Sam Driscoll

This made me laugh, I've used the favourite ice cream metaphor several times when trying to explain the nuance of therapeutic compatibility - and I couldn't agree more!

Congratulations on submitting the final manuscript!

I found the 1st edition pivotal in helping me to develop and define my values as a person-centred therapist in an evidence-based world.

I look forward to getting the 2nd edition!

“I think it only makes sense to seek out and identify structures of authority, hierarchy, and domination in every aspect of life, and to challenge them; unless a justification for them can be given, they are illegitimate, and should be dismantled, to increase the scope of human freedom” Noam Chomsky

If that makes sense?

That sounds useful!

For me, I'm aware who I am is so dependent on context that I cannot ever be a fixed thing.

The environment has such a significant impact on self-expression for me.

Therefore I find I can be most things at different times but never all the things at the same time...

"When I look at the world, I'm pessimistic, but when I look at people, I am optimistic." - Carl Rogers

When looking at the state of the world it's difficult to hold onto hope.

But there's a lot of good people trying to do good work.

And that's worth a little hope I think.

I tend the exchange 'I am' with 'I can' - I am nothing but I can be lots of different things.

I am feels so rigid to me, whereas I can be feels more expansive and allows more space for growth and development.

Again, you don't respond to any of my points... this is such a confusing interaction for me to make sense of...

I just don't understand your intention, I've been truthful to my experience of this interaction and my apologies if you found my experience painful.

Take care

I really don't know, but this feels like anything but a conversation being conducted in good faith tbh.

And then you use the metaphor of how the whole topic feels like holding water in your hands when having these discussions with white people and men. Have you considered what the constant is in all of those conversations? Perhaps you have difficulty in listening to points you disagree with?

I'm also confused how you appear to have symbolised my genuine answers as challenging what doesn't feel right... I'm purposely owning my own experience and not challenging anything. Seems like yet another conflation.

As someone passionate about oppressed/oppressor dynamics, I'm surprised that you seem unaware of the power dynamics between question asker and question answerer.

You also say, "I just don't get why it's hard at all if we go into these conversations asking rather than challenging as soon as something doesn't feel right."

Two points to that: I never made a point about a group needing to do anything about me feeling safe... Plus, there's clearly undertones here - I acknowledge the sense of an agenda, suggest you reveal it, and you ignore my point.

For reasons unknown, you ask about my experiences of being in groups, and I answer in good faith - then you asked a fairly pointed question "has anyone ever shared all the reasons why they won't bother to do what would make you feel safe?"

There's some confusion with my sun metaphor, I explain it explicitly, and then you disclose your misinterpretation and ask me if I didn't mean it the way you interpreted it - literally right after I've explicitly described what I meant.

You make a fairly wild accusation how I've listed many reasons tegarding my resistance to acknowledging difference and what comes with it, yet when I ask you provide one example, you don't, plus you don't apologise for conflating my points.

Hmmm, interesting turn of events - so you believe you've entered this conversation in good faith then?

If so, why have you cherry picked your responses and purposely conflated what I've said?

Have you misconstrued what I've been saying on purpose?

My feeling is similar to what you say but not quite - feels like I'm missing a piece of a puzzle.

The sun was a metaphor for an encounter that risks rupture - which has the potential to be harmful when a r/ship hasn't been developed which can then be repaired. And I didn't say I was staring at it

And your question feels like there's an agenda underneath it, if you have a point to make please feel free to speak freely...

I'm confused. I've no problem with acknowledging difference, not sure I've said that anywhere yet you've heard many reasons - please feel free to highlight where I've said that and I'll discuss further.

When met/meeting at depth, the experience is profound. Being misunderstood or ignored from a place of depth is something else entirely.

Which is why I question why so many ND folk struggle with group dynamics. Not everyone plays by the same rules and the rules encourage risk taking.

At least that was how I was taught to navigate groups back in the day.

Something I'm currently trying to work with/through atm. Easier said than done rho

The stressload of group participation has magnified 10x since my training days. To the point I doubt I'd get through the training experience now.

The anxiety is beyond what is tolerable. Taking risks when others choose to play safe is a dangerous game I've found.

Mixed bag I suppose. I had transformative group experiences when training but in the years since it's not been great. Either silence, subject change, disagreement, or an acknowledgement of my bravery.

I tend to experience groups as more performative than anything else these days.

Not sure my original response challenges that proposition too much? I would change the word 'need' to 'would like' and I have zero problem with it.

I respect the former magnitudes than the latter - the two are incomparable in my book.

I distinguish a difference to remaining true to ones values even when the social cost (or risk to self) is high, to virtue signalling, which is potentially incongruent disclosures in a bid for acceptance/admiration/respect from the wider group.