week job and I was going to classes and working in the classroom while I was learning. I just really liked it. It resonated with me. And so I've just stayed with it.

I think the question was what prompted the shift. It was sort of like this awakening. To be more specific, my father passed away when he was 46. I was 46 at the time, around the time that I wanted to be a therapist. I was maybe 44 when I finally decided to start applying to graduate schools. But it was sort of like, "What am I doing with my life?" If I was my dad, I would've been two years away from death. "Is this the legacy I want to leave for myself?" That really pushed me out of my comfort zone, as well.

So all of that is the reason why I shifted out. Looking for more meaning, finding something that was better aligned with my skills and my values and partially just sort of a life cycle change of like, "What do I want next for myself?"

Anna Kiesewetter:  Wow, that's really powerful. I think it's really inspiring that you pushed forward to doing that, making that change and showing what you value. Do you feel like you kind of fulfilled that, that kind of wanting to find more of your life's values in the change, the switch between careers?

Jim McDonnell:  Yes. When I first started off in graduate school, my vision was to be working more with youth and teens. And so I did that at a community mental health during my internship, and it turns out it wasn't a great fit for me. It wasn't really aligning with my passions and through, I would say, serendipity, maybe, what's the word, synchronicity. Some kind of, if you want to think more spiritually, woo-ish. I found Seattle Anxiety Specialists when I was looking for a group practice. And the more that I started thinking about the practice's mission and the focus area of specifically treating anxiety disorders, the more it just sort of was like, "Duh, you've been anxious your whole life."

So to be able to help people who are in the industry that I used to be in, learn how to recognize why they're anxious, to help interrupt feedback loops and disrupt patterns that reinforce their anxiety and to find more confidence in themselves, in their ability to experience distress, to reduce how long it lasts and how intense it is, and to just generally understand how their particular mind works and why it responds a certain way, is so fulfilling to me.

I go to sleep at night happy, knowing that I haven't helped every single person in the world, I'm never going to eradicate all of the distress on the planet, but every person that I interact with, from a client-therapist relationship, I feel like I'm doing the best job that I can to make the world closer to being in that state than it was before I started, if that makes sense.

Anna Kiesewetter:  That's amazing. How do you think that being in the tech industry yourself has helped you to help these people now that you're working with them? Especially people who have been working in tech industries?

Jim McDonnell:  Yeah. I mean, I don't know what it's like to work at every single company. I don't have a visceral understanding of every company culture. I've never worked at Amazon or Google or Facebook or Apple. So I don't know what it's like specifically to work at those companies. And I know what it's like to work, generally speaking, in the industry. I know the expectations that are put on people. I understand how software is created and managed. So project management perspectives and program management perspectives and different kinds of software development methodologies.

I understand those enough to be able to speak the language of the person. So when they come to me and they're trying to describe what's going on in their life, they don't have to explain the culture of the company. They don't have to explain why it's stressful. I get it and I am able to speak their language. I use metaphors a lot in the work that I do and I bridge kind of how we go from, this is the way the product is now and here's how we want the product to be in the next revision, and here's what we're doing to make that happen and here's our timeline and our plan and all of the schedules and milestones.

And I kind of use that same approach for mental health. So here's how you are right now, version, whatever, one, of you. And then you want a new version where you're not as anxious and you're not as stressed out and you have a more adaptive response to these stressors. What do we have to do to get you from here to there? How long is it going to take? How do we know we're making progress? How do we measure progress along the way?

So that sort of understanding, being able to speak the language. I know the different terminologies and review cycles and pressures and sort of the cultural contextual factors that are feeding and reinforcing the anxiety. I'm really rambling on a bit here, but it's helpful for me and I think my clients appreciate that I have been in similar spaces to them and understand, generally speaking, what it's like and why it's stressful. So I think that's probably the best way that I can answer that question. It's just like there's familiarity with the context and yeah, I'll leave it there.

Anna Kiesewetter:  Yeah. That makes a lot of sense. You mentioned anxiety is one of the things that you see a lot in people experiencing workplace stress and having to deal with these issues. What other kinds of areas or symptoms or disorders do you often see in your patients who are working in high-stress environments?

Jim McDonnell:  Other symptoms? Well, if we're thinking about this from an experiential perspective, like what are they experiencing? Obsessive, intrusive thoughts that are generating distress, physiological distress. So there's muscle tension and dysregulated breathing and fidgeting, elevated heart rate, perspiration, that sort of thing, racing thoughts. Really, there's a lot of what are we call cognitive distortions in cognitive behavioral therapy. So a lot of stories that people are telling themselves about what's happening now and what's going to happen in the future.

Anxiety's generally a future-oriented experience. We're thinking about the future and we're worried about it. And then the predictions that we make. Our mind is a model maker, modeling the future constantly, trying to figure out how to make sense of the world. And that model has some distortions in it. Maybe it's predicting a tragedy constantly. Like, "This is only going to turn out bad," or we can only see things either or, either good or bad. I think I've forgotten the question. I'm a little lost in my answer now. Can you restate that question so I can refine it?

Anna Kiesewetter:  Yeah, of course. Of course. I was asking what kinds of typical, or maybe not typical, but what kinds of different symptoms and disorders do you see in people who are experiencing high-stress work environments?

Jim McDonnell:  Right, yeah, so symptoms versus disorders. The disorders tend to be generalized anxiety disorder. There's a lot of obsessive-compulsive disorder, but maybe less on the traditional or the technical way of interpreting that diagnosis. I look for obsessional thought patterns and disturbing, intrusive thoughts, and then compulsive responses to that. Things that people are doing in response to those thoughts that try to protect themselves from it.

I see a lot of that OCD, generalized anxiety disorder, panic disorder, so people who, really, just there's runaway anxiety that leads to panic attacks, depression, as a result of that. So when you start to feel scared about your future over and over and over again, you can't figure out how to solve a problem, you end up becoming hopeless about the future. And so you can have people experiencing depression and anxiety simultaneously, which is a double whammy. That's not very fun.

I'm trying to think if there's other things. That is generally the areas that I focus on, things that I'm looking for or listening for. And then all of the physical symptoms that people are describing or experiencing, and the cognitive side of that as well. And the behavioral side of it. So what behavioral choices are people making? And again, it's typically in response to some sort of a trigger that's dysregulating a person, cognitively and physiologically, and then in response to that, they're making choices to protect themselves somehow. And sometimes it's just like fight, flight, freeze sorts of choices. Yeah.

Anna Kiesewetter:  I see. So when you're experiencing the patients with these different symptoms and disorders, can you talk a little bit about your treatment approach and how you approach therapy with these people?

Jim McDonnell:  Yeah. I'm generally using cognitive behavioral therapy as a therapeutic modality. I lead with a discussion around... How do I want to answer this question? My goal is to help people have an adaptive response to stressors. When you're in a state of constant anxiety, that's a maladaptive response to the stressor. So I want to help people get to that place where they can experience that stressor. They know how to process it, digest it, and instead of being stuck in an anxious feedback loop, they're able to resolve the thought, the feeling, the behaviors, and leave with confidence that they know what to do. Even if they don't know exactly what to do, they know generally what to do.

That sort of guides my approach. I want people to become consciously aware, explicitly aware of, what triggered me? I was doing fine and then suddenly I wasn't. What was it? Was it a thought that I had? Did I see somebody that reminded me of something? Did somebody say something to me? Was there an event that just happened, the anniversary of something that was traumatic? What is it? Because we're not just suddenly fine and then not fine.

So getting really clear on that and then getting really clear on what happens in your body when that happens. So that thought passed through your head and then your muscles tensed up and your breathing became shallow and quick and your heart rate elevated and you started sweating. Okay, great. So you understand the connection between why you're feeling this way in your body right now and what just happened. And then what stories do you tell yourself, your model-making machine, meaning-making machine? How do you make sense of this? Your prefrontal cortex has to tell you a story about, "Well, you don't feel good right now. Why? Oh, it must be because..."

And then that's where the cognitive distortions come in. "This is always going to be this way." I don't know. "I'm going to get fired. I'm going to get a bad review. My partner's going to leave me." Something. It's some tragedy. And then we feel hopeless about that. So getting really clear on the story, what's happening in our body, why, what the trigger was, being really clear on the behavioral choices we make as a result of that.

I want people to get bored with this because I'm going to keep asking them every session so it becomes rote so that when they feel something, they go... It sort of spurs a meta awareness. So like, "Oh yeah, I'm feeling anxious. Let me engage in this higher-level process to understand why." So then once they have that skill, how do we disrupt this pattern, this as-is experience?

There are physiological interventions, like learning how to regulate our breath and how to relax our muscles. There's cognitive interventions, like recognizing cognitive distortions and challenging them, coming up with ways to not lie to ourself about what the stressor is and why we're feeling this way. And also to feel confident that we know what to do in response to it. So appropriately sizing the stressor. So maybe I'm responding to it as though it's a 10 out of 10, but in reality, it's like a four out of 10.

So really right-sizing the way that we're thinking about problems, and then what can you do behaviorally that's different? So we're looking at this as a system and as a pattern, a template of a response to a stressor. And then we want to disrupt that pattern and template and replace it with a bunch of different choices along the way. And then if we score, how do I feel with version one versus version two? So long as we're feeling better with version two, then that's good. We're making progress.

So that's the approach I've taken. Lots of validation. There's no judgment in the process. What purpose does judgment have, right? We need to be able to just be honest about what we're telling ourselves and why. Positive regard. It's important for people, I think, to feel good about who they are, even if maybe they've made choices that they're not proud of, that at their core, they can feel as though they're good and they're seen as good. I think that's really important.

And I use humor along the way, as well, a little bit of levity. And then ultimately aligning all of this stuff with personal values. What's important to you? Who are you as a person? How does this map to your identity and how you see yourself? That's the best I can do in sort of summarizing. It feels complicated sometimes when I'm trying to describe it, but I try to keep it finite and relatively discreet so that it's not overwhelming, that a person kind of understands what we're doing. There's goals, there's structure, there's a plan, we're moving forward towards something. So that hopefully also communicates some confidence in the process, so that's how I do that.

Anna Kiesewetter:  That's amazing. Awesome. Yeah. Thank you so much for sharing that. Okay. We're approaching our final question: so, I'm just wondering if you have any other words of advice or anything else you'd like to say to our listeners before we wrap up.

Jim McDonnell:  I'm not sure exactly what to say other than perhaps we don't get to choose what happens to us in this world with 100% certainty, but we do get to choose how we respond to those things and suffering, while probably inevitable, is optional in many different ways. I didn't mention this before, but the core metrics that I communicate to clients is, how frequently am I triggered? When I am triggered, how intense is the response and how long does it last? So frequency, intensity, and duration.

We can't really always choose how frequently we're going to be triggered by something or how frequently the trigger is going to happen, but we do have agency on how intense the response is and how long that response lasts. So if people are experiencing a lot of anxiety, I think it's important for them to know it doesn't have to be that way. The world doesn't have to change in order for them to feel more at peace and they don't have to lie to themselves. It's not one of these toxic positivity sort of cycles where we just say, "It's all going to be great and everything's okay and stop worrying." I think that just actually reinforces the power of the stressor so we can't look at it with open eyes and accept things as they are.

So if a person is anxious and they've been anxious and they continue to experience anxiety, more often than not, it doesn't have to be that way. And there are people who can help transform the way that they're thinking and feeling in response to those stressors so that they just generally enjoy their life more. We don't get to live forever. We might as well learn how to use our brains to have a better time on the planet while we're here.

Anna Kiesewetter:  Awesome. Yeah, I like that a lot. All right. Well, okay. Thank you so much for your time and your insights coming on here today. I wish you the best and really hope to have you back for another interview in the future, if you're down for that. So this concludes this installment of the Seattle Psychiatrist Interview Series. Thank you so much for listening and we hope you'll tune in next time.

Jim McDonnell:  Thanks, Anna.

Please note: The views expressed by the interviewee are for educational and informational purposes only, are not meant to diagnose or treat any condition, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Seattle Anxiety Specialists, PLLC.


Editor: Jennifer (Ghahari) Smith, Ph.D.

Psychologist Timothy Strauman on Self-Regulation

An Interview with Psychologist Timothy Strauman

Dr. Strauman is a Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience at Duke University and is an expert in self-regulation.

Nicole Izquierdo:  Thanks for joining us today for this installment of the Seattle Psychiatrist Interview Series. I'm Nicole Izquierdo, a research intern at Seattle Anxiety Specialists, and today I'd like to welcome with us Clinical Psychologist and Researcher, Timothy Strauman. Dr. Strauman is a professor of Psychology and Neuroscience at Duke University. He is also an affiliate for the Center for Brain Imaging and Analysis, the Duke Initiative for Science and Society, and the Center for Child and Family Policy. He is an expert in self-regulation. His research has amounted to over 13,000 citations and focuses on the psychological and neurobiological processes that enable self-regulation, conceptualized in terms of a cognitive-motivational perspective as well as the relation between self-regulation and affect. Before we get started with some questions, can you please tell us a little bit more about yourself, Dr. Strauman, and what made you interested in studying psychology and, eventually, self-regulation?

Timothy Strauman:  Sure. Well, thank you for having me. It's actually hard to know. I've never quite been able to figure out why I got interested in psychology. I think very early on, I remember in high school being interested in mind-body things, and what at the time were called "psychosomatic illnesses," so I think I was sort of going back and forth between, did I want to be a physician, or did I want to be a psychologist? Psychology just appealed to me partly because it was a science and partly because the idea of intervening the way psychologists intervene and seeing impacts that it can have on people's behavior, on how they think, on how their bodies are responding to stress, it's just something that's always been interesting to me, so I'm very grateful to have the career that I have, and I'm as excited about it as ever.

Nicole Izquierdo:  That's awesome. Do you want to talk a little bit about where you went to school, what your training kind of consisted of, and then, I guess, how you ended up with a position here at Duke?

Timothy Strauman:  Sure. I was an undergraduate psychology major at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh, which I actually went to because their Psychology Department was very humanistic. I got there and, you know, that was fine, but I sort of realized that for me, personally, I needed to be in a mainstream, so I went to the University of Chicago into an interdisciplinary program called Human Development. Got there and decided that's not exactly what I wanted to do either, so I got a master's degree there, and then I actually went to work for a drug company doing cancer research, clinical trials, and it was a great experience. I did that for four years, learned a ton about research, a lot about statistics, and then kept applying to graduate schools, and eventually got accepted at New York University, and I was able to do both clinical psychology and social psychology there, which was absolutely phenomenal.

The research that I do takes how a social psychologist thinks about experimentation and thinks about mental processes and applies them to what makes people feel sad and what makes people feel anxious, and then what would you do about it, and how would you know that the treatments were working? I did my internship at Einstein in New York and it was absolutely fabulous. Then went to the University of Wisconsin, where I was for 15 years. I was in the Psychology Department, and then I moved over to Psychiatry because I wanted to do more clinically-focused work, and then I came to Duke and I've been here ever since. It's a great place to work and it's particularly good because the medical center's right next door and it's a wonderful place. Amazing students, by the way. Very smart students.


Nicole Izquierdo:  Thank you. Yeah, we're lucky to have you here. So, I guess your research revolves around this term called "self-regulation." For our audience members that aren't too familiar with what that means, would you mind defining it to someone that could be listening to this?

Timothy Strauman:  Sure. Yeah, it's kind of a fancy psychology term, but what it really boils down to is all of us when we were growing up learned that it was important to be a particular kind of person and it was important to not be a particular kind of person, right? It's kind of what it means to have family, what it means to have parents. We learned very early on to constantly sort of monitor ourselves. What are our goals? What are our standards? What are we trying to be? What are we trying to not be? That's really what self-regulation means. Part of what's interesting about it is it's always happening. We do it unintentionally, but it's always happening in the background. It's always happening, pretty much automatically. It's as automatic as if you look at the letters C-A-T, you can't not see the word "cat." It's impossible, it's so overlearned.

Self-regulation is the same way. Any situation that we're in, there's something in the background saying, "How am I doing in this situation? Am I being the person I want to be in this situation? Is it working? Is it not working?" That's really the approach that we take. We spend a lot of time in our research, basically, it's pretty straightforward. We ask people, "What kind of person would you ideally like to be? What kind of person do you think you ought to be, you're supposed to be, and how are doing in reference to those standards?" We basically will bring people into the lab and have them think about it or expose them to those ideas and just watch what happens. See, if you get people thinking about a goal that they feel like they're attaining, they'll feel positive. If you get people thinking about a goal that they feel like they're not attaining, they'll feel negative.

The other thing, though, that's an important twist to this is there are basically two kinds of goals. There are goals about making good things happen, which we call "promotion," and there are goals about keeping bad things from happening, which we call "prevention." One of the things we've learned in our research is that depression is associated with not being able to make enough good things happen, whereas anxiety is associated with not being able to keep bad things from happening, at least in your own head, so in the treatment research that we've done, part of what we do is to try to help people understand that there are both of these kinds of, two ways of thinking about goals, and depending on which way you're thinking, it could make you happy or sad, or it could make you anxious or calm. We try to integrate that into treatments. That's not in and of itself terribly revolutionary, but what we do in our work is really try to help people focus on it and actually learn it as a skill.

Nicole Izquierdo:  I noticed that one of your papers was on a model for generalized anxiety disorder and depression comorbidity. Would you say that these individuals are with these deficits to their self-regulatory systems that makes them more vulnerable to both not being able to make good things happen and not being able to stop bad things from happening?

Timothy Strauman: Yeah, that's the model. You're absolutely right. A lot of the work that we've done has been developmental, where we basically, we either ask people to look back on what things were like with their kids, or sometimes we've just studied groups of children and followed them. Everybody learns how to make good things happen and everybody learns how to keep bad things from happening, right? I mean, anybody who's a parent will say, "Oh my gosh, of course I want my kids to know that," and anybody who's ever been raised by an adult says, "Oh, I know exactly. I know exactly what I was supposed to be doing and what they really wanted me to be doing." That's part of human nature and we carry it with us and it's really adaptive.

We've actually found that there are two ways that these things can get disrupted. One is for people who are used to succeeding, sometimes when they get into a patch in life when they're just not getting the positive reinforcement, it creates a sense of, "I'm not being the person I really would like to be," and that in the moment it leads to sadness, which that's not a big deal because that just motivates us to work harder. But what if you keep working harder and harder and harder and nothing's changing? Part of the work we've done is to say that's a potential pathway to depression.

The other thing that we've learned is many people when they're growing up are raised in a family environment where the focus is really on stay out of trouble, be careful, make sure the world's a dangerous place, and as a parent, of course, is exactly what I did with my kids. But if you focus on that exclusively, it ends up having the unfortunate side effect of you never learn how to make yourself feel good. You only learn how to keep yourself from feeling bad and that's actually not enough, and so our model of why generalized anxiety and depression go together is because for lot of people we've found that they're really focused on keeping bad things from happening because that's all they actually ever learned to do. We'll say, "What do you do to make yourself feel good?", and they'll look at us like, "I don't know. Nobody ever told me it was okay to do that."

A lot of us grew up in different kinds of families. That doesn't mean we had bad parents. It means we had parents who really wanted to keep us safe and just one of the byproducts of that is sometimes we're not balanced about, "Oh, actually, I need to make myself feel good so that I'm not constantly focusing on things that are dangerous and things that might go wrong." That's a long-winded answer to your question.


Nicole Izquierdo:  Would you say that these people are essentially doomed or are there some strategies that you have found that they can implement to restore their self-regulation?

Timothy Strauman: Oh, first of all, people are amazingly resilient. One of the things that's a real privilege as a therapist is to work with people and watch as they think through, "Okay, I have a set of standards. Some of them are from a long time ago. Maybe I don't need them anymore," or, "No, I like the standards I have, and I'm going to stick with them, but I'm going to explore what am I doing to pursue them, and can I do that differently?" People are amazingly resilient and the work that we've done developing and testing therapies where we're really focusing on this, people understand the distinction between ideals and odds. I think they feel really comfortable with the idea of getting balance.

In fact, the whole wording of “make good things happen versus keep bad things from happening” came from people who were in our early studies because we were using all this psychology terminology. You're like “No, no, no, no, it’s just what you're talking about,” which is, “Am I trying to make something good happen? Or am I trying to keep something bad from happening?" We were like, "Yes, that's exactly what we're talking about." Both of those things are essential, they're just different. If you want to be happy, you have to do the one, and if you want to be safe, you have to do the other. In a complex world like ours, you really want to be able to do both. No, I don't believe people are doomed at all. Folks are amazingly resilient and these are skills that we know people can learn and we know they're helpful.


Nicole Izquierdo:  I guess to make this more applicable to our listeners, I was thinking about it and, you know, not everyone has the access, the time, or the money to afford to go to a therapist and sit in a therapy session so what are some techniques that you would recommend that could fall under the umbrella of restoring these systems that people can do in their everyday life?

Timothy Strauman:  Oh, sure. In fact, the work that we do and the work that the people at your clinic do, the whole goal is to help people acquire new perspectives and skills that they take with them out into the real world and not just in the therapist's office. There are a couple of things that I think can be really helpful. One is just the recognition that it is always going to be important to us to make sure we are being the kind of person we want to be. That's just human nature. That's really what it means to be human. That's all always true, it's always happening, and we get to decide, what are those goals and standards going to be?

Yes, as we grew up, we acquired a set of beliefs about what's a good person and what's a bad person from the people around us, of course we did, but we always have the opportunity to say, "That worked for me when I was younger. I'm not so sure it's working for me now. Do I want to tweak it? Do I want to change it?" I think one of the things that's really empowering is just to be able to say, "Yeah, you know what? That actually matters. It always matters. Even if I'm not thinking about it intentionally, it's always going to be there in the background. I care if the people I love think I'm a good person or not. I care if the people I love think I'm keeping myself safe and avoiding danger. It matters. It matters to them, and therefore, it matters to me." That would be one thing.

The other thing that I think can be really helpful is just when you're in the middle of a situation and you're starting to feel something's not right, something's not working here, maybe you're feeling frustrated, maybe it's making you sad, maybe it's making you anxious, and maybe you can't do it right at this moment, but after that moment say, "Okay, what was happening there? What was my goal? What was I trying to make happen? Was I trying to make a good impression on somebody? Was I in talking to my boss and worried about somehow my boss thought I had done something wrong? What was I trying to do? What was the goal? How did the other person respond? Did they respond the way I wanted them to? Or did they not? Then how did that make me feel?"

Those three things: what was my goal in that interaction? We always have one. How did the other person respond to whatever it was I did that I was trying to pursue this goal? Then how did their response make me feel? That's a very old psychotherapy technique, it's not new, but thinking about it in that language makes it really easy to do in any situation. Then you can sort of stop and say, "Okay, is there anything I might have done differently? Did I do a good job of what I wanted to do and just didn't get the reaction I wanted? Is that my fault? Is it nobody's fault?" Then you're in a position to be able to say, "Okay, what happened?"

You can use the emotion as a signal that something important happened, and you can really dig into it and look at it rather than having the emotion be the endpoint. The emotion is sort of like, "Okay, something significant just happened here, but I'm going to figure out what it is, and I'm going to figure out why it made me sad versus guilty versus anxious." I'm going to figure that out and that's going to put me in a position that next time I'm in that situation, I'm going to know a little bit more about what's in my mind when I'm going in there, what's going to be in this other person's mind. I think that's really helpful to people and you don't need to be in therapy to be able to do that.


Nicole Izquierdo:  Thank you. Thank you for that. I guess in terms of the pandemic itself, what we've seen, especially in the beginning, a massive increase in anxiety and depression symptoms across the population. Have you done any work on this yet? Or have you found, I guess, any connections between the self-regulation model and this uptick in symptoms?

Timothy Strauman:  Yeah, I think so. I mean, obviously, this doesn't explain everything because the pandemic is enormously stressful, but one of the things that it has done is, just to use the example of parents, it's made it harder to be a good parent. Let's say you're a working parent and suddenly your kids are home. You have a whole set of expectations about what does it mean to be a good worker, and you have a whole set of expectations about what does it mean to be a good parent, and because of the pandemic, you're really not able to live up to either of those sets of expectations. You just can't. It's not possible, right? That puts us in a situation of something in the back of your head saying, "I'm not being the person I want to be. I'm not being the person I'm supposed to be." It's totally out of our control, but that doesn't stop. We're so used to evaluating ourselves that way.

I think one of the things that's very important for people to do to cope with the pandemic is to say, "Okay, I'm going to have to adjust what I expect of myself because there are things happening that I have no control over." In pre-pandemic days, what did it mean to be a really good parent? Okay, it meant certain things. In the middle of the pandemic, what does it mean to be a good parent? It's a very different set of things and it's okay to let yourself say, "This is what it means right now and I'm doing everything I can."

I think it's really important for people to be able to distinguish what's under my control and what's not under my control and not let all of the pre-pandemic stuff that, of course, it's how we lived our lives, and then suddenly we're in this situation where we just don't have the ability to do it, and it's really important just to say it this way to let ourselves off the hook, and knowing we're going to do everything we can do, but knowing it is artificially limited right now, and that does not feel good, but it doesn't mean we're not being good people. We're being the best people we can be under a set of circumstances that's absolutely extraordinary.

Nicole Izquierdo:  When I took my psychology stats course with you, I remember mentioning that you had some work about some public school interventions in relation to the self-regulation. Do you want to talk a little bit more about that, how that process has been? I imagine the pandemic probably caused a stint in that progress, but how has it been collaborating with public schools and implementing the work from the research to the real world?

Timothy Strauman:  Boy, it is such a privilege, and it's so exciting. Yeah, it's been on hiatus because of COVID. We are actually just now getting back to where, and probably within the next two weeks or so, we'll be back in at least one of the schools. The work that we're doing is really simple. This is with my colleague, Dr. Ann Brewster, who's an Intervention Scientist. We're trying to help people, especially people who are at risk for bad academic outcomes, so folks who've had long-term suspensions, or people who are moving from middle school to high school, but already have some academic indicators that they're probably going to struggle when they get to high school. We're trying to help them learn what I guess I would call "metacognitive skills," which is this general ability to stop, take a step back and say, "Okay, what's happening here?" We have really good data that that’s an enormously helpful thing for people to be able to do, and not just adults, but teenagers.

It's funny because when we got into doing this work, there was some skepticism about, can teenagers even do that? The answer is absolutely yes, they can do it. They do it all the time. There's nothing that we've tried to teach that has been at all foreign to people and students are amazing at it and it's really empowering because it puts them in a situation to be able to make better decisions. Just as an example, a couple of the people that we were talking to recently, why are they long-term suspended? Because they got into fights. Telling them, "Hey, don't fight," is not an effective intervention. Giving them the opportunity to step back and say, "Okay, what was happening in that situation? What was I trying to accomplish? Was I trying to make something good happen? Was I trying to keep something bad from happening? What were my options at that moment? One option was fight. Maybe that was the only good option. Okay, then it was the only good option. Maybe it wasn't the only good option."

What's powerful about it is, it's not us telling them this, it's us saying, "Here's a set of skills that we think might be useful. Give it a try. Tell us if you think..." And then they do it and then they come back and say, "That's interesting, because at the moment it didn't occur to me that I had any other options, but now as I look back, I can see that I did." As adults, we're not immune to that, we know exactly what that's like, but we do know it's enormously powerful.

The work that we did first that really got us established working with the Durham Public Schools was with these kids who were really at highest risk, and a lot of people, I think, probably just thought, "It's too late. Nothing can be done." It's absolutely not true. It is never too late. These folks helped us learn how to do the intervention. They helped us shape what the skills would look like. It is enormously inspiring and it's such a privilege to be able to do that work. We're actually hoping this spring we'll be back in the schools and in the fall we're going to roll it out through a couple of the Durham public high schools, and we're hoping by about a year from now, it'll be rolled out through the entire school district.

Nicole Izquierdo:  That's amazing. Would you say that they're receptive, both students and their parents and caregivers about these programs, and even the teachers and administrators themselves?

Timothy Strauman:  Yeah. There's a history of, there are some really well-thought-out interventions that are not punitive. They're not stigmatizing. They're not presented as, "Okay, you are getting pulled out of the classroom because you're a troublemaker. You're getting sent down the hall to this other thing where you have to see the psychologist who's going to make you a better..." It's not like that at all. It's for everybody, everybody in the school. It's a skillset and it's very respectful of the individual. Some of the interventions that we base this on are about, "What do you want your legacy to be? 10 years from now, 20 years from now, what do you want to be known for? Oh, and by the way, in the interim, what are the kinds of things that might get in your way? What kinds of situations might make that harder for you?"

We do a lot working with the older adolescents with frustrations they have about trying to get a driver's license, trying to find a job, helping them problem-solve about it, but what's really gratifying is once they learn the skills, they do the problem-solving, so they're able to say, "Okay, I went, I filled out an application. I handed it in, the person kind of grimaced, and took it away from me, and that was that, I haven't heard back from them." Okay, let's analyze that situation. Did you meet your goal? Absolutely, you met your goal. Your goal was to apply for a job. Beyond that, it's out of your control. The person's grimace, who knows why that person was grimacing? Maybe they're having a bad day, maybe they're... But whatever it is, you met your goal, your goal is to apply for a job.

Now, what are your options? One option is, "I'm never going to apply for another job. That was it. I'm done." Maybe another option is, "That was one possibility, but there are lots of other possibilities and I'm not going to let that person's grimace stop me from applying for the next job, or reapplying to that place," right? But they don't need an authority figure telling them that. That doesn't work. What works is for them to arrive at those kinds of options for themselves in a way that's empowering and non-critical and non-stigmatizing.

Nicole Izquierdo:  I guess the main takeaway among all the things for the interventions from the adolescents to with older adults is just remembering that some things are out of your control, whether it's the pandemic, or school systems, and then I guess, reframing the issue and evaluating all your options after the fact, and then, hopefully, implementing those in the future, would you say?

Timothy Strauman:  Yeah, I think that's a really good summary. To take it back to the whole idea of self-regulation, in every interaction, we have a goal, and there are aspects of those situations that we have control over, and there are aspects that we don't. We don't want to evaluate ourselves based on things we had no control over. We want to evaluate ourselves in, "Is the goal reasonable and did I do a good job of pursuing it?" We definitely want to evaluate ourselves, but not about things we have no of control over, and just learning to sort that out puts people in a situation to say, "Okay, I didn't get the job, but good for me for persisting, even with this person who was grimacing at me while I was filling out the application. Good for me. Whose problem is that? That's not my problem." Or, "I tried something and it didn't go the way I wanted." Okay, that's important information.

Just being able to take that step back and say, "What was the goal? Is it a reasonable goal? Did I do a reasonable job of pursuing it? Then is there anything else that was under my control? Maybe not. Okay, then I'm not going to hold myself responsible for the things that weren't under my control. That's asking too much." Yeah, I really like your summary. I think you nailed it.

Nicole Izquierdo:  Thanks. I guess we're going to shift a little bit. I saw that you have some papers on the training of clinical psychologists, mainly graduate students, and I also noticed when I was registering for courses last semester that you offer one for graduate students, kind of like a training course. Don't remember the name, but maybe it involves some ethics or something. Do you want to talk a little bit more about that and I guess what you think should be the core values in our future clinical psychologists and what it's like teaching graduate students here at Duke?

Timothy Strauman:  Sure. Yeah, thank you for bringing it up. That's an important part of my job and it's something I'm really committed to. The way that I think about Clinical Psychology is first and foremost, it's psychology, it's a science. There are a lot of things we know, there are a lot of things we've learned, and it's the job of a clinical psychologist to take that knowledge into a situation and somehow find a way to address whatever its public health problem it is, or whatever sort of problem it is you're trying to deal with. The training always has to be about that. It always has to be: get the knowledge base and then learn how to apply it.

Therapy is clearly one way of doing that, but it's not the only way of doing that. For example, it's become much more sort of an ethical responsibility of psychologists to advocate for their clients, to advocate more broadly in terms of social justice, and the American Psychological Association actually is saying that now. It's like we have a set of ethical principles and those are now part of the ethical principles, as they should be, because other healthcare professions were already doing that. It is our job to advocate for our clients, and that can mean a lot of things, but it's something that we need to do.

The other thing that is really important to us is, like many other sciences, clinical psychology has fallen short because we've basically only studied privileged people. We are as guilty of systemic, structural racism and its unintended consequences, let alone its intended ones, as anybody else, and it really is our responsibility to take a step back and say, "We can actually do better." It boils down to things like in my research study, who are the people that I'm recruiting to be participants? Why am I recruiting them? Are they representative of the people in my community? Are they representative of the people more broadly that I think my research is relevant to? If they're not, then I need to stop and say, "Okay, that's a problem."

We know a lot about intervention, but we don't know a lot about what interventions work for different kinds of people from different backgrounds who have different needs and who live in different kinds of communities and we absolutely need to learn those things. When we do learn those things, we will be better at our jobs, we will help more people. I definitely believe there are universal principles of behavior. I don't think it's the case that people from different communities are not like each other, but I think we've made a big mistake in not looking closely at people's individual circumstances.

There's so much that goes on in our society that is tainted by privilege and tainted by racism and the impact that it's had on education. When we go in and work in the schools, part of one of the reasons we're working the Durham Public Schools is that there is a history of discrimination in that school district and they're very well aware of it and it continues to reverberate. I mean, if you're from minoritized background, you're five or six times more likely to have academic difficulties than if you're not. It has nothing to do with your innate abilities, it has nothing to do with the quality of your parenting, it has to do with racism. That's something that I think psychology in general and certainly our training in particular, we see that as a mission is we have not been broad enough. We have not been comprehensive enough and we absolutely need to do that or we're not doing our jobs.


Nicole Izquierdo:  Yeah, I totally agree. Actually, an article will be published soon on The Seattle Psychiatrist site. It was some research that I did on the disproportionate impact the pandemic has had on the mental health of racial, ethnic, sexual, gender minorities, and it is due not to their abilities or some innate differences, but because of these systemic and institutional inequalities that we have in the US and you can argue around the world.

Timothy Strauman:  Yeah. You can't overstate how powerful those forces are. I mean, they're in the air, like that trivial example I gave before, you can't not see "cat" when you see C-A-T. If you are from a privileged background, you can't not see the world through the lens of a privileged background. That doesn't mean that you're a bad person, it doesn't mean you created the world that way, but it's still a fact, and we have to tell the truth about it. It's too easy for psychologists to say, "I'm going to do my research with a bunch of undergraduates at my university," which is fine. It's probably a good place to start, but it's certainly not a good place to stop.

Some of the best work that psychologists have ever done is work that's been underpinning changes in how our country deals with social justice. The Brown vs. Board of Education decision that the Supreme Court used to legally eliminate discrimination in education was entirely driven by psychologists who were doing research saying, "This occurs and it's harmful." I would say even the Supreme Court got it and that's a proud part of the legacy of psychology. There are a lot of parts of the legacy of psychology that are not so proud, but there are some good ones, and that's the one that inspired me when I was in graduate school because I was at New York University, and a lot of that work had been done by people who happened to have been in that department, so it was in the air and it was a good thing. Those things are in the air again now and that's exciting.


Nicole Izquierdo:  Thank you. Well, I guess we're going to wrap up now. I don't know if you'd like to add any last words or anything else you'd like to share, advice you'd give to our listeners?

Timothy Strauman:  Boy, advice. People are amazingly resilient. People are amazingly resilient and there is always a way. It is absolutely mind-blowing and a total privilege to work as a therapist, as an interventionist, and watch people empower themselves. It is remarkable and I've been able to participate in that in my career and it's so gratifying. I am a relentless optimist and I really believe that for everybody, there is a way. Thank you. I mean, it's a privilege just to be able to talk. I really appreciate being able to share some of my experiences and I hope this is useful to people who are listening.

Nicole Izquierdo:  Well, thank you so much for joining us, Dr. Strauman. We really appreciate you taking the time to speak with us and we wish you the best.

Timothy Strauman:  Thank you. I wish you the best as well.

Please note: The views expressed by the interviewee are for educational and informational purposes only, are not meant to diagnose or treat any condition, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Seattle Anxiety Specialists, PLLC.


Editor: Jennifer (Ghahari) Smith, Ph.D.

Therapist Kelsey Devoille on Equine-Assisted Therapy

An Interview with Kelsey Devoille, LMFT, MS

Kelsey Devoille is a licensed Marriage and Family Therapist and founder of Unbridled Counseling, which hosts equine-assisted therapy. Kelsey specializes in treating anxiety, eating disorders and depression.

Maya Hsu:  Hi, welcome to this installment of The Seattle Psychiatrist Interview Series. I'm Maya Hsu, and I'm a research intern here at SAS. Today, I'm joined by Kelsey Devoille, a licensed Marriage and Family Therapist practicing in Washington state. She received her Master’s of Science from Seattle Pacific University in Marriage and Family Therapy and founded Unbridled Counseling in 2012, which is her practice of equine-assisted therapy. Kelsey specializes in anxiety, depression, eating disorders, relationships, and fertility. She is also a member of International Association of Eating Disorder Professionals and a member of the American Association of Marriage and Family Therapists. Kelsey, would you like to introduce yourself and start us off by talking about how you became interested in equine therapy?

Kelsey Devoille:  Yeah, absolutely. Thanks for having me, Maya. As Maya mentioned, I'm Kelsey Devoille. I started Unbridled Counseling about 10 years ago, noticing a need in the community for ways in which people can engage in the therapeutic process outside a traditional office setting. I grew up riding and training horses and started coaching about 15 years ago, and really recognized the therapeutic impact of the horses and the relationship with the horses on my students. I also noticed that in my own relationship with horses growing up, that it was often when I felt most grounded and connected. I then started looking into how to go about setting that up in a more professional way, starting on my graduate program and looking into what the field of equine-assisted therapy looks like.

Maya Hsu:  Yeah. How would you describe the field of equine-assisted therapy for someone who's never heard of it before?

Kelsey Devoille:  Yeah. Equine-assisted therapy is anytime we bring horses into a therapeutic setting to promote healing or promote growth. It can look very, very different based on the models used and based on the preferences of the clients. For some people, it truly is just having a horse present while utilizing talk therapy models, simply to be outside and be more grounded, connect to their body a little bit more. In other models, it can be very, very relational and deep work, where the relationship with the horse is truly used to model relationships that happen outside of the therapeutic setting. It just depends on the goals of the patient and how they best engage in their own growth.

Maya Hsu:  It sounds like you can really access a wide variety of types of therapy treatments with horses.

Kelsey Devoille:  Yes.

Maya Hsu:  Is there something specific about equine-assisted therapy that makes it therapeutic that's different from just interacting with horses or going for a horseback ride?

Kelsey Devoille:  Yeah, I think, partially it's how the therapist directs the interactions, so knowing what the patient has to work on and knowing how we can bring in the horses to access areas in which they may be stuck or may be having a hard time experiencing the growth. It's very easy to talk about change in an office, but leaving that office, it's harder to practice. It's really about how the therapist can use the horse as the facilitator.

Maya Hsu:  Cool. Could you give an example of how somebody with anxiety who wants to address their anxiety, how their interaction with equine-assisted therapy might look different from somebody who might have an eating disorder?

Kelsey Devoille:  Yeah. I think that can vary. Given that eating disorders often are grounded in anxiety, it can look similar, but with anxiety, oftentimes, it's recognizing the person's internal experience and noticing how that may be affecting the horse. The horses often mirror the anxiety, and so it can make the connection with the horse a little bit more difficult when the person is less grounded and feeling emotionally flooded. Oftentimes, that's really where working to help the patient, in the moment, connect to their body, become more grounded through self-regulation methods so that they can interact with the horse in that way.

Whereas eating disorders, say, for example, someone maybe has a hard time using their voice or being assertive or feeling powerful in a room, it can be useful to then bring about those characteristics in their communication with the horse. Otherwise, often they get walked all over by the horse. It's activating fairly different communication skills in each of those different settings.

Maya Hsu:  When you talked about anxiety and the horse picking up on a person's anxiety, it made me wonder, does it ever happen where the client and the horse both have anxiety and then it escalates because they are receiving feedback based off of each other and then they're just engaged in this co-dysregulation?

Kelsey Devoille:  Absolutely, yeah, and that's the moment where we generally pause and say, "Okay, what are we noticing? What are you noticing in your body, and now what are you noticing in the horse? What are we observing? Is the horse becoming more vigilant? Is the horse becoming more nervous, spooky, reactive? and I wonder why," because oftentimes patients don't even realize that's happening in their body. Being able to see it in the horse is the feedback they need to say, "Whoa, what's happening here? Let's pause and let's check in to how we can break this cycle," because it likely is happening in their relationships outside of equine therapy.

Maya Hsu:  That's so interesting. What about horses make them unique and effective for therapy?

Kelsey Devoille:  Yeah. Well, the first is that they are thousand-plus pound animals. For a lot of people, it naturally brings about levels of fear, levels of vulnerability that can mimic some of the other areas in their life where they feel anxiety or fear come up. Automatically, we're tapping into that nervous system activity.

The other thing is that they, in the wild, are part of a herd and so they're very social animals. That means that when a patient does attempt to connect with them in a relational way, as long as it's skillful, most of the time the horse will reinforce that behavior and enter into relationship with them, whereas some animals are less inclined to want to do that.

I would say the third aspect, that's probably the most powerful, is because they're prey animals, they really pick up on the emotional states of the beings around them. They rely on being able to pick up cues that might tell them there's a predator in the area, which then makes them very highly attuned to the emotional states of the patients, and again, able to give that feedback that we were just talking about.

Maya Hsu:  Are there other animals, other prey animals, that you know of that would also be effective in this type of work?

Kelsey Devoille:  Hmm, that's a good question. I don't, actually. I know dogs and cats have been used in therapy, but they don't have those dynamics of being prey animals or herd animals. To me, that's why equine therapy feels really unique.

Maya Hsu:  Yeah. How can horses be used for emotional regulation or healing from trauma?

Kelsey Devoille:  Yeah. For the emotional regulation piece, it's the feedback that the horses provide and helping patients to recognize when they are regulating in their body. Like we were talking about, they might notice that they're becoming anxious and the horse is feeding off of them, and then they might be able to engage in some sort of self-soothing or some grounding work, some breathing work. Then they might notice the horse starts chewing or licking their lips or lowering their head, which is all signs of relaxation, which then gives the patient cues, "Oh, wow, something changed in my body. What happened? I just got feedback from the horse." That can be a positive reinforcer to learning how to self-regulate.

In terms of trauma, oftentimes the relationship with the horse can mimic or activate the neural pathways in the brain where the trauma is held. A benign example might be they're working with the horse and the horse turns around and walks away from them, which can then instigate the feelings that they had, say, as a child when they were abandoned or neglected. In that moment, those neural pathways are activated and that truly feels like that past experience for them. It's in that moment that we can stop, pause, and rewrite the script a little bit and change the way in which they interact in that moment. As opposed to, say, shutting down or feeling abandoned, they might be able to work themselves through engaging with the horse in a different way to achieve a different result, which then rebuilds more healthy neural pathways in those interactions.

Maya Hsu:  It reminds me of ecotherapy and how sometimes therapists can go on walks in nature with their clients and use the scenery and just whatever organic things are happening in their environment, they can use that as jumping off points for conversation or for sparking memories. It sounds like with the horses there's sometimes an unpredictable aspect of working with them, where you don't know if they'll turn away, and if they do, what that'll provoke inside the client. It sounds like that's really helpful for just bringing up things that you might not know to bring up.

Kelsey Devoille:  Yeah. I think oftentimes it can be really organic, like a deer could run across the pasture and spook them and then all of a sudden it's like, "Whoa, what did that feel like? Or what did you see in the horse that feels familiar to your experience when scared or in fight or flight?" That's what makes it a bit exciting, is sometimes it's hard, because what happens and those are interactions can be painful, but yeah, it ignites change in a way that feels less predictable.

Maya Hsu:  Yeah. What type of people would you recommend equine therapy for, and also sort of related to that, are there certain disorders or challenges that people have that might not be best addressed with equine therapy, for instance, maybe social anxiety or ADD, off the top of my head?

Kelsey Devoille:  Mm-hmm (affirmative), yeah. I love equine therapy for work with kids, teens, people who would be unwilling or uncomfortable to engage in therapy in an office-type setting, just because it creates such a more creative environment. As far as symptoms, I think working with the anxiety disorders, eating disorders, OCD, depression can be useful for working on the emotional regulation, and any time we're working on social dynamics, so relational issues, family dynamics, social skills. I actually do think for ADD and social anxiety it can be really useful because you have to be present to really, truly engage with the horse. It's an opportunity to focus on being mindful, being present, being focused. Again, the horse will give feedback when the person tends to check out.

Nothing really comes to mind in terms of a patient who would not be a good fit for equine therapy, just simply because it's so flexible that we can alter how we use the horse to determine how best to engage the client. There's really not a population that I feel like is a bad fit for this type of work.

Maya Hsu:  Yeah. I'm curious, you might not have an answer for this, but as the therapist, your role is the facilitator and the observer. Are there any things that you intentionally do to try and mitigate any projection onto what you think you might be interpreting between a client and a horse?

Kelsey Devoille:  Yes, and that can be pretty tricky given that I also come from a background of teaching and training. In that world, certain horse behavior always means something and there's always a right answer for how you interpret behavior, or how you respond. In a therapeutic setting, that's really not my job-- to interpret the relationship for the patient. Oftentimes, they see something in the horse and interpret it a certain way and my observation was different, but it's not really that relevant to me or to them. It's really accessing how the person is perceiving the engagement with the horse.

There may be times in which I'm noticing a theme, where the person might be interpreting the behavior in a way that doesn't really sit with me or that I'm not seeing, and so I might be able to just ask the question and say, "I wonder if it could be this. Is it possible that the horse is responding due to A, B or C," but it's really my job to be curious and allow the patient to interact in the way that feels the most powerful for them.

Maya Hsu:  Yeah, that makes sense. I appreciate your response because that clarified what I was imagining a therapist's role to be in equine-assisted therapy. It sounds like you stick more to objective observations, like the horse turned away or-

Kelsey Devoille:  Absolutely.

Maya Hsu:  ... the horse is not making eye contact or something factual, and then piecing together patterns and connections just within the client's own interpretations.

Kelsey Devoille:  Yep, absolutely.

Maya Hsu:  What has been your most rewarding or favorite experience with equine therapy?

Kelsey Devoille:  Yeah. I love when people are able to bring the experience in the therapeutic setting into their world. They experience something with a horse and then they come back next week and say, "Okay, I was having this conversation with my boss and I was able to really imagine how it felt for me when I was able to back the horse up. I was able to access the feelings in my body of assertiveness and confidence and trust in myself to make those connections." Or, for example, when it's the other way around, so they're working with the horse and they're like, "Oh my God, this is exactly how it feels when I'm fighting with my husband. I'm actually seeing my husband in the horse right now." Creating those metaphorical situations, where we're really joining the two experiences to make the bridge for what's happening in therapy and how it's being applied in their life, because they can get really creative with it in ways that I wouldn't have even seen myself.

Maya Hsu:  Yeah, yeah. I also have an additional curiosity. Are there horses that have their own trauma that don't necessarily make good candidates for equine-assisted therapy?

Kelsey Devoille:  Yeah, great question. I think it depends on your setting. When I'm working with kids, I tend to want to make sure I have horses who stay fairly grounded and regulated and predictable, just given the safety factors involved. However, if it's an adult who's pretty aware of their surroundings, actually, working with horses who've had past trauma can be challenging, but really rewarding. I had an older pony once who had a fairly significant trauma background and it took one patient six to 10 sessions to be able to even touch her, but the process of doing that and the end result was so rewarding that it really was valuable in the patient's growth. Whereas, a kid might not have the patience for that, but I think if you have the right patient-to-horse combination, it can be really useful.

Maya Hsu:  Yeah. When a patient or a client finishes treatment, I imagine there's some attachment work that you might have to do to terminate working together. What does that look like, if they formed a really close bond with a certain horse?

Kelsey Devoille:  Mm-hmm (affirmative), yeah. I mean, I think it often mimics how we end relationships in our own lives. You notice when, say, therapy is coming to an end, I think it's interesting to notice our patients purposely detaching and how they're doing that is really good awareness. I think it's being open and communicative in the process to say, "What are you feeling here? As we're starting to end this, are you noticing wanting to pull away or are you noticing wanting to find closure and an effective goodbye in that?" It just provides a lot of good information to how people handle goodbyes in their own life.

Maya Hsu:  Right. Is there anything else you would like people to know about equine-assisted therapy?

Kelsey Devoille:  I would just say that there isn't a rigid model for what it looks like and you don't have to be this lifelong horse lover to find it valuable and powerful. I think as long as you can be open-minded to what the horses can offer, in terms of growth, it can be really useful for most of the population.

Maya Hsu:  I'm definitely interested in trying it at some point.

Kelsey Devoille:  Yeah.

Maya Hsu:  Sounds really helpful. Well, thank you so much for joining us on this installment. It was such a joy to speak with you and hear more about equine-assisted therapy.

Kelsey Devoille:  Of course. Thanks so much for having me.

Please note: The views expressed by the interviewee are for educational and informational purposes only, are not meant to diagnose or treat any condition, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Seattle Anxiety Specialists, PLLC.


Editor: Jennifer (Ghahari) Smith, Ph.D.

Journalist Kenneth R. Rosen on Wilderness Therapy

An Interview with Journalist Kenneth R. Rosen

Kenneth R. Rosen is an award-winning journalist and best-selling writer of “Troubled: The Failed Promise of America's Behavioral Treatment Programs.”

Maya Hsu:  Hi, welcome to this installment of the Seattle Psychiatrist Interview Series. I'm Maya Hsu, and I'm a research intern here at SAS. Today, I'm joined by Kenneth R. Rosen, who is an award-winning journalist. His book, Troubled: The Failed Promise of America's Behavioral Treatment Programs was an instant number one bestseller on Amazon, a New York Times Editor's Choice, and one of Newsweek's most highly anticipated books of 2021. He has personal experience with the tough love industry and how it often fails the young adults of this country. He's also been featured on NPR, The Sun Magazine, and the Very Bad Therapy podcast, which is how I found him.

Ken, would you like to introduce yourself, and maybe start off by talking a bit about your own experience with wilderness therapy?

Kenneth Rosen:  Maya, thanks so much for the opportunity, and for reaching out. I think this is great.

My experience with therapy started back when I was 16, after a few years of individual one-on-one therapy and outpatient treatment programs that didn't work for me. I was taken in the middle of the night by two transporters to a wilderness therapy program in upstate New York. Over the course of the next 288 days, I would stay two stints in wilderness in upstate New York, while also being shuttled between a therapeutic boarding school in Massachusetts, and a residential treatment center, vis-a-vis ranch in Southern Utah. So, my tackling of Troubled which was a product of journalistic endeavoring, as well as a personal unearthing of my own past issues, and time spent at these programs, was an attempt to understand what had happened to me back then. And what had happened to me in the years that followed those programs and that type of treatment.

So, while wilderness is discussed in Troubled, I also follow four students who went through residential treatment centers, therapeutic boarding schools, and then into their adult lives thereafter.

Maya Hsu:  Great. And for our listeners who are unfamiliar, can you define and distinguish wilderness therapy versus a residential boarding school, and versus a therapeutic treatment center?

Kenneth Rosen:  Wilderness therapy is often sometimes called adventure therapy, or outdoors therapy. And I think it's a misnomer because it leads people to believe that it's something that it's not. Wilderness therapy, in a large portion of the country, is a holding place for children to sort of ease their way into more residential programs. So, they're stripped of their civil liberties, and taken to remote places, and given uniforms, and told to hike and fend for themselves in a wilderness theater, as it were.

The point of this is to ingratiate those students and those clients with a sense of a hierarchy in program language, and also the therapeutic language that they'll be using in the programs to come. A lot of times the rejuvenating capacity of wilderness is missed in large part because of how students get to these programs, to the wilderness programs, which is through a transportation service, which I briefly outlined that I went through, is when two men or women come into the room in the middle of the night, and take them at the request of parents, in large part because parents feel that their children might be flight risks, or that the programs require this sort of treatment to ensure the safe transportation of children to these programs.

Unfortunately, recent studies have shown that that transportation in and of itself is very traumatic and leads children to then miss out on all the rejuvenating qualities of wilderness. I think nobody will argue that spending some time in the woods is a great thing. That fresh air is healing, no doubt. It's just an unfortunate side effect of the way we treat children in America, writ large, that they feel the need to be transported against their will.

Maya Hsu:  Great. So, what I heard was that wilderness therapy is an avenue toward a therapeutic boarding school, or a behavioral intervention center later on. And that the lack of therapeutic benefits that don't happen is due to that traumatic transportation system that often happens in the beginning.

Kenneth Rosen:  Correct. In part a lot of the residential treatment facilities that I researched, and spoke to for Troubled required it to be part of the acceptance package into their program. So, a child had to go through therapeutic wilderness programs beforehand. Some programs had, at times, had that integrated into their school, so that it could be a one step to the residential program straight from wilderness, rather than a secondary program.

But it's not only the fact that they're transported to these programs, but it's also that some of the staff members at the wilderness programs aren't necessarily qualified to handle the students, and the needs that they have, whether it be psychologically, or physically, or emotionally. When I was in wilderness and when a lot of the people who were mentioned in the book were in wilderness, they would meet with licensed clinical social workers or therapists maybe once or twice every week... once or twice, every few weeks. It wasn't a consistent therapeutic environment, that day-in day-out 16 hour environment was run by people who had an interest in outdoor education, who liked hiking, who had a keen sense of direction, but weren't necessarily equipped as a licensed clinical social worker would be, or a clinical psychologist.

Maya Hsu:  I remember from the Very Bad Therapy podcast, you talking about the lack of adequate supervision, and training with the counselors of these programs. And that even very, very recently, maybe within the last year, you found that still their hiring requirements are that you only have to be over 21 to be a counselor of these programs. Can you talk a little bit about the impact of having untrained counselors on these grounds of these programs?

Kenneth Rosen:  Well, the children are always marked as troubled from the get-go. And so, when the programs ultimately fail, wilderness ultimately fails a child, and they relapse, or they go back to doing drugs, or sexually deviant behavior, or what have you… they blame it on the kid who was inherently bad before, or just difficult. Rather than saying that the people who were meant to care for them in those programs, the ostensibly trained individuals who could handle different situations, whether it be a traumatic situation, or any number of difficult children who are experiencing trauma and dealing with things that are cropping up from their past, end up not being able to handle that, whether it be first aid, or just any clinical psychological training.

So when you have someone who's 21, who's fresh out of high school, who just has a high school diploma, they're oftentimes making the situation worse. If not, just setting a low bar for children to go on living the way they had before, without the supervision, without real mentorship that they need in order to benefit from such a program. Of course, a lot of the programs are in such remote places that getting the type of staffing that is required to care for children in need, and at-risk youth, it's not always possible. But there needs to be a more stringent and due diligence on the part of the programs in looking for, and hiring staff, who can better their programs, and who can offer more insight to children as they need it.

Maya Hsu:  Are there other types of wilderness therapy options that don't fall into the category of this type of program that you're describing, where the counselors aren't fully trained to help kids with their mental health issues?

Kenneth Rosen:  So, the third prong, I mentioned two prongs initially, I mentioned the transporting to the programs is an issue. The second is the staffing of the programs is an issue, the unqualified nature of some of the staff. The third is the fact that children can't leave, or communicate with their parents. That they are restricted to this environment against their will. And having gone through AA, having gone through therapy all my life, I know that you are not going to change if you're forced to it.

So, to answer your question, the better programs that I've seen are the ones abroad, the ones outside of America. The ones that offer a child an opportunity to have this experience, to go into wilderness therapy, or adventure therapy, or outdoor behavioral therapy, and experience it for themselves. And if they don't like it, or if they're finding it difficult, or if they want to go home, they're allowed to. And in that way, you give the agency to the child. And the child is then making the choice to be in therapy. And that's already empowering rather than stripping them of their rights to feel empowered.

And people who run these programs overseas, I'm thinking specifically of one in Australia, they have come out with recent studies as well that suggest that the transportation of the kids is so effective in damning the child through the rest of the program that it almost negates any sort of positive behavior, positive outcomes from wilderness therapy.

Maya Hsu:  I'm so curious, is this the case for the majority of programs in the U.S., all programs in the U.S., are there some that you've heard of over the years, like private companies that run more modern, more updated versions of these programs with maybe not that kind of transportation process?

Kenneth Rosen:  I think this gets to one of your next questions, is that after I published a book, I did receive a lot of letters, and notes, and emails from people who run smaller programs for disadvantaged youth, for neurodiverse children, all different types of smaller programs who said that, "This isn't me, that my program is not like the ones you described." And I heard them and I still hear them.

The issue is that in the course of reporting Troubled and interviewing more than 100 former staff, and parents, and people who went to these programs, the majority of the time people were sent to the programs that I've described that required transportation, that stripped children of their right to feel unique, and heard, and cared for, and then sent them on to several other programs without ever giving them the true treatment that they need. And I've never disputed the fact that a lot of the children, including myself, needed some sort of help or treatment.

I wouldn't have written the book, if I felt that there was a minority of programs that were doing this. That these were programs that were just the odd person, odd program out. These are the majority of programs that I came across privately funded, even some who received federal funding. So, there are programs that are doing good, but I'm not, as a journalist, here to say, congratulations, you deserve a profile and an award. I'm here to say, there's a problem with the majority of the programs that are operating in this realm, and they need to be looked at, and adjusted.

Maya Hsu:  Sure. Something else that stuck out to me from the Very Bad Therapy podcast was how you talked about how students, or the kids who were sent to these programs were extremely motivated to alter their behavior so that they could go home. And that the problem behavior would stop in the short-term so that they wouldn't be sent back. Can you talk more about that, and maybe any other misconceptions about how therapeutic or effective wilderness therapy is?

Kenneth Rosen:  The identified patient has always been in this privately funded, troubled teen industry, wilderness therapy included-- the identified patient is the child. And time and again, I found that the identified patient should be the family, the parents who inevitably have not changed by the time the child comes home. With that said, the child comes home and has to act accordingly because they are afraid of being sent back to a program, or messing up and having their parents call someone to take them again in the middle of the night, traumatic as it was.

What the industry, including the Outdoor Behavioral Health Council, and all these other people who are industry leaders, and published their own industry funded studies will tell you is that all of the evidence shows that after six months at these programs children do better. That they're no longer doing drugs, that they're getting better grades… 6 months, 12 months. What they don't don't tell you is that those kids are still in different programs, 6 months, 12 months after those programs.

So, the attrition rate after the lead program in reality, two years down the line is a lot different than what the studies are showing. They're not doing quantitative studies of these children once they graduate, and go off to college, or go off to their first job, or go off to an internship, and see how they fare there. They just see how they fare within this realm of programs, which we talked about a little earlier, wilderness to residential, to maybe a lockdown, if it's necessary, or back to a therapeutic boarding school as they roll back the need for the hands-on treatment.

So, that's I think one of the misconceptions is that one is beneficial, but for the need of the other programs that come later, it's not that wilderness therapy has ever proven well enough because children don't often stay only in wilderness. They don't often go home after wilderness. They often go somewhere else. Are there cases where children go home after wilderness? Of course, but they are among the minority.

Maya Hsu:  So, what kind of programs or interventions do you think would be helpful to replace wilderness therapy, or in any case supplement?

Kenneth Rosen:  I'm not saying anything should be replaced. And I've long given up on suggesting the crumbling of the entire industry. I think that if American-based wilderness therapy took a play out of the books of foreign wilderness programs, allowing the children more leniency and latitude, working with the parents more directly, shortening the timeframe away from their discourse community, and their friends, and the people who they'll have to go back and integrate with later, rather than stripping them of any way of connecting with their peers. I think those are positive ways of changing.

Of course, there's a litany of reasons why they won't do that. Several of which I couldn't even tell you myself because I don't run a program. But I think that there needs to be a concerted focus on the family first and foremost. And with that, secondarily, comes this idea of intensive outpatient, and group therapy within the community that a child is in. To then, expect them after two years away to go back and function in a society that isn't based on a hierarchy of levels and treatment scoring, is beyond irreconcilable.

So, these local treatment programs, these options for in-school programming should be developed further. And, of course, there are state level state funded options where there are checks and balances. And there are people who are looking into the progress, they're making sure there aren't abuses. These things are available. I just think a lot of times, and this goes back to your question about some of the misconceptions, is that parents feel that they don't have any other choice when they meet with an ed consultant, who says wilderness therapy is great. They feel that they've run the course of every other treatment. It's just not the case. And as states become more aware of what's happening in some of these privately funded programs, I think that there will be concerted effort to bolster the capabilities of community-based treatment.

Maya Hsu:  I've got quite a bit of background noise right now. I don't know if you can hear it. Can you still hear me?

Kenneth Rosen:  Yeah.

Maya Hsu:  Okay, great.

Well, you touched on what in this industry needs to change to serve its clientele, which would be more autonomy, kind of just the overhaul of the current policies, and just some major renovation of structure. Is there anything else that you would change that you might not have mentioned to make these programs beneficial for its clientele?

Kenneth Rosen:  I just really want to reiterate the notion that parents should be brought in a lot earlier. There's programs that offer therapeutic lessons for parents on the side, so they can track along with their children in their treatment program, and their treatment plan for the child. But it's just not as intensive. They're not just receiving the same sort of attention that the children are, so there's a dissonance between the therapy that the child is getting, excuse me, and the therapy that the parents need to get.

I often found that the parents really did have a lot of issues that were going on, and inadvertently put those onto the children, so that the safe environment at home, that environment that gives rise to really obedient, and caring and empathetic children was long dismantled. And rebuilding that is very difficult. So going very, very, very far back, having that open discourse with your child and focusing the efforts in-house, I think will yield better results in the end. But, again, I always preface that I'm a new father and I have very young children myself, so I'll learn as I go as well.

Maya Hsu:  Yeah. I do agree that a more systemic holistic approach would probably be the way to actually resolve some of these deeper issues that are the root of the problematic behaviors.

Kenneth Rosen:  Yeah, I think there's something to be said for just a general ethos of how we treat pain, and psychological ailments, and therapy in this country as a monetized, capitalistic approach to... There's a way to pay for it, to get it taken care of. And if we just pay more money, and put it aside, something will fix itself. It's just not the case. It requires a lot of work.

I don't necessarily want to do all the work. It's very difficult. I have my own life. My children have their own lives. And the same goes for when I was a kid, I had my own life. My parents had their own lives. That division is coarse, and it's difficult to overcome. But there are ways to do it. And there are ways to foster that relationship and really work on it long-term so that when it comes time to grapple with internal struggles within the family, we don't just sit back and say, "Well, if I could send them away for two years, maybe they'll change."

Maya Hsu:  Speaking of sort of throwing money at the problem, how much do wilderness therapy programs typically cost?

Kenneth Rosen:  So, again, we've been somewhat focusing on wilderness therapy in this conversation but, generally speaking, it could be anywhere from $30-50,000 for a full course, whether that be for 30 days or 60 days, generally it's paid out as the first 28 days is X amount, 30 grand, and then 5 to $600 a day thereafter if the child takes longer to complete the program.

Maya Hsu:  So, is there incentive then, for counselors and these programs to keep the kids there longer?

Kenneth Rosen:  There is, but I'm not necessarily sold on the idea that counselors are doing this because they're not getting the money directly. I think there are probably considerations insofar as where the child goes next after the program. I know that the three programs I went to, for instance, and this is fairly typical, were all owned by the same health group. So, every program was sort of feeding into the next one and my parents were convinced that this was the sort of treatment path that I needed.

Of course, by the time I got to the end of the 28 days, I came back home and I just couldn't function as a normal person among high school colleagues, high school contemporaries, because we had very different experiences. And that followed me into my early adulthood.

Maya Hsu:  That makes me curious, what kind of therapy, or healing did you have to do? What did that look like for you after returning back from these programs?

Kenneth Rosen:  For me, I ended up going through a lot of trouble. I did a lot of bad things, I got into a lot of trouble as I grew up, and I learned the hard way, a lot of different things that I didn't have to learn. And then, just at some point, at 25, I changed. I decided that I wanted to focus on writing and be a certain type of person, and contribute to society. And I met a woman, and she changed the way I perceived my future. And, from then on, I wasn't really thinking in that juvenile notion of, "Oh, well, instant gratification. I'm only looking a week ahead, maybe a night ahead." Now, I was thinking 10, 20 years ahead.

And this isn't just a silly parable that I'm giving you. This is truth insofar as the adolescent brain developing fully by 25. 19, 20, it still sort of erratic. 21, 22 it still isn't fully developed. 25 things starts to settle in place. And that goes for your brain as well. So, I just figured it out. I don't have a really good answer. I'm not in therapy anymore. Unfortunately, I've been turned off to it. I don't seek it out. I don't want to be a part of it. I find it all to be phony. And I hate saying it out loud because I know it helps people. But, for me, and some of the people that I interviewed, their experience at a young age with therapy was so traumatic, and so difficult that they just gave up. And that even if help were available, and it isn't always available, even if help were available, they'd still choose just to be on their own.

Maya Hsu:  And you touched a little bit earlier on critique that you received on your publications. Was there anything else that jumps to mind that you think might be worth mentioning?

Kenneth Rosen:  Sure. A lot of parents write to me and tell me that the program was beneficial for their children. Whatever I experienced was not what their child experienced. And that clearly, their child is doing better. And invariably, somewhere at the end of the email, they note that the child just got out of the program. And we already discussed this so we don't need to rehash it. Or that their child is still in the program. Or the child is very young. And it always strikes me as curious that the parents feel the need to write me. And I never get messages from children, or past clients who say, "I had a good time. I learned a lot. And now, I'm a young adult, or an adult who feels more empowered and better off than when I was before the programs." That's never happened.

It's always been a defensive parent who writes and tells me that their reasoning, through no fault of their own... Again, I say that they were led astray, that they were misdirected by an educational consultant, or the schools in which the child was attending. And they want to defend their position for what they sent their child through. And I think it's also sad that they feel they need to do that, in large part, because it wasn't their fault. And they were at their wits end and they chose what they felt was the best option. Unfortunately, the long arm of these programs, the troubled teen industry as it's become known as, is so strong that it makes these parents feel like this is the best option. And it isn't.

Maya Hsu:  On that note, is there anything else you would like parents, educators, or therapists to know about these different programs?

Kenneth Rosen:  I think do your research as best you can, but consult multiple people, don't just rely on education consultants. Rely on parents of troubled teens, rely on a lot of the networks on social media that will share stories and alternatives to these more drastic solutions. And really just, at the end of the day, it's about communication and setting yourself aside and listening to the child.

I think the biggest mistake that was made... To me, the biggest mistake that people made while addressing me and talking to me as a teen and the young adult was trying to liken their experience to my own. And I find that the most aggravating tactic that therapists and social workers use because they don't know.

My son is two and a half years old and what he's going through right now, pandemic aside, is so inconceivable. And when he's 10 and I'm still 30, 40 years older than him, I won't understand what he's going through. And that's okay. And understanding that and admitting that to a child opens up an avenue of communication that isn't there if you say, "I was your age once, and I get it," because we don't.

Maya Hsu:  Well, thank you so much for joining us for our interview series, Ken. It was great to have your perspective and to hear more about wilderness therapy, and these different programs.

Kenneth Rosen:  Maya, thank you, I appreciate it.

Please note: The views expressed by the interviewee are for educational and informational purposes only, are not meant to diagnose or treat any condition, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Seattle Anxiety Specialists, PLLC.


Editor: Jennifer (Ghahari) Smith, Ph.D.

Psychologist Karin Sponholz on Codependency

An Interview with Psychologist Karin Sponholz

Dr. Sponholz is a licensed clinical psychologist with extensive experience employing a variety of modalities, such as dialectical behavioral therapy and relational therapy, and specializes in the treatment of: trauma, relationship issues, identity development, and codependency.

Maya Hsu:  Thank you for joining us today on this installment of the Seattle Psychiatrist Interview Series. I'm Maya, Hsu, a research intern here at Seattle Anxiety Specialists and I'd like to welcome Dr. Karin Sponholz.

Dr. Karin Sponholz is a licensed clinical psychologist with a doctorate in clinical psychology from Pacifica Graduate Institute. She has extensive experience working with individuals, couples and groups employing a variety of modalities, such as dialectical behavioral therapy and relational therapy. She specializes in the treatment of many different issues including trauma, relationship issues and identity development, and has helped many people heal and recover from issues related to codependency. Dr. Sponholz, would you like to introduce yourself and tell us a little bit about what makes codependency interesting to you?

Karin Sponholz:  Thank you for the introduction. I'm happy to be here and talking about one of my favorite things, which is about relationships and relationship dynamics, which includes codependency. I think I'm just fascinated by how people come together and the dynamics between them, whether it's healthy dynamics or not so healthy dynamics. And also, understanding what motivates or how people fall into these patterns and habits and how do we break out of them? That's what fascinates me about codependency.

Maya Hsu:  Awesome. And would you mind defining codependency for our listeners who might be unfamiliar with that term?

Karin Sponholz:  Sure. So, let me first start by saying that the term codependency is often misunderstood and often overused by a lot of people. And actually, believe it or not, the actual word codependency started from the legal use of a term to mean an agreement in contracts. Meaning, there's an action that is mutually dependent on two parties. And then it turned into more of a psychological term in the '80s and it's actually coined by Melody Beattie, who's a self help author. She famously wrote about codependency and she defines it as two people who impact each other. Meaning, someone's behavior influences the other person's behavior in such a way that their wants, needs, desires, sense of self is wrapped up in the other person. So, there's a lack of independence, so to speak, hence the word codependency and there's an addictive quality to that kind of enmeshment, is another way we often talk about codependency.

Maya Hsu:  And what causes codependency? Or what things can lead somebody to be more predisposed toward developing codependent habits than someone else?

Karin Sponholz:  Yeah. Oftentimes it's learned. We learn that in childhood from our parents or caregivers or modeled in the family somehow. Oftentimes you see it in families where there's one person who needs a lot of attention, whether it's because of their own mental health issues or health issues and all the emotional resources are funneled towards that person. So, the people in this family system learn that their sense of self and their way of being in the world is wrapped up in caretaking for that one person.

So, that's how the habit gets ingrained and then it gets reinforced. That, “Oh, this is how we should be, this is how we should relate to one another, which is through caretaking.” And there's a lack of reinforcement in learning to know what your own wants or needs are in life. So, it's more like, well, my wants and needs are about helping you and that's how-

Maya Hsu:  Can you give a-

Karin Sponholz:  Yeah.

Maya Hsu:  Sorry to interrupt. Can you give a specific example of what that can look like within a family system early on? Just, I don't know, some common dynamics you've noticed?

Karin Sponholz:  Sure. So, a common one that we often, we learned about in the '80s is often where one person has an addiction, whether it's an alcohol addiction or drug addiction. So, what happens is that the family system revolves around that one person. So, the whole caretaking is about trying to get that person into recovery and everything is geared towards helping that one person.

So, everyone else's own wants and needs are put on the side. The system then, everyone has a role in the system. There's the patient, the identified patient. And then there's people who are termed the enabler or caregivers. And people just stay stuck in these roles and they can be for years. So, especially kids that grew up in this environment learn that that's just how people should relate. So, there's a sense of reward in being able to either help somebody who's in need and forego their own wants and needs because there's a sense of reward there. Or there's an enabling aspect to it. So, the patient or the person who is struggling, they're enabled to stay stuck because the whole system, the whole dance is dependent on them staying stuck.

Maya Hsu:  Right.

Karin Sponholz:  So, that's why there is a codependent dynamic that happens.

Maya Hsu:  The idea of roles is really interesting. I'm curious how it would look in families where addiction is not the issue, where there is nobody with an addiction. How would codependency arise in a family where that's not really a relevant issue?

Karin Sponholz:  Sure. Yeah, great question. So, addiction might be the extreme example. So, oftentimes it might be somebody who may have mental health issues, whether it's an anxiety, they struggle with anxiety or someone might struggle with depression, more so maybe than the other family members. So, it's usually just one person who's struggling a lot or who has a lot of needs. Somebody who even might have a learning disability, again, not necessarily a disorder but just somebody in the family who has a lot of needs.

And the family system then, again, shaping itself around the person versus having more of a healthier balance with “sure, help the person” but also then meet your own needs as well.

Maya Hsu:  Okay. Yeah, so it can range from more mild issues, just like anxiety, common everyday struggles, all the way to addiction.

Karin Sponholz:  Right, exactly.

Maya Hsu:  And is it also typical for, within a family unit, for every member aside from the most struggling person to develop codependency or is it usually one other member in the family?

Karin Sponholz:  It's usually the person who's most empathetic. The most empathetic person is the one that tends to fall into this role. And it's interesting because you see roles in the family. So, you might see the person, the one with the empathy, tends to be the caretaker, tends to be the person who's the codependent one. And then you see the identified patient in the family, right? And then you see maybe the joker or the rebellious one. So, you see all the roles that people play. Or the avoidant one. And everyone has this unspoken contract to remain in these roles, which is why, especially again, with the extreme example of somebody who has an addiction, family therapy is so vital to breaking out of these habits because it's the system that is set in place to keep everybody stuck in these roles.

Maya Hsu:  It sounds like if one person just seeks help on their own and gets therapy when they return back to the family unit the strength of the rest of the dynamic is so strong that that individual work is not enough. It has to be a cohesive, holistic approach.

Karin Sponholz:  Exactly, exactly. Yup, exactly.

Maya Hsu:  What happens when somebody who's learned and adopted codependent behaviors leaves the family unit and then starts to build other relationships or friendships or romantic partnerships? How does codependency then affect those future relationships?

Karin Sponholz:  Right. Again, the terms that I'm using are pop psychology but people who tend to be more codependent find or date friends or date people who are more wounded birds. So, they're recreating the family system or the family dynamics. So, they're finding people that they can caretake because their whole sense of self and sense of approval is this deep need to caretake and to be needed by others. So, that's why it runs very deep. It's more than just people-pleasing. Because that's another term that often gets used in relation to codependency.

And to be fair to everybody, we all fall in and out of codependent moments or people-pleasing moments. The problem is when it becomes this rigid habit or way of relating to others. And it really gets in the way of relationships, as we're saying, because there's a one-sidedness to these relationships then. Someone always has to be struggling and the other one always has to be the caretaker.

And there's a huge sense of guilt or shame if you start to figure out what you're wanting and what your needs are. So, in extreme cases people who are very codependent have a hard time identifying something as simple as “what's your favorite dish?,” “what's your favorite color? or “what do you even want to do?” It's so wrapped up in what the other person wants or does. And even feelings. “I can't be happy unless you're happy.” That's often... We see that. Or “if you're sad I'm not allowed to be happy. I have to then also pull myself and be sad.”

Maya Hsu:  Yeah. You mentioned that everybody falls in and out of codependent moments and empathetic moments. When somebody has codependency that's been ingrained in them from the beginning of life they might not even realize that they have codependent tendencies or codependent habits. Are there any big signals that you can say that would help somebody realize that this might be something that they could get help on if they just are unsure whether this is something that resonates for them and applies to their life?

Karin Sponholz:  Sure. I'm going to read off a list because there's some common signs that I think that might be helpful for people to recognize in themselves. And again, any one of these signs in and of themselves doesn't mean that you have codependency. It's usually several of them clustered together over a period of time that you would maybe say someone might be codependent. So, I just want to put that caveat out there. So, I'll read just a few of these from the list that I have.

There's a deep seated need for approval from others. Again, that sense of approval comes from care taking and the recognition that what I'm doing for you is very strong.

Self-worth depends on what others think about you. So, again, your sense of self is wrapped up in what other people think or feel about you. It's what we call externalizing. There's no sense of who I am in and of myself.

A pattern of avoiding conflict. So, people who are codependent really just want to try to keep the dynamic as stable as possible but stable in this sort of enabling, enmeshed pattern.

A tendency to minimize or ignore your own desires.

Excessive concern about loved one's habits or behaviors. So, the upside of codependency, if you will, is that you really know what the other person wants and needs, which is great. At its core, there's a sense of thoughtfulness, empathy, almost a radar-like sense of what people might want and need-- helpful. But it needs to be tempered.

A habit of making decisions for others or trying to manage loved ones. So, again, in extreme examples we might say, somebody has an addiction and the person who's a caretaker or an enabler might say, "Oh, no that's not what they want. They want this." So, they would be speaking for the other person because there's such an enmeshment. And they might be right to some extent but there's such an over investment in the other person's life.

Guilt or anxiety when doing something for yourself. Like, “God forbid I decide that I want a dish that might be different from you.” Like if you wanted chicken and I decided I want beef there would be such anxiety about that.

And doing things that you don't really want to do simply to make other people happy. There's that people-pleasing aspect about it.

And then overwhelming fears of rejection and abandonment. And that's what keeps people locked into this dynamic, again, because their whole sense of self and self-worth is wrapped up in this other person and caretaking for them.

Maya Hsu:  Wow. There's a lot there, a lot to unpack there.

Karin Sponholz:  Yes. Are there any that stand out for you or that you have questions about that I can maybe explain more?

Maya Hsu:  That was a really helpful list of just general ideas. It did get me thinking about gender and how codependent habits might manifest differently among different genders. Is that something you've noticed in your work with clients?

Karin Sponholz:  No, it's pretty equal between men and women or other genders. I think the common denominator are the empathy piece. So, regardless of gender and how people identify, the person who's more empathetic, maybe HSP...

Maya Hsu:  What’s HSP?

Karin Sponholz:  Highly-sensitive persons. That's it, yeah. So, and that can be a whole ‘nother talk, but people who are more empathetic or highly sensitive tend to be those that fall more easily into this dynamic because they can pick up other people's situation. And the people who draw others into a codependent relationship with them tend to pick out those people who are sensitive.

Maya Hsu:  Yeah. I'm thinking of how this might be a cyclical thing and how somebody with a parent struggling with addiction grows up with codependent habits and then gets into a relationship with somebody else who has a lot of need and a lot of struggles and then they recreate that dynamic and then they have children. The children will learn and pick up on that. It will just reinforce and self perpetuate.

Karin Sponholz:  Exactly.

Maya Hsu:  How does one break... What is the process like of breaking that cycle and of recovering and healing from and moving on from codependent tendencies.

Karin Sponholz:  It really takes to be in relationship with somebody who is healthy, so to speak. So, a friend, maybe, who can recognize the signs of codependency and really help that person identify, “Oh wait, no, you decide what you want to do,” can really help the person, help push that friend to recognize what their wants and needs are.

Professional help is certainly a big key influence here. Whether it's individual and especially group psychotherapy. And the reason why I say group is because there's a... With a therapist certainly there's role modeling in what's a healthy relationship or healthy dynamic. With a group you also then are relating with peers in the group. And together you're also learning and holding a mirror to each other about dynamics. So, it's really, really helpful to experience because it's experiential learning that is necessary for breaking those habits. Knowledge is powerful for sure, understanding logically what codependency is. But it's really on the visceral level that really makes the permanent change.

To fuel the fear of like, oh my gosh, I want chicken and you want beef, right? And it sounds, to some people who aren't in it, it sounds maybe silly or rudimentary but to somebody who's had years and years of codependency, something that simple can feel so distraught and very horrific to them and difficult.

Maya Hsu:  Yeah. So, therapy, professional help and then just experiencing it through healthy relationships is part of the process of unlearning codependency.

Karin Sponholz:  Exactly. Exactly, yup.

Maya Hsu:  Yeah. You touched on several of the downsides of codependency and some of the benefits, like being empathetic, observant, in tune. And the downsides being maybe dependent self-worth, things like that.

Karin Sponholz:  Yeah.

Maya Hsu:  I'm still curious, because it can be so scary to leave a codependent past and put yourself into a place of limbo where now you have to figure out who you are, figure out how to get self esteem and self-worth from not a source that is comfortable and familiar, what would you say is the enticing appeal of unlearning codependency? How different really is life once you have moved away from a codependent past?

Karin Sponholz:  Right. There's a sense of freedom, right? There's a sense of freedom to be yourself in relationships, right? So, codependency can show you what you don't want in a relationship because what we really are striving for, all of us, is called interdependency. There's a sense of connection while there's also independence in the relationship. And that's really where there's space, there's freedom, at the same time there's connection to the person that you're with. And that's really what's important because we don't want to swing to the other extreme and just be independent and self-reliant and I don't need anybody.

And certainly people who are trying to break out of codependency can do that. They can swing to the other extreme. And sometimes there's a period of time we all need to do that, but we're relational beings. So, we're wired to our connection. So, I forgot now your question.

Maya Hsu:  Well, you answered it by mentioning the freedom and interdependency piece of letting go of that codependent history.

Karin Sponholz:  Right.

Maya Hsu:  Yeah. What advice would you have for somebody who's thinking about maybe seeking help or leaping in to trying to figure out what a less codependent life would look like but who's scared?

Karin Sponholz:  Yeah. I would say first start with a Google search. There's so many websites out there that define codependency. I'm sure there's some quick quizzes that you can take to see, are you codependent and take them and just start to see for yourself if you identify with any one of those.

And the other thing you can start to do is just practice every day. Decide what is it that you want, what is it you need? Start to figure out, what are your likes apart from what somebody else might want. And it might be a struggle. There might be some grief, loss, anger that might come up because, especially, again, if you've done years and years and years of just living for somebody else, your own house, so to speak, is empty. I always say you're jumping into somebody else's home and decorating and setting up shop and making it pretty over in their house while your own house has just boxes that are unpacked and it's hollow, so to speak.

So, there is a bit of a shock when you start to come back home to yourself and you realize, I'm using the metaphor of the house, there are no pictures up in the house. It's cold. There's no-- boxes are unpacked, there's no bed. And it feels like, “Oh my God,” it's like starting from scratch, to some extent. And that can be a stark reality. That can hit hard when you realize that you've neglected yourself for many, many years.

So, I would say be kind to yourself, be patient with yourself, again, practice with lower hanging fruit type things, of “I like this sweater because why?” Or “I like this color because... It doesn't have to be a because. I just like this color.” And then certainly get professional help if you feel like you need more support.

Maya Hsu:  Thank you. The last topic that I wanted to cover was how codependency might intermingle with other mental health issues. And earlier when you were talking about the symptoms and how it manifests in different people I was thinking about social anxiety and I imagine there's a link there. Can you talk a little bit about how it relates to social anxiety and anything else that might come up really often with codependency?

Karin Sponholz:  For sure. There is a comorbidity with anxiety and depression because again, their sense of self is so wrapped up in somebody else. And there's a sense of trying to control the other person. And I don't mean that in a pejorative way. They're trying to do it because their self-worth is wrapped up in the other person. But as we know, we can't control people, which then creates that sense of anxiety because I can't... I think we all know, although we might try, we just can't control the other person. So, there's a constant insecurity about that dynamic.

And then there's the depression because so much is getting ignored. And so the depression with a sense of self-worth, lack of getting your own needs met, lack of really attuning to yourself, a lot of that creates a sense of depression. And of course the anger that's developed through the years. You see a lot of unresolved rage and grief for people who've been codependent because when they start to do therapy they start to realize, “Oh my gosh, I was reinforced. My self-worth was reinforced in taking care of my brother.” Something as simple as “My little brother who had ADD, and then I got reinforced. I was never encouraged to do my own thing or to discover my own desires.” So, that needs to get worked through and unearthed. So, again, the anxiety, depression is often what we see in conjunction with codependency.

Maya Hsu:  And that reinforcement with the younger brother who has ADHD, would that look like praise for being really thoughtful and being really in tune with the brother?

Karin Sponholz:  Exactly. Yup, yup. Praise for “Oh, look you're such a good sister, you're such a good person.” Or for example, if you got invited to a birthday party but you decided to stay home because you had to take care of your brother. There's praise for that. “Oh see, you're such a good person. You didn't go to the party where all your friends are where you wanted to have fun.” No, you stayed home and that was reinforced, reinforced, reinforced. So, it makes sense that somebody, again, especially as a kid, who wouldn't want to feel that feeling of reward and praise?

Maya Hsu:  Totally, totally. Yeah. It's a really fascinating topic and very complex.

Karin Sponholz:  Mm-hmm (affirmative).

Maya Hsu:  Thank you so much for all of the information. Is there anything else about codependency that you would like our listeners to know about?

Karin Sponholz:  I would say to think about codependency on a continuum, whereas people-pleasing might be on one end. There's codependency and there's a newer term that people may not be familiar with. It's called fawning. And that often gets confused with codependency. So, again, think of that as a continuum. People-pleasing, again, we all kind of fall into that. It's not really problematic, per se, unless it becomes rigid. Codependency again, we can fall in and out of it, but, problematic if it becomes more rigid.

And codependency, we often think of an addiction, right? People say codependency is love addiction. Fawning comes out of a trauma response. So, there's less of an addictive quality about fawning and more of a life or death situation with fawning. It looks very similar to where people are staying in unhealthy, destructive relationships but they're doing it because there's, again, a life or death. If they don't fawn or people-please there's a sense of “Oh my God, I'm going to die if I don't do this.” So, there are terms that get thrown around and people quite don't understand the differences but that's one way to think about it.

Maya Hsu:  Yeah. It almost sounds like a continuum of urgency where people-pleasing might be like “Oh, this is a common thing.” Codependency might be more of a habit and then the fawning is a very urgent, dire need to do that.

Karin Sponholz:  Yes, great way to describe it. For sure. Yup, yup.

Maya Hsu:  Wonderful, wonderful. Well, thank you so much. Dr. Sponholz.

Karin Sponholz:  Yes.

Maya Hsu:  It was really wonderful having you on the Seattle Psychiatrist.

Karin Sponholz:  Thank you for having me. Thank you.

Please note: The views expressed by the interviewee are for educational and informational purposes only, are not meant to diagnose or treat any condition, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Seattle Anxiety Specialists, PLLC.


Editor: Jennifer (Ghahari) Smith, Ph.D.

Psychologist Mark Leary on Self-Compassion

An Interview with Psychologist Mark Leary

Dr. Mark Leary is a Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Neuroscience at Duke University, and specializes in social and personality psychology.

Maya Hsu: Hi, my name is Maya, and I'm a research intern here at Seattle Anxiety Specialists. Today I am joined by Dr. Mark Leary, who is a professor emeritus of psychology and neuroscience at Duke University. He has made significant contributions to the fields of social and personality psychology, and he has also authored an article titled Self-Compassion and Reactions to Unpleasant Self-Relevant Events: the Implications of Treating Oneself Kindly, which is how I found Dr. Leary. Dr. Leary, would you like to introduce yourself and share how you became interested in social psychology and self-compassion?

Mark Leary: I've been interested in topics involving self-reflection, that is thinking about yourself, for a long time because the quality of our lives and our emotions and our behavior are affected by how we think of ourselves. And traditionally, psychologists have thought of that in terms of self-esteem. But more recently, in the last 20 years, the topic of self-compassion has become hot. And I just sort of tagged onto it and began to do work with my research team on self-compassion.

The difference is that self-esteem has to do with how you evaluate yourself. Do you evaluate yourself positively or negatively? How good do you feel about yourself? So everybody's familiar with the topic of self-esteem. Self-compassion is not a self-evaluation. It's how you treat yourself. Do you treat yourself well, with kindness and caring and understanding, when you have problems in life? I often like to describe it as compassion directed toward yourself.

Think about how you treat other people you care about when they're having problems and they're struggling and they're unhappy and they're anxious and they're depressed. You treat them with care and empathy and concern. The irony is that many of us, when we hit problems, we treat ourselves very badly. We're really mean to ourselves and critical to ourselves. We beat ourselves up in our own heads. And so self-compassion is an attempt to try to lower the degree to which people are mean to themselves and increase the degree to which they treat themselves better, treat themselves kindly and with concern.

Maya Hsu:  Great. Thank you so much. You answered my first two questions of what is self-compassion. It's self-kindness. And how does it differ from self-esteem, which is more of a self-evaluation. Which got me thinking, is it possible to have one without the other? Is it possible to have self-compassion without self-esteem?

Mark Leary: Absolutely. Think about it in terms of having compassion for another person. You can have a lot of care and compassion for somebody that you don't evaluate positively. Right? You might even dislike them, but you might be compassionate and try to help them and make them feel better and reduce their problems. A person with low self-esteem can do that to themselves. For the time being, maybe they don't evaluate themselves all that well, but that doesn't mean they have to be mean to themselves. They can treat themselves kindly. I also think there are some people with high self-esteem who treat themselves horribly in their own heads. They're very self-critical. They beat themselves up a lot. They evaluate themselves positively. They have high self-esteem. But they're not very self-compassionate. So these are two very distinct things. They are correlated because the more favorably people perceive themselves, the better they tend to treat themselves. But there's no necessary relationship there. You can have one without the other.

Maya Hsu: Okay. And I know this is true for me and a lot of people that I talk to in my life. Why is it easier to access compassion for others than ourselves?

Mark Leary: That is a really good question. I've been puzzled with that in my own life. It's occurred to me sometimes that if I talked to other people as meanly as I talk to myself in my own head, if I was as critical to them as I am to myself, I'd probably be arrested. I'd be sued for harassment. We harass ourselves in our own heads. And it is a puzzle because in many ways the average person cuts themselves a lot of breaks. There's a lot of research showing that we are nice to ourselves in some ways. But when it comes to self-criticism and catastrophizing and beating ourselves up, some of us are just not very nice to ourselves, and I don't have a good answer for exactly why that is. My hunch is it's because if we treated other people the way we treat ourselves in our own mind, we wouldn't have any friends. Our romantic partners would leave us. Nobody would want to interact with us. They'd say, "You're horrible. You treat me awfully." Some of us treat ourselves in exactly that way, but we can't leave ourselves. We're stuck with the person who is mistreating us, which is us.

Maya Hsu: Yeah. I wonder if part of the advantage of being self-critical is that it can act as a motivator for us to improve or work on certain qualities within ourselves. Is it possible to have that self-motivation without the self-criticism? Is it possible to have self-compassion and still be driven to work on oneself?

Mark Leary: I absolutely think so. And I want to make a distinction because you ask a question I've been asked many, many times, because the idea of self-compassion suggests to some people that we just should always be nice to ourselves, only say pleasant things to ourselves, never be negative, never be self-critical. That is not true. There are times that we have to evaluate ourselves negatively. That helps us regulate our behavior. So there's nothing, truly nothing wrong with negative self-evaluations, as long as they're accurate. If I mess up, if I fail or I make a mistake or I engage in a bad behavior or hurt somebody, it makes sense that I have to say, "I was wrong about that. I shouldn't have done that."

So negative self-evaluations are okay. Where they're not okay is when they are inaccurate. And so many people have self-judgments that are just far more negative than they really should be. So you want to have an accurate self-judgment. But the worst thing is that when you have a self-judgment, the question is, how hard do you need to be on yourself? How hard do you need to beat yourself up? And again, if you think about applying judgment to other people, if someone else has done something wrong... Let's say you're a parent and you're interacting with a child. It's perfectly okay to say, "You shouldn't have done that. That was a bad thing to do." But how badly do you need to scream at the child?

Well, the same question can be raised in your own head. Yes, it's okay to say, "Boy, I messed that up," or "I've got this problem I have to solve," "I lose my temper too much," whatever it happens to be. But how mean do I need to be to myself? And my guess is that most of us don't need to be nearly as critical and nearly as mean to ourselves as we are in order to stay motivated, because that negative evaluation is motivating at times. I've talked to many highly achieving people who just insist that their success is based on how badly they treat themselves when they fail. And I can see the truth in that to an extent. But I always ask them, "Okay, I agree with that. But how bad do you have to treat yourself? Isn't it enough just to know that you messed up and that you need to do better, or do you need to lie awake at night and feel badly about it?"

Maya Hsu: Yeah. It sounds like you're making a very clear distinction here between negative self-evaluation and meanness, because you can have one without the other.

Mark Leary: Yes. That's right. That's exactly right.

Maya Hsu: And you can acknowledge that you might have done something imperfectly or you might have harmed somebody without reprimanding yourself to the point where you feel awful.

Mark Leary:  Yes. And there's a couple of other considerations there. When you do something badly or something's going wrong or you're afraid of something that's going to happen, it's okay to think about that in a very concrete and specific way that focuses on the actual problem, the failure, the mistake, the bad behavior, the threatening event, to think about that very narrowly about, "Well, what can I do about this? What's going on here? How do I solve this problem?" The problem is many of us over-generalize from that thing, from that failure. Yes, I failed this test. But the thing I say to myself is, "God, I'm stupid. I'm always going to be a failure. I'll never amount to anything." You've taken one specific thing and you've blown it up, or you're rejected.

Yeah, we all have rejections. And yeah, that hurts, and it's a problem to be solved. But it's one thing to say “I was rejected.” It's even one thing to say, "I didn't behave as I should have in this relationship." It's another thing to say, "I am a horrible person who will never be loved by anybody." We over-generalize. So as we evaluate ourselves negatively, it's very helpful to keep those evaluations really focused and specific.

It's also important just to be able to solve the problem. I can solve the problem of doing badly on this particular test or taking care of one bad habit. I don't know how I would solve the problem of just being a loser or a failure in all areas of life or a horrible person. Those are just so global, there's no way to begin to solve the difficulty that started the whole problem.

So I think people need to be very attentive to how they talk to themselves in their minds because it makes their life worse. It creates negative emotions in ways that aren't beneficial. It's okay to have unfavorable evaluations if it helps you correct a problem, it helps motivate you. That's fine. But so much of this is not helpful. It just makes us miserable.

Maya Hsu: Yeah. I think you touched on a really important piece there, which is the accuracy of that self-evaluation and self-reflection. And I definitely have engaged in that globalized, fatalistic thinking where you do one thing imperfectly, and it's like, "Well, I suck at everything now."

Mark Leary:  And we all do. The challenges are the people who just get stuck in that mode of reacting to their problems, and those are the ones that really need to think about how do we deal with this in the long run.

Maya Hsu:  Right, because it can be very cyclical. And you can then enter into confirmation bias where then you expect yourself to do that in the next situation, and then it's just a self-perpetuating cycle.

Mark Leary:  Yes. Let me add one other thing. So far we've been talking about not being mean to yourself when you have problems, when you've done bad things or bad things have happened, to be less mean. But the other part of self-compassion is to actually be nice to yourself, do pleasant things for yourself. So often when we have problems, particularly if we feel like we have caused the problems, it's almost like we feel like we ought to punish ourselves and push ourselves harder and hold our feet to the fire. But that might be the time to be nice to yourself. And again, if you think of a friend who's really struggling, sometimes we'll say something like, "Hey, let's take the evening and go have dinner. Hey, let's talk. What do you want to do that would be fun? You had a bad day." We don't do that. When we have a bad day, that's when we push ourselves the most sometimes.

 This really dawned on me. I had a graduate student who was working on this. In fact, she's one of the co-authors on that article that you mentioned at the beginning. She went away one weekend to visit her grandparents. They were in their 80s, I think. And like all older people, they were starting to suffer some cognitive issues. Their memories weren't as good. They were clearly physically more frail and had health problems. But she came back very impressed by the difference in how her grandfather and her grandmother coped with those problems.

Her grandfather was a poster child for low self-compassion. He fussed and ranted about his memory is getting so bad, and he would criticize himself and, "I'm not strong enough to go out and mow the yard without stopping now. I just hate getting old, and I can't do anything anymore. I'm worthless." Her grandmother was a poster child for high self-compassion. What she said was, "Yeah, I've got good days and bad days. But when I'm having problems and my joints are hurting and I can't get around much, that's when I treat myself particularly well. I'll fix myself a cup of tea and watch the birds in the yard, and I won't try to push myself to get the housework done." And it was such a striking difference. And it wasn't just that the grandmother wasn't being mean to herself. She was actually treating herself more nicely.

And this student went on... they gave her the idea for her dissertation. She did three studies of self-compassion in older people, people 65 to 95 years old that we recruited as participants. And consistently, the ones who treated themselves more nicely, who were higher in self-compassion, were psychologically doing better. They were less anxious. They were less depressed. They were more healthy. It's the same kind of finding we find anytime we study self-compassion. You get positive psychological and physical outcomes. But it was particularly striking when I thought about it in terms of aging. And that was 20 years ago. I'm kind of more conscious about the psychology of aging now than I was 20 years ago when we first did that research. But I can understand the importance of self-compassion in that context.

Maya Hsu:  Yeah. That's an important point that it's not the absence of meanness, but it is the presence, the addition of self-kindness. And I like the anecdote. Thank you for sharing that. It reminds me of family members who berate themselves when they gain weight and that kind of thing, when they could access self-compassion and do something kind for themselves, which ties into the previous point of not having that motivator. I think that self-criticism is like, "Well, if I'm kind to myself after I've gained weight, then I'll just gain more weight."

Mark Leary:  Yes. But then again, that person who's gained weight and is unhappy with it knows they don't want to be overweight. They already have a motivator. They know they'll feel better and they'll look better and be happier. Do they need to go through their entire life until they lose weight beating themselves up? And the answer is no, probably not.

Maya Hsu:  Right. You touched on some of the positive effects that can accompany self-compassion, like better health and psychological well-being. How does that work? How does it moderate the effects of more negative events?

Mark Leary:  It does a couple of things. One is that it takes away that extra layer of negative self-evaluation and self-criticism. The average person thinks that their reactions to events are reactions to the events themselves in the world. So I have an experience or I do something and I feel bad about it, but that's sort of like a natural reaction. That's partly true. But so much of our reaction has to do with how we think about it and perceive it and think about ourselves and talk to ourselves. So self-compassion takes away that extra layer of negative emotion that occurs when you berate yourself, when you don't treat yourself nicely.

The way I often explain it to people is when you have a problem, you really do have a problem. Whatever that problem is, whether it's your weight or a bad habit or you failed or you were rejected, you have a problem. Why make that any worse than it already is? But we all do that. I do that. I don't want anybody to get the idea that I'm always self-compassionate. I'm not. I'm more self-compassionate than I was before I started studying this. I absolutely am. But still I have a problem, and now I'm going to make that problem worse just by how I talk to myself about it. So self-compassion takes away that extra layer of negative emotion, and I think that's why people high in self-compassion are happier. They are more satisfied with their lives. They rate themselves higher in serenity, even. Why? They don't pile the extra stuff on there. It doesn't make their problems go away, but it changes their reaction.

In one study we did with university students, at the end of the semester, we asked them, "What was the worst thing that happened to you this semester?" And we got a whole range of things, from very trivial things like "I lost my chemistry book" or something, to very serious, traumatic, life-changing events. But regardless of what we asked them— this worst thing that happened to you, how upsetting was it and how disruptive to your life was it?— And what we found is the students higher in self-compassion said that the worst thing that happened to them was less upsetting and less disruptive to their life. And they had the same kinds of problems. We thought maybe people high in self-compassion somehow have fewer problems. But we analyzed the content of the problems. That wasn't it. It was the fact they were not adding the extra emotional baggage on top of the original problem. Whether it was a lost book or a traumatic event, they weren't adding to the trauma of the situation through how they were talking to themselves.

So the big thing that self-compassion does is it takes away that extra layer of stuff. And then to the extent that you can treat yourself more nicely, it can actually make you feel better. When we're having a problem and a friend treats us nicely and takes us out to dinner, it doesn't solve our problem, but it does enhance our positive feelings because now we're doing something nice. So self-compassion just corrects for the fact that we don't treat ourselves as nicely as we should.

Maya Hsu:  So to clarify, it strips away the globalization thinking and the self-judgment and just kind of the inaccurate thoughts and the meanness. And that is what leads to improved health and improved cognition and better physiological benefits.

Mark Leary:  As a very general statement, that's true. I wouldn't quite say it strips them away because that sounds like they're never there anymore, but it reduces them to where they're not as much of a problem.

When it comes to health, there's some interesting research trying to understand why it is that people higher in self-compassion do show better physical health. They have fewer symptoms, and they just seem to be better... They have fewer stress reactions physiologically. We know that stress makes people unhealthy. There seem to be two processes by which self-compassion improves physical health. One is it reduces the negative emotions and stress. And we know that negative emotions and stress undermine health, interferes with the immune system, so it reduces the stress and unhappiness. But also, people higher in self-compassion take better care of themselves. If you think about that, when you care about somebody, when you're concerned with their wellbeing, you treat them better. And you would tell a loved one if they're doing something unhealthy, "Maybe you need to stop eating all that junk food, or, "Maybe you need to go and get a flu shot," or whatever it is. I think people higher in self-compassion are more likely to do that.

In the study of the older people I mentioned a moment ago, we found that participants higher in self-compassion were more likely to take daily multivitamins, even, which is really interesting. If you care about yourself and your own wellbeing enough, it not only leads you to treat yourself well and not beat yourself up, but you take better care of yourself physically.

Maya Hsu:  That's so interesting. It sounds like there's a certain sense of empowerment that you have to embody. You have to kind of step up to the plate and take ownership of yourself and be willing to treat yourself kindly, which takes effort if you've been treating yourself poorly your whole life, to take your multivitamins.

Mark Leary:  I've never thought of it that way, but that sounds accurate. For those of us, myself included, who were never particularly self-compassionate, it does take effort. It takes a change of habits to do that. I think some people somehow grew up just naturally being nicer to themselves, and I envy those people because they don't quite have these struggles. I have talked to people who just are kind of puzzled. They say, "Why would anybody be meaner to themselves than they need to be? I've never done that." And that amazes me. That's great though.

Maya Hsu:  In your years of studying this, what have you seen are the biggest barriers to people sort of shifting into a more self-compassionate mindset?

Mark Leary:  I think the biggest one is something we've sort of talked about indirectly, and that is, people are afraid that if they're too nice to themselves, they'll turn into slackers. Because it does sound like if you're not careful that self-compassion is something where no matter what happens, you go, "Well, that's okay. No, I'm fine. Oh, I did this horrible thing. Well, that's okay. Everybody does horrible things." But that's not what it is. You still take your behavior seriously. You just don't add that extra layer.

And there are some studies that show among university students, higher self-compassion students take more responsibility for their bad behaviors. Like after failing a test, students higher in self-compassion take more personal responsibility and then work harder before the next test. And that might seem counterintuitive because it sort of sounds like if you're nice to yourself after you fail, that's sort of like you're taking yourself off the hook. Why would you go ahead and work really hard? And I think it's because if I don't beat myself up, I'm not adding a lot more negative emotion to the whole situation of failing that would lead me to avoid the whole thing. If I'm really, really mean to myself, my life is a wreck when I fail, and I just sort of tune out. And I say, "Well, there's nothing I can do about this." And I pull back, and I over-globalize and I can't fix this problem. But if I can accurately say, "No, I didn't do very well on this, and I'm not going to make a big deal out of it, but I'm going to do better in the future," it actually increases students' motivation.

So I want to encourage anybody who says, "I'm afraid to be self-compassionate because I'll turn into a loser or a bad person, who just will do anything and not worry about it.” That is not what happens. When you're compassionate towards someone else, and they have done something bad or they have failed, you don't tell them, "Hey, that's okay that you failed. Don't worry about it. Don't try to improve." You would never say that. Or if they did a bad moral behavior, you don’t say, "Well, that's fine. That's okay. You stole the money. Who cares?" You don't do that. And we don't do that to ourselves. We know how we're supposed to act. We don't cut ourselves that much slack.

Maya Hsu:  Yeah. It does seem a bit surprising at first that people with self-compassion after failing a test would work harder and achieve higher the next time. But it does make sense when you break it down because when you do layer on all the judgments and it becomes this insurmountable task, then it would definitely make sense that people would just give up.

Mark Leary:  Yeah. That's right.

Maya Hsu:  Yeah. Let's see. How might someone journal self-compassionately for anxiety management, or just use self-compassion for anxiety specifically?

Mark Leary:  There are writing exercises out there, including journaling exercises that help promote self-compassion. And I think what those kinds of exercises are useful for are two things. One is,  if a person wants to change unhealthy habits... And low self-compassion is just an unhealthy habit. It's changeable. It's just a pattern that we get into in how we think about ourselves and think about the bad things that happen to us. The only way to change a bad habit is to begin to really monitor yourself for cases in which you do it to understand, when do I do this thing? Why do I do it? What form does it take? And journaling, in which you analyze your day in terms of how you talk to yourself about the things that happened, particularly after a bad event, I think is really beneficial in terms of just opening people's eyes to how much they really do this. And that's the first step. So journaling is beneficial just in terms of alerting people, putting them in touch with how they're talking to themselves.

The second thing then is you can begin to journal in ways that promote your own self-compassion, or do writing exercises of other kinds. There are exercises out there, for example, where people are told to give themselves advice about a problem the way they would give that advice to somebody they really cared about, with kindness and concern and compassion. In fact, write it in the third person. You're writing it to yourself as if you were somebody else. And that's often eye-opening to people to realize that “the advice that I would give somebody else for how to deal with this is very different than the advice I've been giving myself in my own mind that's making me so miserable.”

So there are ways to begin to give yourself advice. If there are personal characteristics that a person has, they dislike a lot, and that's making them beat themselves up for whether it's academic or intellectual or personality problems or social problems, you can do the same sort of thing. What would you say to someone else who had these characteristics, somebody you cared about? How would you talk to them about these shortcomings that you think you have? And again, you wouldn't deny them to somebody you cared about when they realize they're having problems in school or something like that. But you would talk to them about it in a proactive, healthy, somewhat positive way.

I would recommend to any listeners who want to try different kinds of exercises, whether they're writing exercises or exercises that you do just in the course of everyday life, there's a website, self-compassion.org, self-compassion hyphenated.org. This is the website of Kristin Neff, N-E-F-F, who started the study of self-compassion in psychological research about 20 years ago. If you go back through the research literature on self-compassion, you can't find the term in psychology until Kristin's groundbreaking work. She developed the idea, developed a scale to measure it. And she's got a fantastic website at self-compassion.org that has, last time I looked, a couple of dozen exercises and lectures, little lectures, five minutes up to 20 minutes, along with a number of different exercises for people who want to begin to explore, how do they promote their own self-compassion a little bit more. Kristen's great at doing this stuff. She's been doing self-compassion workshops around the country for years now, and she can give you a lot better advice about how to deal with low self-compassion than I can. Self-compassion.org.

Maya Hsu:  Awesome. Thank you. Okay. And can people acquire trait self-compassion, or is it only possible to acquire state self-compassion over time?

Mark Leary:  Okay. Let me define those terms for your listeners first. When psychologists talk about people's characteristics, they often make a distinction between a trait. And a trait is a general tendency. So there are some people who have a general tendency to be low in self-compassion. We would say that's trait low self-compassion. There are other people who have a tendency to be high in self-compassion, high in trait self-compassion. It doesn't mean they're always that way, but if you look at them over a period of time, across different situations, yeah, we lean in one direction or the other. State self-compassion refers to how self-compassionate am I behaving at this moment. In this particular situation at this particular time, am I treating myself with self-compassion?

And there's obviously a relationship. People high in trait self-compassion are people who engage in state self-compassion more frequently. But there are some people... And I would put myself here. I think I have emerged as a person high in trait self-compassion after working on this, but I still can be really low in state self-compassion. Sometimes I just lose it over that stupid thing I did because I'm an idiot and a loser, and I don't know that I'll ever amount to anything. The thoughts just start running.

So the question is, can you change? In a state way, it's not all that difficult now and then to catch ourselves. In that moment, we can say, "I'm not going to engage in this low self-compassion stuff. I'm going to treat myself nicely." That is not all that difficult to do from time to time. The bigger question is, can a person who generally does not treat themselves well, a person low in trait self-compassion, ever become high? The answer is absolutely yes.

People just need to realize, again, this is a habit. We all have habits, and we can change habits, including unhealthy and bad habits. This is a way of thinking that some of us have developed— who knows how. There's not much research on this. By the way our parents talked to us, perhaps, the way people taught us to think about our problems and mistakes and bad behaviors along the way. Maybe some of us just drifted into it, started not being very nice to ourselves. But regardless of where it came from, we can always change bad habits by beginning to monitor them, by doing exercises, by accepting the fact that we're going to fail at this from time to time.

You're never going to be always high in self-compassion. There's nobody on the face of the earth who never criticizes themselves unnecessarily or beats themselves up. That's fine. What I tell people is what you really want to do is just reduce this a little bit. It takes the edge off of life if you can just reduce your negative self views, your beating yourself up, not being nice to yourself, by even 15 or 20%, for example, your life will improve.

So yes, this is changeable. And again, I'll refer people to Kristin's website as a good way to start to really understand self-compassion, to monitor how they're treating themselves, and then to start taking steps through exercises to try to become more self-compassionate.

Maya Hsu: I think that's very encouraging to think of it as a habit that can be changed and worked on through practice. Is there anything else that you would recommend for our listeners about self-compassion just broadly?

Mark Leary:  There are probably some people listening who right now are beating themselves up for not being sufficiently self-compassionate, because I do that sometimes. It creeps in through the back door, low self-compassion and this meanness that we have for ourselves sometimes. So just cut yourself a break. Accept the problem a little bit more. It doesn't mean they're not problems.

I always want to make the point as well, sometimes if you're not careful, what sounds like high self-compassion is trying to tell yourself you don't have problems. It's like it's positive thinking. Self-compassion is not positive thinking. I'm not a big fan of positive thinking, in fact. I am a fan of accurate thinking because being too positive can create almost as many problems as being too negative. So it's not just telling yourself happy stories. It's not just being optimistic about the future for no reason. It's not building up your self-esteem artificially. It's not telling yourself that you can do anything you put your mind to, because that's not true. All it is, is not making your life worse by treating yourself badly. It's not just positive thinking. It's accurate thinking and not being mean to yourself. And when you look at it that way, it shouldn't be that hard. We're nice to other people. We have a lot of experience being nice to people. Why can't we be that nice to ourselves? That's what self-compassion is about.

Maya Hsu:  That made me think of one last question I want to ask you. With failing a test and with gaining weight, those kinds of measures are more objective. But with the situations that are a bit more ambiguous, maybe social situations where people might feel like they failed, but it's hard to know for sure, how does one access accuracy in those situations?

Mark Leary:  Wow. That is a really, really, really good question because we all know that there are times in which we misinterpret what has just happened in the situation, whether it's a social situation or a romantic situation, or it's just me working in my yard and I mess up something and cut down the wrong tree. What happened there? And I don't know. I think the best thing is just to be aware of the fact that the beliefs we have about ourselves and our behaviors and the causes of what happens to us are partial and sometimes incorrect. They certainly don't feel that way. We believe that we understand what has happened to us and why it's happened. And we have to go on those beliefs. We just can't sit and say, "I don't know why anything happens."

We do infer things correctly sometimes. I just encourage people not to take their judgments and their beliefs about themselves too seriously as if they're completely accurate, because everybody knows they're not. Everybody could think of times in which they misjudged a situation or they misjudged themselves. One question you could ask yourself is, “how sure am I that this was my fault?” And there's often a little bit of ambiguity there. So there's no good answer to your question in terms of how do we increase our accuracy except to be open to the possibility that we're sometimes inaccurate and be able to live with that.

Some people would be paralyzed by uncertainty. How do I know what to do? I don't know who I am or why I did this or what happened to me. That's not it. You have to go ahead and make behavioral decisions, but just don't be too certain that you think that this social event went badly and everybody thought you were an idiot. Was that true? Maybe not. We know that people sometimes overestimate negative situations. Our threat detection system is on high alert. And all animals are made that way. They're more likely to treat something that's not dangerous as something that's threatening and risky than they are to treat something that's dangerous as safe. And we do that throughout life, throughout our jobs and our social lives and our family lives and our academic lives. We put a negative reading on things. And that's adaptive because it makes sure we don't miss anything bad, but it also is a downside because it makes us react to things as if they're bad that aren't really.

Maya Hsu:  Yeah. So there are some situations where it's kind of ambiguous and unclear, and that's something we have to accept. And it sounds like what you're saying is that in those situations, the best thing we can do is just be on alert for inaccurate thoughts and judgments and just to not engage in those. And then what's left is kind of the more accurate ambiguous truth.

Mark Leary:  You said that better and more concisely than I did. Very good.

Maya Hsu:  Collaboration. A collaborative effort. Well, thank you so much for joining us today, Dr. Mark Leary.

Mark Leary:  Well Maya, thank you very much. I've enjoyed it. I hope it's been helpful.

Maya Hsu:  Definitely. It was wonderful to have you.

Mark Leary:  Thanks.

Please note: The views expressed by the interviewee are for educational and informational purposes only, are not meant to diagnose or treat any condition, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Seattle Anxiety Specialists, PLLC.


Editor: Jennifer (Ghahari) Smith, Ph.D.

Venerable Thubten chodron on meditation & anxiety

An interview with Venerable Thubten Chodron

Ven. Thubten Chodron is the founder and Abbess of the Buddhist monastery, Sravasti Abbey.

(note: this interview is also available as a podcast)

Jennifer Ghahari: Thanks for joining us today. I’m Dr. Jennifer Ghahari, Administrative Director at Seattle Anxiety Specialists. I’d like to welcome with us Venerable Thubten Chodron. She’s an author, teacher and the founder and Abbess of Sravasti Abbey, one of the first Buddhist training monasteries for Buddhist nuns and monks in America. Today we’re going to discuss how one may mitigate anxiety through meditation. Before we begin, can you please tell us a little bit about yourself, some of the work you’ve done, as well as some of the work you’ve done with His Holiness the Dalai Lama.

Venerable Chodron: Ok. Thank you for having me here. Let’s see… I wasn’t raised Buddhist. I went to a course when I was working as a teacher in the Los Angeles city schools and that really interested me; it was like an incredible psychology of the mind.  But it was also a spiritual path – and the course was taught by two Tibetan Lamas who had a monastery in Nepal. So, I went there and one thing led to the next and I wound up becoming a Buddhist nun. So that was back, I met the Dharma teachings, the Buddhist teachings in 1975 and I was ordained in 1977. I spent a good deal of time living abroad in Asia and also in Europe and then found myself coming back to the US and, you know, working as a resident teacher in a Dharma center in Seattle for about 10 years, and yes, I know the city, and then began Sravasti Abbey, we’re in the eastern part of Washington State. So, I’ve always been interested in psychology. I found that the Buddhist teaching explained how the human mind works in a way that I had never heard before and it really was quite amazing to me and one of the main things that the Buddha taught was that our happiness and our suffering depend on what’s going on inside of ourselves and this is different than our usual take on life where we think happiness and suffering come from outside, from other people, places, situations, your job, the government, whatever… but the Buddha said those things may be conditions but whether we’re peaceful, whether we’re satisfied, whether we’re happy or miserable that comes from our own mind, the way we look at situations, the way we, how we frame situations when we describe them to ourselves. So, I found that very interesting, not only intellectually but because there was practice associated with it, I found that when I did the Buddhist practice, it really helped me personally with a lot of my different issues. So, I just have kept practicing since then.

Jennifer Ghahari:  And then you opened an Abbey…

Venerable Chodron:  Yes!

Jennifer Ghahari: That’s fantastic.

Venerable Chodron: An abbey is as a Buddhist monastery and we have 17 monastics now but we also have many programs and retreats and courses for other people. So, people come actually from all over the world to do courses with us. We keep busy!

Jennifer Ghahari:  Fantastic; thank you. So, to get started today, the American Psychological Association defines anxiety as an emotion characterized by tension, worried thoughts and physical changes like increased blood pressure. This definition of anxiety has physical and mental components and I was wondering do you think of anxiety in this way?

Venerable Chodron:  Ok – in Buddhism, when we talk about emotions, we talk about mental states. And we say there may be a biological connection or something going on in the brain but those are physical things that are happening with biological, chemical elements. But the real emotion is the emotion that you feel. So, I would say that feelings of tension in your body or, what was the other one?  Increased blood pressure? I would say that those are physical factors that let you know that you may be feeling anxiety. Yeah? So, some people, when they are anxious, may have those physical factors, but I think you can possibly have those physical factors without being anxious or you could be anxious and maybe your body & brain doesn’t react with those kinds of physical factors. So, when I talk about anxiety, I’m talking mostly about emotion. 

Jennifer Ghahari:  Ok. Why do you think people tend to develop anxiety or be anxious about certain situations and how do you think that underlying assumptions about ourselves and the world work together to create anxiety?

Venerable Chodron:  Oh boy… ok, so there’s two things there. Let’s start with the first one… so the first one was why do people go from like just being in a regular mental state to getting anxious. So, there I would say anxiety is related a lot to fear and to worry and it could be worry about our physical protection, our financial situation, our relationships, our status, you name it, we can get anxious about it. Ok… really seriously, you know, I mean you can get anxious because your plant isn’t growing…

Jennifer Ghahari:  It happens.

Venerable Chodron:  Yeah, it happens. So, what I think is going on with anxiety or what I also know from my personal  experience is that I am weaving stories in my mind, yeah?  When we were all in English class in high school, you know, we all thought “I’m not a good creative writer, I can’t write.” Actually, we are spectacular creative writers. When we are anxious, we are creatively writing a whole fictional story and who’s the star of the story… ME… not somebody else, I am.  And then we write this story so there’s a few, maybe situations happening externally or somebody said something to us or whatever and our mind takes the situation and imputes all sorts of meaning onto these, the actual facts of the situation and then we think that what we have imputed is the reality of the situation. 

Jennifer Ghahari:  Right.

Venerable Chodron:  So, we are creative writing and what we’re creative writing about is usually something that will not happen or that is very unlikely to happen and, even if it did, if we check in our lives, we have internal resources to deal with the situation. We also have resources in the community and our family and whatever to handle the situation but when we get anxious the story we write is I am all alone, this horrible thing is happening, what if it happens, what am I going to do… nobody else can help me, nobody else cares about me, I don’t know what to do, I’m going crazy and I might be out on the streets by Tuesday and my marriage is over by Wednesday and my kid is going to flunk out of school because he couldn’t spell cat in 1st grade, he spelled it with a K instead of a C and how he’s not going to get into university if he can’t spell cat correctly. You know, I’m exaggerating things, but this is exactly what the story writing behind anxiety does.  And the thing is that we believe it. But it’s completely made up by our mind. So, it’s so interesting because I watch my own mind, you know, when I get anxious.  I’ll tell you a little story about… So I was writing a book, this was many years ago, maybe 20 years ago, and the publisher did something I didn’t like and this happened and that happened and it was a whole huge mess and I didn’t know if the book was going to get published or not and I was just really, you know, anxious about it because I was responsible for writing it to some other people but I didn’t appreciate what they were doing because they were interfering… and so… yeah I was really a mess, quite anxious. And so, I happened to go to Dharamsala in the springtime, His Holiness the Dalai Lama, would give teachings. So, one day I went to the teachings and I was walking back to my room from the teachings and again my mind is ruminating about the situation. You know, I’m in India, halfway around the world from Seattle but this situation is alive and well, screaming at me with anxiety in my mind and all of a sudden as I’m walking, I said, you know, there’s over 7 billion human beings on this planet and how many of them are as worried and upset about this as I am? 

Jennifer Ghahari:  Ok…

Venerable Chodron:  And I thought nobody else, there’s only one human being on this planet who is so upset and that’s me. 7 billion minus 1 couldn’t care less about what was going on with this book and the manuscript…and I thought if 7 billion minus 1 don’t think this is important, why am I so anxious about this? Why am I ruminating about it?  It is clearly not earthshaking, you know. Although when we are anxious, we feel like the situation we are in is a national emergency or equivalent to one. In other words, like everybody should be stressed about this. But actually, everybody else is too busy thinking about themselves and I’m the only one stressed and why am I stressed, because my mind is creating a situation and then spinning, spinning, spinning around my creation so at that moment when I thought like that I just said LET GO – this is not earthshaking, it is not so important, you will find a way out to remedy this. So, I let it go and then I had a great time for the rest of my trip in India. 

Jennifer Ghahari:  So, touching upon that, I was wondering can you speak about the relationship between suffering and permanence and anxiety, how do they relate?

Venerable Chodron:  Ok… well this gets into another… there’s so many avenues from which we come to anxiety, you know, and one of them is our expectations about how life should be. 

Jennifer Ghahari:  Right.

Venerable Chodron:  So, I have a little thing that I call the Rules of the Universe. They are, of course, coming from me, they are my Rules of the Universe but everybody and everything should follow them even though they don’t know. So, people should treat me according to my Rules of the Universe. If they haven’t asked me what my rules are, that’s too bad for them… they should know already and treat me according to them. So, part of my Rules of the Universe, you know, are my expectations and one of my expectations is that the things that I like do not change. 

Jennifer Ghahari:  Ok.

Venerable Chodron:  Ok? They are permanent. Yeah… so if this situation, if this relationship is going south, it’s always going south… there’s no hope for it. If my financial situation is horrible, it’s always going to be horrible, you know. So, this, the mind that fixes things in time and doesn’t consider that things change. So that’s one way I trap myself, by I think the bad things are permanent…

Jennifer Ghahari:  Oh, ok.

Venerable Chodron:  But the good things in my life I get anxious about because I think they’re going to end. Ok? So, the bad things which are going to change, I fix in time. The good things, which are going to change, I expect not to change at all. Ok?

Jennifer Ghahari:  Right.

Venerable Chodron:  So, this is my misperception, isn’t it? That I’m expecting people not to change or at least the good qualities of the people that I care about and the relationship I have with them are not supposed to change.  That’s one of my Rules of the Universe. Now, of course, everybody is changing moment by moment, they’re not the same. But when I expect everybody who, you know, who’s my loved one and my friend always to be kind to me and always be my loved one or friend, I’m creating a situation for anxiety because I know that things change and I am rejecting the fact that they can change. Ok?  And that makes me anxious… like ok now this person is my friend but what if they like somebody more than me? What if they move away, what if one of us gets sick? What if, what if...  Again, we’re creative writing what if situations. 

Jennifer Ghahari:  Hmmm…

Venerable Chodron:  Meanwhile, the people where I have difficult situations with, I fixate and then I get anxious about those. Like “Oh, you know my brother said this now I can’t talk to him and this and that and it’s never going to change. And oh, he really revealed how much he can’t stand me and we’ve been competing with each other since we were kids… how am I ever going to deal with this? I know he’s never going to change”. It’s toxic; that’s a good one.  As soon as I label it toxic, you know, he’s toxic, the relationship is toxic… what’s toxic? My proliferating mind that is projecting stuff onto people that’s what’s toxic, you know because I have my Rules of the Universe, you know. My brother should always be like this, he should always treat me like this…. and he’s a living being who changes all the time and I change all the time, too. But I get anxious because I think it’s always going to be like this and how am I going to deal with it.

Ghahari:  Wow. Thank you.

Venerable Chodron:  This is what I mean, we can, we just can create things.  It’s quite amazing. Now, going back to your other question about assumptions that might underlie anxiety.

Jennifer Ghahari:  Yeah.

Venerable Chodron:  I think the foremost assumption is that, now it’s quite embarrassing to admit this, but we’re all friends so I think we can be open.  We think that we’re the most important one in the world. Yeah?

Jennifer Ghahari:  Sure.

Venerable Chodron:  I’m the most important person in the world!  And that’s why I have my Rules of the Universe that everybody should follow and my happiness, my suffering matter more than anybody else’s. I don’t care what’s going on in Syria, what’s going on in Israel and Gaza. I don’t care about the craziness in America, you know, American politics, nothing, you know.  What happens to me is the most important. And that fixation on ourselves makes us so miserable. Why? Or how? Because we relate everything in the world to ourselves. 

Jennifer Ghahari:  Hmmm. Right.

Venerable Chodron:  And so, we joke about this at the monastery, the abbey.  I’ll hear two people talking in another part of the room and I’ll joke, “Oh you guys… I know you’re talking about me, criticizing me, I can tell it, you’re not talking very loud… I know you’re talking about me. Look at that look on your face.” And I tease them about it because this is how we function, isn’t it? In your work place, if you walk in and two people are talking and their voice is low, they’re talking about me they’re saying something bad, ok? Anxiety… oh no, what did I do? They’re talking about me! What happens if they tell the boss, I won’t get the promotion, I might even get fired and then everybody in the office thinks I’m terrible, anyway what they’re gossiping about me didn’t happen and how to I clear this situation up and nobody likes me and I’m going to get fired and how am I going to tell my family I got fired… you know. So, it’s because everything is so self-referential, yeah?

Jennifer Ghahari:  Right.

Venerable Chodron:  Then we get upset, stressed, anxious about it. I’ll tell you another story. I think stories are really good examples.

Jennifer Ghahari:  Right.

Venerable Chodron:  So, one of my friends, her son was engaged to a woman and she was from a different religion, a different culture. My friend didn’t care, she was cool about that. And, obviously, her son was, too. Anyway, they had – the fiancée’s family – was having a big party down in Los Angeles; my friend lives in Oregon. She went down to Los Angeles. You know, she didn’t know anybody there except her son and the fiancée. She didn’t know anybody else. So, she walks in, it’s at the family’s home – she walks into the home and here’s, ok, and what she said, ok, when the first time she told us the story I walk in and there’s my son’s fiancée talking to somebody and she doesn’t even acknowledge that I walked in the room. She doesn’t turn around and say hello. She knows I don’t know anybody here, except for her and my son.  You know it’s just common sense, common courtesy…if you’re going to marry somebody, you try and be nice to your future mother-in-law.  She should have come up, at least said hello, introduce me to her family, made sure I feel comfortable. What’s going to happen? My son is marrying this woman and she is so rude and so inconsiderate! How are they going to have a happy marriage? Ok. So, this is the story she tells. So, we said, ok, cause we do some non-violent communication work here at the abbey – so we said ok, first, tell us the facts of the situation. No interpretation, no embellishment, no emotive words or words that exaggerate what’s going to happen.  So, it took her a while to actually do that cause she was so worked up.  What she came to, the facts of the situation, was I walked into the house, my son’s fiancée was talking with somebody and she continued talking to that person. That’s all that happened. That’s the facts of the situation…that’s all that happened. Now compare that with what she got anxious about.

Jennifer Ghahari:  Right.

Venerable Chodron:  You can see that the facts of the situation and how she interpreted things, how she imputed motivations on the woman, all of that was coming from her mind, her creative writing mind.

Jennifer Ghahari:  Right.

Venerable Chodron:  That made herself the centerpiece of the situation.  There was whole room full of people? How many people were in that room?  Did any of the other people, were they as upset about this as her? Nobody else noticed.

Jennifer Ghahari:  Right.

Venerable Chodron:  Yeah? So, it’s just another example of like – wow – if I go back to actually the raw facts of what happened, you know, why am I getting so anxious? I could have gone into the situation and introduced myself to somebody, yeah? “Hi I’m the groom’s mother.” And then they would have said, “He’s such a wonderful boy,” you know? But she didn’t do that; she just stood there frozen, feeling offended. 

Jennifer Ghahari:  Right

Venerable Chodron:  But you see, she could have gone into the situation and just said, “Wow,  you know, I’ll just go in and introduce myself. My son’s marrying into this family, I want to get to know these people. 

Jennifer Ghahari:  Right. And everybody could have been feeling anxious at the same time…

Venerable Chodron:  Right! Yeah, because they don’t know everybody at the gathering either.

Jennifer Ghahari:  Right. Thank you. So, in terms of anxiety and trying to mitigate that, can having a spiritual path help lessen anxiety and, as a Buddhist, how does the practice of Buddhist teachings help you with anxiety?

Venerable Chodron:  Ok. So yes, I think a spiritual practice can help us. No matter what faith you are, I think what’s common in all faiths is that we think there’s something more than our own ego and we think that there’s something more than just the happiness of this life. 

Jennifer Ghahari:  Ok. Right.

Venerable Chodron:  So whatever what religion one is, if one has a practice in that religion, you know, that can help you expand your vision, ok, because anxiety, stress, is very narrow vision. It’s all about me in this situation right now and my misery. If you have a spiritual path, your mind thinks about other people, it thinks about the future, it thinks about being an ethical person and keeping good ethical conduct. So that’s common in all faiths.  In Buddhism, in particular, we have a genre of teachings, in Tibetan it’s called lojong, it means mind training or thought training and it’s a series of teachings that show you how to describe things from another perspective so that your anxiety, your anger, your fear, your greed, your jealousy, whatever it is, dissipates. In other words, you’re not suppressing emotions or repressing them but you’re learning to look at a situation from a much different perspective, a much broader perspective and when you do that then the emotion that is so much based on self-centeredness automatically fades. So, this genre of teachings, the mind or thought training teachings, are the ones I rely on so much in my own life to deal with situations because, you know, whenever you work with people things always come up and you have to figure out a way to resolve problems. You know, as we all know, people do not follow the first Rule of our Universe, you know. My first rule is everybody should be, do, think and say exactly what I think they should be, do, think and say.

Jennifer Ghahari:  Right, yeah.

Venerable Chodron:  My parents should be this way, my mother should be this way, my father should be this way, my brother, my sister, my pet frog, you know, the turkeys that are wondering around the abbey, everybody should fulfill my expectations. And, it’s not just that they should be, do and think what I say but they should all like me. And they should all think I’m wonderful, right?

Jennifer Ghahari:  Yeah.

Venerable Chodron:  And the problem with the world is that people do not realize that I am the center of it. That is the big problem. So, these people, they’re so stupid, they think they’re the center of the world, they don’t realize that I am, you know. So, they need to change. So, you know, of course, I get anxious, especially if I have kids, I’ve got to rear my kids so that they become exactly what I’m not, they fulfill all my aspirations, they become what I could never become. So, you get anxious about that. But, you know, this is all from seeing things from the wrong perspective. So, you know, we have a practice, one of our practices is called seeing the disadvantages of being self-centered. So, we contemplate those. Another practice is seeing the benefits of cherishing others.

Jennifer Ghahari:  Ok.

Venerable Chodron:  Oh, you mean when I’m anxious, I should think about other people. Really?? You mean other people exist as something outside the drama that concerns me?? You mean they have feelings? That they want to be happy, they don’t want to be miserable… just like me??

Jennifer Ghahari:  Right.

Venerable Chodron:  That people right now, you know, their houses have been bombed and they have no place to go? Now how would that feel, to be in that situation? Right now, we’re in the aftermath of the Israel Gaza thing. So, in both Israel and in Gaza, houses were bombed, people were killed, you know. How would I feel if I was in that situation?  Or how would I feel if I were a refugee? Fleeing from Syria or who knows where…there are so many places in the world now. And how would I feel if I was a refugee having to go to another country where I didn’t know anybody and I didn’t speak the language.

Jennifer Ghahari:  Yeah, right.

Venerable Chodron:  Oh my goodness, you mean there are people like that? They’re in that situation? And then, you know, so we start to open our mind to see much, what’s happening in the world. But then our mind might go oh yes, well there’s all these rich people, they live in, you know, Beverly Hills. They live in… I forget in Seattle what the rich neighborhood is, but they live in that. They live in New York, Upper West side, Upper East side, you know – whatever it is. Those people, you know, they’re happy… No, they aren’t, no they aren’t. You know I’m sure you’ve dealt with people who on the outside look, you know they have everything, but they aren’t happy at all. They have personal problems, they have all sorts of problems that, you know, wealthy people who have a good front, have a whole other set of problems. So, we begin to see oh my goodness, you know, I’m not the only one. 

Jennifer Ghahari:  Exactly.

Venerable Chodron:  And so, instead of just focusing on myself, what about doing…you know, we do a meditation practice where we um, there’s one meditation practice called metta – which means loving kindness – where we think loving, kind thoughts towards other people and just sit there and generate these kind thoughts, wishing them to have happiness in the process of happiness. And a compassion practice wishing people to be free of suffering and the cause of suffering. And you don’t have to limit to human beings. Animals also.

Jennifer Ghahari:  Definitely.

Venerable Chodron:  Yeah? Really when you what’s happening to many animals it makes me so sad. So, you can sit there and just wish other people well. It’s a fantastic practice and, you know, you can start with people that you know if you want to. They usually recommend starting with somebody you know who’s not somebody you’re really attached to emotionally, you know – but somebody you know and you wish that person well… may they have good health, may they have good relationships, may they feel successful in their life. May what interferes with them opening their hearts to others, may that kind of hindrance may they be free of it. May they have love and compassion for the others. May they have all their physical needs met. And, you know, and just thinking about all these things. You start with somebody that you know, that you’re not close to; then you do the same thing for somebody that you’re close to; then you do it for a stranger, you know, somebody at the grocery store. Maybe your neighbor… people don’t even know their neighbors nowadays, you know, and thinking about your neighbor, may they have happiness and what kind of things would make them happy? And what kind of problems could they have in their life that I wish them to be free of and then, you know, so you’ve done kind of somebody you know, a dear one, a stranger, now you go to somebody you don’t like.

Jennifer Ghahari:  Ok.

Venerable Chodron: Somebody you fear even, maybe even somebody who abused you. And you think , you know, ok, somebody who abused you , are they a happy person? Somebody who was mean to you or harmed you or cheated you… did they do that because they were happy? Happy people don’t wake up in the morning and say I think I’m going to abuse somebody and cheat them and lie to them, make them all feel miserable. Happy people don’t think like that – so this person must be suffering, they must be very miserable. So, I know – and it’s their misery that made them do what was harmful to me or harmful to the people I loved.

Jennifer Ghahari:  Yeah, right.

Venerable Chodron:  Or harmful to the country – whatever it is. It was their misery that made them do that because in their confusion, they thought acting that way was going to alleviate their own misery and, of course it didn’t. They were acting out their own suffering under the delusion that it was going to alleviate the tension in their own minds and, of course, it didn’t. It made them more miserable because they have to live with knowing what they did. So, they’re actually more miserable than they were before they did what was harmful. So, aren’t these people who are so confused and so miserable, aren’t they objects of compassion?

Jennifer Ghahari:  Right.

Venerable Chodron:  So, can I open my heart to have compassion for people like this? Knowing that they also have the ability to change? That what happened was one part of their life, but they are more than the worst thing that they did in their life. And, of course, the worst thing they did in their life was in relationship to me, not in relationship to anybody else – it was always involving me, because I’m the victim of everybody else, right? But actually, you know, it’s like something is going on – can I wish them well?  What would happen if they were happy? What would happen if their minds were peaceful and they had some wisdom and they realized that acting in this way wasn’t going to bring anybody any benefit, including themselves?  And so, to wish them to be happy. I do this meditation with politicians a lot. For me, I won’t mention names, there’s a lot of people out there in the government who need some compassion.

Jennifer Ghahari:  Yes.

Venerable Chodron:  Or people out of the government who need some compassion. Because they’re doing things that are so harmful and they don’t understand what they’re doing. They’re so confused and so wrapped up in trying to promote themselves that, you know, I don’t know how some of them can live with themselves. So, to practice wishing these people well, may they have wisdom, may they feel secure so that they don’t need to take revenge on other people. May they have a magnanimous mind so that they wish other people joy and can take, and can feel happy by creating the circumstances for other people to be happy, you know. So, wishing that for those people it’s a fantastic meditation… it really helps.

Jennifer Ghahari:  One question I have is, if you’re internalizing and you have all this anxiety and you want to try to meditate, sometimes it can be hard to focus and actually meditate. So are there ways to get over your anxiety so that you are able to start meditating. It’s like a vicious cycle, I think?

Venerable Chodron:  Yeah, it is. Um, one meditation that they recommend is just to watch your breath. You, um, you focus at your belly, there’s two points. You can either focus at your belly and your belly expand as you inhale, watch it fall as you exhale or you can focus at the nostrils and the tip of the nose and watch the sensation of the breath as it comes in and as it goes out or you can just sit there and feel yourself breathing and feel how the breath connects you to the universe. But your object of focus, your object of attention is just the breath. Now, it’s very easy to get distracted because we are used to being distracted. So, when you notice you got distracted, don’t criticize yourself. Just know, ok, now I’m thinking about this or I hear a sound or whatever – come home to your breath. So, see your breath as home and just the peaceful flow of your breath as it goes in and out, don’t deep breathe don’t force your breath in any way but just imagine sitting there being peaceful and breathing peacefully and you just bring your attention back to your breath and watch your breath and relax.

Jennifer Ghahari:  Ok. It sounds like you can really do that anywhere. You don’t have to do it in a special place or wear special clothes or a special pillow?

Venerable Chodron:  Right, all of Buddhist practice is like that. You can do it anywhere; you don’t need special props or anything.

Jennifer Ghahari:  How long would you recommend that someone do that for?

Venerable Chodron:  The breathing meditation?

Jennifer Ghahari:  Yes.

Venerable Chodron:  Um, you know start out maybe 5 minutes and then you know then go to 10, then go to 15.

Jennifer Ghahari:  Oh ok…

Venerable Chodron:  And then, like I said, there’s other mediations that people can do. Then you might switch into another meditation because in Buddhism we have many kinds of meditation so watching the breath is one kind, but another kind like I just told you about the meditation on loving kindness, mediation on compassion there’s that one. We have visualization meditations that are also really very effective, I think for dealing with anxiety and so forth. Just to give you, if I take a Buddhist mediation and secularize it because I don’t the audience, you know you may have Catholics and Muslims and Jews and non-believers. So ok, so you know a visualization could be think of the good qualities that you really respect in others that you would like to develop in yourself – qualities of love and compassion, ethical conduct, generosity, patience, forgiveness, humility, you know – and imagine those qualities manifesting as a ball of light in front of you. If somebody were a Buddhist, I would say it can manifest as the Buddha figure, if you’re a Christian it could manifest as Jesus or just keep it as a ball of light. So, the good qualities manifest as that ball of light and the ball of light is radiant and it just spreads in everywhere in the universe and the light from the ball also, especially comes into you and it comes in through the top of your head and through all the pores of your body and it completely, your whole body is full with this radiant light which is the nature of all those good qualities.

Jennifer Ghahari:  Ok.

Venerable Chodron:  So, you’re sitting there imagining that this light is coming into you and that you are experiencing those good qualities that you can now relate to the world as somebody who has those qualities, as somebody whose kind and peaceful and compassionate and you think you know that light has come in – now I’m enriched by it, you know, and so I can, you know, start to become like that in my interactions with other people. And so you focus on that visualization and then, at the end, you imagine the ball of light comes on top of your head, it’s very small and then it comes to the top of your head and it comes to the center of your heart and you think now, you know, the center of my heart, the middle of your chest, not your heating heart, and you have light there and so the light of your own love and compassion and wisdom and so forth it radiates, it fills your body and it goes outside you body and now you start radiating light to other people. So, to your friends, to strangers and also to the people you don’t like and the people you’re afraid of and the people who have harmed you and you imagine that all those people, you know, absorb that light. And then you just stay in that state of just feeling, feeling good about yourself and feeling good about other people.

Jennifer Ghahari:  Right. Thank you. This has been beyond amazing and I want to thank you for speaking with us today. Is there anything else, before we wrap up, that you would like to add or anything else that you would like to share?

Venerable Chodron:  You know there’s one thing. What I think is very important is having  a sense of humor. We’ve got to be able to make fun of ourselves.  And to laugh at ourselves and not take ourselves so seriously. And to have that kind of sense of humor, we have to be kind of transparent, it’s like, you know, usually we have faults and we hide them away and hope nobody notices them. But, hey, people notice our faults and so going around like this saying I don’t have a nose (covering her face), I don’t have a nose even though everybody knows we have one is ridiculous, you know. It’s like so ok we have faults, can I laugh at my faults, can I talk about my faults, can I be open about them without feeling ashamed and without blaming myself and telling myself what a horrible person I am… can I just say I have this fault and I’m working on it and I can also laugh at myself.

Jennifer Ghahari:  Right.

Venerable Chodron:  I can laugh at when I act out this fault because sometimes what I’m doing or saying is so ridiculous that I have to laugh at myself. I think that’s also quite important.

Jennifer Ghahari:  Perfect. Well, thank you again for being with us and for sharing this wisdom. I know you guys offer a lot of different lectures and classes at the abbey so we’re definitely going to share the link on our website to your website so people can check that out.

Venerable Chodron:  There’s the abbey website and then there’s my personal website, thubtenchodron.org.  

Jennifer Ghahari:  We’ll put both of those on our site.

Venerable Chodron:  And our YouTube channel because everything is about us!

Jennifer Ghahari:  Exactly!  Again, thank you for having all that information out there; that’s wonderful.

Venerable Chodron:  Thank you.  Take care.

Jennifer Ghahari:  Thank you.

Please note: The views expressed by the interviewee are for educational and informational purposes only, are not meant to diagnose or treat any condition, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Seattle Anxiety Specialists, PLLC.


Editor: Jennifer (Ghahari) Smith, Ph.D.

broker wade rowley on Home-buying anxiety

An interview with Real Estate Broker Wade Rowley

Real Estate Broker Wade Rowley has nearly a decade of experience serving the Puget Sound area.

(note: this interview is also available as a podcast)

JENNIFER GHAHARI:  Thanks for joining us today. I’m Dr. Jennifer Ghahari, Administrative Director at Seattle Anxiety Specialists. I’d like to welcome with us Wade Rowley, who is a real estate broker at John L. Scott Real Estate. Before we get started, Wade, can you please tell us a little bit about yourself, the types of properties that you handle and the areas that you serve.

WADE ROWLEY:  Sure, so I’m Wade Rowley, as Jennifer said. I work out of the John L Scott Real Estate Bellevue office and I’m going into my 8th year in real estate. So, really, the last few years I’ve really begun to enjoy the whole process and working with others. I work in the Greater Puget Sound area and I help, I’m licensed for both commercial and residential but I help, mainly my focus is residential right now. I have helped some commercial buyers, but mostly its condominiums, single-family residence, all of those.  So, Greater Puget Sound area, with an emphasis on the east side, but I go into Seattle, I have gone as far south as Gig Harbor, as far north as, I’ve worked through Snohomish County, some transactions out there and activity and I see, anyways how far north maybe as far north as Arlington.  Again, the crux is kind of east side, Greater Puget Sound area. And hopefully, that answered most of what you’d like to know.

JENNIFER GHAHARI:  Yeah, that’s great. So, it sounds like you definitely know the area and can speak to what is going on in terms of real estate. Sounds like we have the right person with us today.

WADE ROWLEY:  Okay, great. I have lived in the area a long, long time so…how many years now, 43 years…I was adding that up the other day, is it 43 ½ years... and run business in Bellevue and so on, so really familiar with the area…

JENNIFER GHAHARI:  Fantastic! Great. So today we’re going to talk about anxiety regarding home buying, especially first-time home buyers and I’m sure you’re gone through this yourself, I definitely have. Some worries or anxieties that homebuyers face, the things like can I financially afford this property, is it the right area, is the school system okay, the crime level, is there anything wrong with the property… and all these ideas just kind of ruminate in your head… am I getting the best deal, re-sale value… it can go on and on. In 2018, (I found an article) that Homes.com conducted a survey where they studied and questioned 2,000 people throughout the U.S. to get insights of folks’ first-time home buying experience. Some of the main findings that they had were that 40% felt anxious in the process, 38% thought it took longer than they expected it to, 10% had buyer’s remorse and 13% felt that they overpaid for their home. So, it sounds like a lot of these issues can just be mitigated by working with the right realtor. Can you explain the pros and cons of working with a licensed realtor or broker versus trying to navigate this process without one?

WADE ROWLEY:  Sure, and maybe to give a little better context, it’s common even, and we’re talking mostly about purchasing, it’s common that real estate brokers that are seasoned brokers will hire another broker to help them list their home. So I highly recommend, if you’re a first-time home buyer, just find the right broker. Unless you have somebody that has gone through it many times before and can kind of give you counsel and insights through, find the right broker, find the right lender and work with them. I would never recommend to anybody going with somebody who is not licensed or going it on your own rather than a licensed broker. And to give you a little insight into the terminology so your listeners understand. In the State of Washington, it’s funny because we go by broker or we’re a broker… you can be a broker or a managing broker and so that term though is used synonymous with agents. So, if you hear me saying agent or broker, it’s the same thing, unless I say managing broker. But to get licensed, you go through all of the schooling process, all of the certification. You have to work with a firm that knows what they are doing. I just recommend doing that, you know. I wouldn’t even imagine going it alone. So, if you find an avenue that you think you can, just be very careful… make sure all your of your legal bases are covered. It is a big process; you’re spending a lot of money. I recommend finding the right broker and make sure they’re licensed. Sometimes the firm they work with matters; it matters more about the personality and does that personality coincide with what your needs are and do you feel comfortable with the person and trust them. Hopefully that answered your question. Sometimes I ramble and if you need any follow-ups, let me know because I might not answer everything you like…

JENNIFER GHAHARI:  You bring up a really good point. Finding the right broker is kind of essential to this process and I think in many regards it can kind of feel like a “crapshoot.” You’re just you’re going out there and trying to find the right person. Like you said, the personalities should try to be a pretty good match, the realtor or broker should have a good knowledge of the area that you want to move to. So do you have any good tips on how someone can find the right broker to work with?

WADE ROWLEY:  Right, that’s a really good point; are they familiar with your area? There are a lot of ways to go about it and I’ve read many because I like to get into the eye of the consumer or potential clients… what are they looking for? It all boils down, to me, and this is how I choose any professional of what I’m going to do if I’m entailed or looking at a big project that’s going to work, I want to feel comfortable with the person #1; I want to trust the person. And, with a broker, it’s really interesting because you’re going to get really close in your business relationship; I mean you’re going to share your finances, you’re going to share a lot of things that you don’t normally share with maybe anyone except for your spouse if you’re married or your significant other or family… you know, people that are very close to you. You might not even share stuff with family, probably won’t, that you share with your broker. Find someone you are comfortable with, #1, that you can work with, that you know when I call them, if they can’t respond immediately, I know they’re going to respond as soon as they can and, um, that they’re, you know, not going to give me a line or something I want to hear, but they’re going to do their best to be a straight shooter with me and I can trust that person. There are a lot of tools you can use or things you can do to find that. I recommend you look at their reviews. You can ask for references.  I don’t have many people ask me for references just because we have so much information available now I think is a big part of it. Used to be when I ran my other, my building maintenance company that was a little different, business-to-business, but you’d furnish references with every job or prospective job you went out on and they’d have that list and they might or might not call. Now you have reviews and you could ask for references if you want but the reviews, you know, go through them – read some of them.  Some people have a lot of reviews. If you were to spend time reading all my reviews, it would be a while to go through it but, you know, pick a few and read them and see if you can find ongoing themes – the person is not pushy, they’re very responsive or they’re some of the things you’re looking for that look like this person might coincide with your personality and help you reach you end goal, right? And talk with them. You can interview several if you want. I’ve seen some you look at, some at how you go about it, look at different sites, and so on and searches. It’s a good idea, interview 2 or 3, unless you feel like you’ve met the one, you know, and either you have experience, you know what you’re looking for, you’ve met the person on your first meeting, unless you feel like that, review several, interview several – and then pick the one. Again, try to boil it down to who do I feel the most comfortable with, who has enough knowledge of the area they can help me meet my goal and of the industry as a whole and who is going to be responsive and whatever you find that your specific needs are. Now some people they want to be hey I really want to drive hard, I want to get the best, I want a hardcore negotiator, I want this or that.  Others feel like hey, you know, what’s important to me is the area and the person, the personality, how responsive they are. So those are some of the ways you could find the right broker and what’s going to be very important is it boils down to how do you feel about that person and can you trust them and are you comfortable with them.

JENNIFER GHAHARI:  And I think you bring up a really good point that trusting your broker and being comfortable with them that in itself it going to help lessen a buyer’s anxiety. Because if you go into it and you think maybe this broker isn’t on my side or they’re worrying too much about their own financial interest as opposed to mine as a homebuyer, it’ll definitely add to and increase an anxiety and stress so, like you said, it’s definitely a really good idea to maybe speak to a few different brokers to find the right one that you actually, you just feel comfortable with, that you can trust throughout this process. 

WADE ROWLEY:  Find one you trust and if 2 or 3 aren’t enough, go to another, cause I can tell you, and this is Wade Doctrine from business and anything that I’ve done throughout my life, is it’s going to take and it could take a little bit of time and it could take a lot of time, right? But end up with somebody that can help you meet your end goal and that’s critical to you and it’s going to help you in this process quite a bit.

JENNIFER GHAHARI:  Great. So, how many homes, and I’m sure like you said just in terms of finding the right broker to work with, actually finding the right home that must be spread out so differently. For some people it’s the first home that they see; for other people I can’t even imagine how many that they might look at. What’s the average, if you had to give a number, that how many homes do people typically look at before making the offer and how can folks usually tell that this is the one that I should make an offer on?

WADE ROWLEY:  Okay, I’m going to try to answer both of them but if I don’t answer that second question, remind me…

JENNIFER GHAHARI:  Sure, okay.

WADE ROWLEY:  First off, with an association, the American Homebuilders Association did a survey and they said, and this is a fairly recent survey, they said 2/3rds of buyers take more than 3 months to find the home and look at an average of 19 homes before they buy.

JENNIFER GHAHARI:  Oh wow! That’s more than I would have thought…

WADE ROWLEY:  Right? Me, too!  And as a broker with experience I thought, do my buyers really by average, and full confession I don’t go back and average them out. Now I see some files in front of me with a lot of homes in them and I keep the homes that we’ve looked at and so on if I need them for reference and some of those files get pretty large and there’s a lot of them. I’ve had a buyer, for example, in this year probably looked at 40+ homes and then I’ve had buyers that say I like this home and I want to offer on it and  I go out and I meet them there and they offer on it, they’ve already looked at a lot of stuff online. So we have so much we can look at online. So I definitely, I never have been one to recommend, hey you have to look at more homes because we can over-complicate that really fast and we get so much good information now that if you did a little bit of homework on each one, and I say hey do a Google fly over if you like or Google Earth…. and if you don’t have the app, it’s free just download it... and you can drop the little guy with the pin, you can hover over it and you can spin around the neighborhood so you see the 360. See what’s all around the home. So, that gives you good insight, you know. Is there a chemical plant nearby, you may want to consider that or get questions answered or is there a community center I really like, you can see all of this stuff, a school by it – and this way you can help kind of isolate hey this one I think may work and quickly you can find some that oh, I like the home, but this really isn’t going to work. In that process, depending on how you like to work, you can maybe see five or six homes, seven, eight and really find out. Maybe you can see one, two or three. But I say, if you like the home, look at it, get all your questions answered on that home cause it might be the one. And many buyers I’ve worked with, I have, we’ve started out at one home, but they just started, so it’s understandable, too... I really like it, but it’s the first home I’ve seen. So as a broker, you know, I try to relay hey it might be the one but you want better context. So they’ll go and see some others and then come back around to that one, oftentimes it’s happened, that first one that they’ve seen or one of the first ones. There is some, and it goes along with my experience, that trying not to see more than, you know, five or six homes in a day is a lot.

JENNIFER GHAHARI:  In one day…

WADE ROWLEY:  Running together. I have done it, too with what’s my largest, nine or 11 in a day. At the end of the day, I’m trying to remember what we looked at, you know, let alone they are, you know I have notes on each page and so on but it can be overwhelming because you’re trying to consume mega-data. Remember it only takes one, okay, and what you’re looking for is a place where you can live safely, you can live your life, get your goals accomplished you want to, and build your life in that home and what home matches that criteria, right. It may not be permanent, and it probably won’t be in this day and age, although some of us try to the first time out – then you know you never know what happens and unfolds in life. You start making more money, you get a different opportunity or this or that. So it’s going to be a nice place for everything you need look at it that way and who knows what’s going to happen in the future. It may be your forever home, maybe it won’t – but I have seen a lot of buyers really put a lot of pressure on themselves. They want to find their forever home right now. I understand that, that wanting to do that but that does put lot of pressure on you. I recommend find what works well for where you’re at in your life now and if you want to stay there, great, and if, in five or six years or whatever your timeline is, you want to start renting that out, add it to your portfolio, buy another or sell it, put that equity into another place, that’s good. It’s a good way to relieve some pressure because you confine yourself into this, your home that you’re trying to get and it’s this ideal, perfect picture. The second question was… that answered the second question?

JENNIFER GHAHARI:  Yeah…it slightly did – about how can you tell that this is the one. And like you said there’s some check boxes: would I feel safe here, can I afford it and is it sometimes or often just a “gut feeling”, too, that people have?

WADE ROWLEY:  Absolutely.

JENNIFER GHAHARI:  It just feels “good”, it feels “right.”

WADE ROWLEY:  Yes, I feel it, too, when I go in and am starting to work with the client, get to know them a little and there’s a vibe in a home and sometimes it happens right away when we’re talking about that first, second or third home, oftentimes it does. Again, cause you have so much information, pictures, neighborhoods, by the time you get there you may have looked at hundreds online, but you know hey here’s the 3. And so that vibe I feel that and some people feel that and they want to offer and then they start looking at all the details and then they don’t want to. Now there might be some details that hey this is something to be concerned about – but we just, it’s kind of how our minds work we start to think okay, well is the kitchen big enough, well is the window big enough, well is the yard going to do everything I want. So I recommend when you feel that vibe, zoom in and zoom back out. So, you zoom in, you look at the details, you don’t want something to get by you that you should see, right? And then zoom back out; what attracted you to that home, that neighborhood, that whatever it is – and look at that again and then say hey, okay, this is worth offering on. I really feel for this home.

JENNIFER GHAHARI:  Okay. And I think something else that you brought up with the last question about a way to lessen anxiety and stress about this is really doing your homework and, in this day and age, there are so many online resources that it’s really amazing – that you can, like you said, you can use Google Earth and look at the property online, you can read about all of these properties. So, instead of trying to go in person and visit 10 homes in a day, which is going to be extremely stressful, there’s only so much that a people can really handle in a day.

WADE ROWLEY:   It can overwhelm you…

JENNIFER GHAHARI:  Yeah, like you said trying to remember how I felt at each home and all the little nuances. So really doing your homework and kind of narrowing it down to the ones that really feel like they could be potential winners might help the whole process along – so that’s great. 

One question I was wondering about is – is there any type of difference in anxiety and stresses between a first-time homebuyer versus someone who has already gone through the process and had, you know, purchased a home once or twice before. Are there similar anxieties or are there differences at all?

WADE ROWLEY:  I think that’s a really good question because I think it could be, and sometimes is, it can induce more anxiety for first time homebuyers. I don’t really see a great difference in the type of stressors but the fact is the unknown, right?

JENNIFER GHAHARI:  Okay.

WADE ROWLEY:  Some people have never gotten a loan, I’ve never thought of anything like this – it’s a big deal, right? So, am I doing it right? Am I doing it wrong? That could be, that’s one I think, a big anxiety inducer is so-and-do did it this way, I need to do it this way, right? And so, and it’s a first-time homebuyer… and I have to tell you it’s one of my greatest joys in this business I like working with first-time homebuyers because you can kind of help coach them through, you can kind of help answer questions in a way, help them look to the future as here’s what you’re going to see, here’s what’s going to happen, give them that kind of path to look at so you can relieve, right, some of that stress. The more you can see of what’s going to happen, the step-by-step process, the more it’s going to help, especially first-time homebuyers. Get a good lender and then find a good broker and ask them questions. And if you ever feel and, again, this is Doctrine by Wade of what how I’ve conducted business over the years, like you’re putting them out when you ask them a question and, now everybody has an off day so maybe you perceived something that they weren’t really thinking – but if you feel like that on a regular basis and then I would seriously think about a different mortgage broker or different real estate broker. Now if you get into the process with the mortgage broker, you’re into the transaction, well, we could go over some of the details… first five days you can change in most of your contracts… make sure yours is written that way… you can change lenders – if you’re just getting this uneasy vibe about them. So hopefully you’re comfortable with your broker by then before you offer and but, again, when you’re interviewing, when you’re looking at them feel like hey am I going to be comfortable with this person and do they, can in a sense, enjoy what they’re doing – you don’t ever want to feel like you’re a nuisance to that person. That prohibits you from answering, getting your questions answered that are going to help you a lot, they’re going to relieve stress, going to help you get your end goal and, you know, they may not get back to you/you might not reach them on the phone that second, but they should be prompt and no question is a bad question. Ask questions and ask until you get every one answered and you should work with somebody who understands that and is on your team, you should feel like they are on my team, I’m not bugging them, they’re on my team. And there’s different ways to work together. Sometimes, if you have a lot of questions, put an email together, get all of them down on the page and send them over and that person, that agent can help you one by one, and go through them. What I do when I get those is I just go through, I respond to the email and each question I put an answer under and then, oftentimes, I’ll follow up with a phone conversation cause there might be additional questions or you didn’t go into enough details so all of that stuff can help relieve anxiety for a first-time homebuyer. There’s also, you know, some articles you know you can read online. But I think the stressors to me are pretty much the same but the unknown and not having gone through it before. You’re relocating or the last time you did it was 20 years ago… and things are different now. The cool thing is on the positive end it’s also kind of more exciting – it’s like I’ve never done this before, my first home, right? Whatever that first home means to you. I’m starting to accrue some equity, I feel like hey I’m really starting to make it financially, whatever that means to you is the cool thing it’s your first home. I had the first home “magic” in my home I was way out in Gold Bar. But it was my home, that’s what was exciting to me. I’ve had another home since that some people might say hey it’s a bigger and nicer home but it wasn’t the same magic as when I bought my first home. So that’s the nice thing about it is you can have a higher emotional on both ends of the spectrum.

JENNIFER GHAHARI:  Like you were saying it’s such a financial investment that, and a big change, a big chapter, new chapter in people’s lives that it should be enjoyable. I think that’s something everybody should try and take away from this process whether it’s their first home or second or their third. It should be an enjoyable process and they should be working with the right person who’s going to alleviate that stress. If your broker or mortgage lender is adding to your stress, it’s probably not the right person to be working with.

WADE ROWLEY:  Especially your broker. Your real estate broker can help you if you’re having struggles with your mortgage broker. A good real estate broker will get really dialed in with them and they can even help push the whole thing through for you or get any questions answered or if you don’t have one that’s very responsive; they can help them be responsive in a hurry because, you know. There’s some weight you carry as a broker because most lenders want, they don’t want a bad name with you either but also you know also you’ve handled it professionally with many of them before so you can get, they can get in and help you, again, they’re part of your team. You’re having a struggle in the area, they can help you out there.

JENNIFER GHAHARI:  This has been great! Do you have any other last words of advice that you’d like to offer homebuyers whether they’re new homebuyers or seasoned?

WADE ROWLEY:  Sure, sure. So, to help just make it an overall more positive experience, know what you want, ok, and be flexible, ok. 

JENNIFER GHAHARI:  That’s fair.

WADE ROWLEY:  And then be flexible. Find a mortgage broker and get yourself pre-approved so you know what you are targeting. That in and of itself is going to relieve a lot of stress you’re going to know hey this is what I qualify for, this is what it costs me. And I’ll tell you some of them get busy and some of the best ones get busy. Ask for, say I want, estimated payments, if you don’t feel like you got enough detail in your pre-approval and you want more, ask for it so you know right where you’re headed – that’s going to alleviate, the more you know, the more stress that’s going to alleviate and make it a more positive experience. And, find a good broker that you’re comfortable working with, ask them whatever questions you need to ask them and get responses to those – and that’s going to help you a lot – you’re looking down the road and they haven’t, you know you still have some questions you want answered… what’s going to happen down the road when I get to this step and this step and the next step – ask them – get the questions answered that’s going to help a lot. One more time, Wade Doctrine with life in general and certainly big projects like buying a home, this is kind of how I worked that has helped me is whatever you’re doing that’s making you successful in life and feel like you’re in control – I myself I think everybody succumbs to stress at times or anxiety  and so on at different levels right, and so, for example whatever we use, I hike a couple of times a week, I go out I come back I get more work done… keep doing those while you’re doing a big project as much as you can and even maybe add something to is – yours will be completely different, it’s whatever works for you and whatever, but those coping mechanisms, whatever you want to call them in life that you have been using, don’t stop. And one quick story about my last business. I grew my business quite large by some standards, small by other national chains. It’s a building maintenance company and we grew it a lot, I grew that from I bought three accounts and grew it to where we had many accounts, I couldn’t count them. We cleaned large spaces, maintenanced large buildings. Along the way, we had big projects that could be considered stressful and we developed policy along the way and one of those was hey there’s follow ups that worked really good our supervisors would come back fill out a sheet, here’s the sites we visited, here’s the follow up we need and then some of those, as the big projects would come, say we’re at a point where we’re not billing a lot, we have a big project, and then some of those things we were doing to be successful fell off no longer filling out your follow ups, and they can be whatever coping mechanisms, this system was this and so we now had this big project and we had this tailing off over here that we were no longer doing – so not only did we have a big project, we were no longer using our other coping mechanisms and it got worse and worse. And so, whatever those happen to be, I recommend hey stay with those, don’t drop those. If it’s nutrition you know you go out, you’re looking at houses now you were eating really healthy now every other day you’re eating fast food and eating? But you know you diet might change or your exercise program or whatever might change, I really recommend keeping as much of that in place as possible and maybe even adding another element or two. This is a big project, it’s a big investment, right? And it’s a cocktail of stress if you’re not careful, but if you’re careful, it can be a really positive experience.

JENNIFER GHAHARI:  Fantastic. Thank you, Wade and thank you for speaking with use today and being part of our interview series. I think this is definitely going to help a lot of people in the home buying process. So thank you again for joining us and be safe and well during this time.

WADE ROWLEY:  Thank you and thank you again for having me – and good luck out there.

JENNIFER GHAHARI:  Thank you.

WADE ROWLEY:  Take care.

Please note: The views expressed by the interviewee are for educational and informational purposes only, are not meant to diagnose or treat any condition, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Seattle Anxiety Specialists, PLLC.


Editor: Jennifer (Ghahari) Smith, Ph.D.