Creep, Signature, Antagonist, and Constants

The four parts of this post's title are terms unique to Non Cognitive Psychotherapy (NCP) espoused by Russ Hoover and require some hard work to understand what he means!

THE CREEP

'The creep' is the tendency in psychotherapy to move away from proper therapy towards 'treatment corruption' (p. 68). Examples of the latter diversion/distraction techniques and/or not adhering to the 'primal rule' (as given in last post).

The creep, therefore, has to be managed and its temptation has to be resisted. Not to resist means that the therapist ends up badgering the client to give up their irrational thinking and adopt the thoughts/values of the therapist. However, generally speaking, therapists are not 'value specialists' (yet cognitive methods imply that therapy is chiefly about getting the client to accept new values).

Hence, 'tracking "the creep"' (p. 69) is understood as a vital part of NCT being 'an integral part of many tactics employed' (p. 69). Hoover says that what is crucial is that of 'locking [client] perspective in place so that mood antagonistics' (p. 69) affect the client's mood alone.

[[Consulting the Glossary I find that 'antagonist' is defined as the 'active therapeutic ingredient used in NCP that when correctly employed blocks or inhibits emotional irritation while holding constant all relevant observations [attitudes, views, values] typically creating that mood' (p. 207). He has borrowed the antagonist idea from neurobiology where antagonists 'bind to a receptor [and block] its activation' and has applied this notion of antagonistic action to psychotherapeutic tactics.]]

Hoover concludes this section asserting that the question should not be how the client feels so much as the question of how well the treatment has preserved the original client perspective as mood reduction is occurring (slightly rephrased, p. 69).

THE SIGNATURE

A signature inter alia is 'any unique, distinguishing aspect, feature, or mark' according to an internet reference here. Hoover leaves the reader to figure out what the 'thing' is that he is examining to determine its unique or distinguishing feature. As he begins this section examining adversity, I can only assume that it is the distinguishing feature of ADVERSITY that he is seeking.

He says that adversity is associated with 'emotional irritation' (p. 69) and the presence of the latter doubles as a 'workable definition of adversity' (p. 69). I take it that he is trying to pin down more precisely just what is the distinguishing feature of adversity since adversity is so important in his whole conception of therapy.

THE ANTAGONIST

It would be well to rehearse what Hoover has said as I've outlined it in the paragraph above using the [[square]] brackets because I've found this area of the topic a struggle to comprehend what is being said.

He opens this antagonist subject thus: '[a]t NCP's inception in 1989, a certain order was recognized to all things and from which any incident or condition is made to occur' (p. 71). He also says in the same opening paragraph that 'this order' he is speaking about 'contains within it a response to the oft-repeated symptomatic question of "why?"' (p. 71).

This section seems to be an outline of a 'metaphysical' position which he summarises in seven theses (pp: 71-72):

1. 'The universe is made to function in a certain fashion and in that sense can never be out of order'. Of course from a person's perspective, car tires do get annoying punctures at times and we do think that universe is out of whack when all sorts of bad things happen but 'the procedures by which [the universe] operates . . . cannot be broken'.

This assumption is a curious one for us living in a secular age. It seems to have been taken out of a Christian view of things leaning towards the Calvinistic wing of Christianity. Of course, it can be said that the present order of things is 'out of order' because of the introduction of Eden's apostasy; however, in other ways, law and order are decided features of the universe we inhabit.

2. 'When the forces responsible for an event come to pass, it is absolutely [proper] . . . for that event to occur, in that it would be impossible for it to be otherwise . . . . [For] to be otherwise would set the universe out of order, and the universe cannot be out of order'.

3. On the other hand, if 'the conditions responsible for an event fail to occur, it would be utterly unsuitable and improper [unnatural, abnormal, illogical] for that event to occur'. My words in square brackets in this sentence indicate the flavour of 'unsuitable and improper' although in a later note he rejects the terms 'natural' and 'normal' because of the dangers of 'creep' which involves the use of invalid defence mechanisms.

4. 'In that every event is made to happen, the best evidence that [an] event has been made to happen is [the existence of] that event itself.' In other words, he seems to be saying that the existence of an event means that the event has been caused.

5. And on the other, 'the best evidence [that an event] has not been made to happen is its failure to occur' (p. 72).

6. The fact that an event could occur 'is insufficient to legitimize its occurrence since the conditions that make it happen still may never take place' (p. 72).

7. '[W]hen something is [as] yet uncertain it is improper for it to be certain at that particular time'.

+ He adds in a note that his conception laid out in these seven point above is not meant to exclude random or serendipitous events but doesn't develop the point at length.

When we scan this set of frameworks, what is he trying to say?

At very least, he is arguing for a world in which things occur lawfully. Notice his use of the word 'proper/improper' or 'suitable/unsuitable' which I've drawn attention to above in 3.

However, though I have set these theses out fully, it seems to me at least that the next section, The Constants, is much more helpful for therapists as a set of guiding 'precepts' when doing this form of therapy.

The Constants (Precepts)

Hoover understood it seems that the theses above needed some 'other allied precepts' to make NCP work effectively and framed those below known as Constants.

The first of these principles is that when we are upset (depressed, anxious, or angry) something is not 'okay' in our environment and to try to imagine it is 'okay' is to distort the nature of what is happening. This precept is aimed at all forms of cognitive and behaviour therapy that attempt to reduce clients' anger, anxiety and depression in the face of genuine adversity by confronting their 'irrational thoughts' or by seeking to change their behaviour. As Hoover has said previously, people react in these ways because adversities actual or potential 'matter to them'.

His second precept is that 'anyone confronted with the same circumstance or threat potential as the client, would be upset as well, unless it was over something they could not or had not sensed or something that for what ever reason did not matter to them' (p. 73-74). This latter [result] happens because all humans don't share the same values or experiences; therefore, a threat for one person may not be a threat for another. A flat tire for the average motorist is an annoyance at least but could easily be experienced as a blessing by those who remedy such problems.

His point being that clients will often understand their psychical reactions to events as evidence of their particular weaknesses rather than understanding that most people faced with their situation will feel as they do. This misconception is more likely given a greater intensity of clients' circumstantial reaction.

Moreover, not to experience pain in the presence of adversity he describes as 'quirky', 'aberrant' and even dysfunctional.

Hence,

irritation is not the product of a mind unable to contend, but a mind contending with something (p. 74).

If I could inject a clarification at this juncture: Hoover is suggesting that when a client is angry about a cheating spouse's betrayal for example, that reaction is understandable and should not be tamped down by getting the client to 'think' things like, because 'I am reacting this way, I am thinking irrationally' (Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy). To do that, is to suggest that marital sexual betrayal is no big deal for the sinned-against partner. Clearly for many clients in my experience, it is a big deal and from Hoover's point of view trying to argue them out of that mind-set is 'stoic indoctrination' and lacks any respect or compassion for clients' plights.

He uses a helpful image of an adversity being represented by a lock and by a particular antagonistic being represented by the key to the lock.

He concludes this part of his exposition by announcing two features related to the degree of relief likely to be experienced by the application of the antagonist to the adversity:

a) the 'greater the amount of irritation the greater the degree of relief imposed by the antagonist' (p. 75).

b) the amount of relief is greatly affected by the frequency of application or better by the level of conviction in which it is presented. So clients are encouraged to fully decide for themselves what in particular about an adversity was proper.

He illustrates this principle with the following: a male client (J) comes to Hoover (H) saying that his past counsellors were accusing him of fighting attempts to get better (pp 75-76). I've shortened and also quoted directly slabs of this interchange that were difficult to summarise.

H: They were wrong about that of course.
J: Well of course. I've been working hard.
H: What might happen do you think if you acknowledged that 'it was not proper' for them to think you're getting better but rather that it's proper to think something's wrong instead: chiefly, that you're not getting better! How might you feel then?
J: . . . Maybe I'd feel better.
H: 'Yeah, it's hard to be upset about something you know is proper'. [Important point here. One of his guiding principles as detailed in earlier posts.]
J: 'I don't know about that'.
H: 'What do you mean?'
J: 'Well, I hear it all the time; a person knowing something is proper and still being upset. It's like someone telling you to forget it and go on, and you're still being madder than hell about. It just p----s me off more'.
H:You are wise and have a sensible mind to see that. You might still be upset unless you recognise more specifically what is proper. It's proper for them to think something wrong about you, something untrue. Let me ask you: is it always proper for people to know the truth about you?
J: Well, no.
H: I want you to see that if you merely say that it's proper for them not to know the truth about you you might not sense any relief. You might even think it's fine to be mad with them. So you want to apply it to what is specifically wrong.
J: But they should know better.
H: Then again, is it always proper for people to know what they should?
J: Probably not.

Next time: a more detailed summarisation of his methodology up to now and more illustrative examples. The next post will see the end of PART TWO. In PART THREE he deals with a review of therapeutic transcripts which cover a range of psychological problems.