My therapist misunderstands literal interpretations.
My understanding is practically no one at this clinic has much experience with ASDs, although I think there are probably more than a few undiagnosed people on the spectrum who go there regularly.
I feel your frustration. "shutdown" seems to be an understandable description and it may sound negative but that's because it's a bad thing. I am assuming you are referring to what happens after sensory overload. I don't see how trying to find a different word for it would change the situation.
As far as it goes, no one thinks I'm going to get better so I don't need benefits anymore. But I am supposed to at least get better enough so I am not depressed enough to contemplate suicide all the time. That much has been working.
She seems to think she is being supportive by pointing out my successes. The thing is that I don't have much choice but to tolerate everything that goes on around me, but she perceives that as "coping." It's not, but I've never been able to get that across.
You described the situation just fine. I wonder why some therapists are so difficult to talk to. There is a big difference between just making it through the day barely vs. succeeding.
Verdandi
Veteran
Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)
Yeah, caused by sensory overload. Every 1-2 days, I get saturated enough by noise that I stop functioning within 4-6 hours of waking up and shut down. I don't know why she thought a different word would help.
Exactly.
I glanced through all the posts here, and didn't see any mention of what I sensed.
What I saw had nothing to do with idioms. What I saw was Verdandi describing something she felt was a problem, and the therapist, by means of the idiom, practically dismissing the importance of the problem as "minimal."
The message I got from it was, "You're getting by, aren't you? Are these problems really as important as you seem to think they are?"
I think the therapist wasn't really being clear as to what SHE actually meant by using the idiom, by focusing on what the idiom really means, as opposed the real reason she was using it.
Am I the only one here that sees that? I've had therapists do the same thing to me. It took me a long time to realize what they were really doing, which was either minimizing details I felt were important, that really are important, or maybe they really KNEW they weren't as important as I thought they were, and were trying to get me to see the bigger picture. Sometimes, I admit, they are right, and the details I get hung up on aren't as important as I think they are, but sometimes I KNOW they are important differences between me and other people, and it can be insulting to hear them being minimized.
If you get too hung up on what the idiom actually means in a literal sense, it's easy to miss what the therapist is actually doing with it.
_________________
I'm not likely to be around much longer. As before when I first signed up here years ago, I'm finding that after a long hiatus, and after only a few days back on here, I'm spending way too much time here again already. So I'm requesting my account be locked, banned or whatever. It's just time. Until then, well, I dunno...
MindWithoutWalls
Veteran
Joined: 25 Oct 2011
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,445
Location: In the Workshop, with the Toolbox
What I saw had nothing to do with idioms. What I saw was Verdandi describing something she felt was a problem, and the therapist, by means of the idiom, practically dismissing the importance of the problem as "minimal."
The message I got from it was, "You're getting by, aren't you? Are these problems really as important as you seem to think they are?"
I think the therapist wasn't really being clear as to what SHE actually meant by using the idiom, by focusing on what the idiom really means, as opposed the real reason she was using it.
Am I the only one here that sees that?
Actually, a number of us caught that, though we also addressed the idiom along the way, because Verdandi seemed to also want that cleared up. Actually, by having several posters address the idiom, I think the real issue was made more clear to everyone.
Like many others here, because of my reading issues, I also sometimes have to glance through a thread or skim a particularly long post. (My posts are often so long that I fully expect others to do the same with mine.) But I'm learning to be a lot more careful when I post as a result. If I want to comment, I feel the need to be more thorough about reading the content of other posts, even if I have to struggle through longer ones. Failing to do so has already gotten me into trouble, a thing for which I feel really bad.
_________________
Life is a classroom for a mind without walls.
Loitering is encouraged at The Wayshelter: http://wayshelter.com
Verdandi
Veteran
Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)
What I saw had nothing to do with idioms. What I saw was Verdandi describing something she felt was a problem, and the therapist, by means of the idiom, practically dismissing the importance of the problem as "minimal."
The message I got from it was, "You're getting by, aren't you? Are these problems really as important as you seem to think they are?"
I think the therapist wasn't really being clear as to what SHE actually meant by using the idiom, by focusing on what the idiom really means, as opposed the real reason she was using it.
Am I the only one here that sees that? I've had therapists do the same thing to me. It took me a long time to realize what they were really doing, which was either minimizing details I felt were important, that really are important, or maybe they really KNEW they weren't as important as I thought they were, and were trying to get me to see the bigger picture. Sometimes, I admit, they are right, and the details I get hung up on aren't as important as I think they are, but sometimes I KNOW they are important differences between me and other people, and it can be insulting to hear them being minimized.
If you get too hung up on what the idiom actually means in a literal sense, it's easy to miss what the therapist is actually doing with it.
Well, I didn't know what the therapist was doing with it because I didn't know what it meant. But yeah, I do think she tends to minimize the differences between me and other people. One particular time I was having a lot of trouble with speech, I tried to talk about it, and she said "I think most people have that kind of problem." But I am sure most people don't have aphasia or lose the ability to talk for several hours at a time.
The frustration for me on the idiom was I asked her what it meant and she expanded the idiom instead of just telling me. The rest of the conversation was annoying too, because of the minimization. I get the impression that she thinks that reframing everything more positively will change my outlook, but I find my reaction to that is "lying to myself."
Yeah, sorry if I missed that others got that. I looked rather quickly, but I'm not a fast reader unfortunately. I just don't have time to read through every post of long threads.
_________________
I'm not likely to be around much longer. As before when I first signed up here years ago, I'm finding that after a long hiatus, and after only a few days back on here, I'm spending way too much time here again already. So I'm requesting my account be locked, banned or whatever. It's just time. Until then, well, I dunno...
I do read through every post on most of the threads and I am a fast reader. I read most of the threads (75% maybe) on about half of the subforums here. WP is such a big place that I am here for many hours, that also includes my replies.
Verdandi
Veteran
Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)
I appreciated your post.
My "my therapist said this" threads always seem to become much more broad in scope than I expected.
