5.5.3 New Developments In Technology vs. Helping Professions

In this Sub-Chapter I will explore the differences between development in the manufacturing and technology and the helping people in distress fields.

In choosing what kind of research is appropriate for the latter I felt that it might be good to work back from development, which, in the normal course of events, follows research.

I think that this working backwards will help you understand where my opinions on research in this field came from, and how they were formed not only by what I experienced, but also the developmental context in which research is done.  (That is, the kind of expectations that people have in respect of what will be developed when the research is complete).

Firstly, has anyone ever researched how long it takes studies, or findings, or recommendations to become day-to-day standard custom and practice (i.e. why there is such disconnect between theory and practice) in the helping people in distress field when there is an almost seamless link in commerce/business, and engineering and science?

The reasons why were proposed in a previous Chapter and I will add a few more here:

~ Solving a technical or mechanical problem doesn’t involve our emotions whereas solving a human (or social) type problem usually does.

~ The reductionist nature of the solution often proposed does not match the systemic and/or holistic nature of the social type problem.

~ Because of its reductionist nature, a technical or mechanical problem can be broken down to individual parts and human problems can’t, so the mechanical problem is more manageable.

~ We can often make money quickly when we solve a commercial or engineering problem – the money that is made (saved) in solving a social problem is realised in the long term.

All these lead to a poor relationship between congruity [1] and theory into practice in social type work and helping people in distress; whereas in engineering congruence is generally high.  In teaching and medicine I’d estimate that it’s about half and half.

I think that another problem is that if we label something, lip service can then be paid to it.  Phrases like social capital, zero tolerance, even mandatory reporting are all bandied around and there is an illusion that something different is being done because a new label has appeared.

And – a favourite trick – sometimes something is called one thing, and after some time it’s called something else, which gives it the appearance of newness.

Development of new products, processes or methods of working has different roots and follows different paths in the fields of technology and helping people which I will attempt to describe in the next post.

[1]. What I mean by congruity in this context is that the practitioners practice (or do) in the field what the theorists discover will work well in the lab.

One of the most interesting things (for me anyway) about new developments that arise in the helping profession (take, for example, Person Centred Therapy that we covered in the Chapter on Modalities – a development that happened in the 1940’s and 50’s) is that the new developments often use knowledge that has come from ancient wisdom, known since the dawn of history.

Take unconditional positive regard, for example, one of the cornerstones of Person Centred Therapy.

There are numerous examples (in respect of the benefits to humanity) of treating people in a non-judgmental way, or giving kindness and expecting nothing in return, in ancient texts that people the world over, for thousands of years, have considered to be worth following as a blueprint for living.

The only ancient text that I am familiar with is the Christian New Testament (and I’m not even too familiar with that) which is the basis for Christianity, a religion followed by billions of people worldwide.  In the New Testament unconditional positive regard – i.e. giving and not expecting anything in return – is referenced a number of times. The one that jumps out at me is the story of Mary and Martha, where Jesus esteemed someone who did nothing as much as the person who worked hard. I know a lot less about other major world religions but I’d say that there are similar messages about loving one’s fellow man, tolerance and forgiveness.

Another element of Person Centred Therapy, congruence (being genuine, true to myself, my beliefs, what one sees is what one gets etc.) is also promoted as being of importance for good living in ancient stories, legends, fables, etc. and it runs like a thread through the entire New Testament.

And the third core condition, empathy (being able to imagine what it is like to walk in another’s shoes) is evident in the well-known instruction to love my neighbour as myself to mention but one.

And that is only person centred therapy!

If we picked any of the humanistic modalities (of which person centred therapy is one, along with gestalt, existential, reality therapy, trans-personal or even modern solution focused brief therapy – I’m  not going to describe all these – you can look them up if you like) it would be the same.

If we fast forward from the 1940’s to the early 2000’s, studies on the brain have shown that unconditional love, creativity, trust and warmth, and techniques like meditation and mindfulness produce chemical activity which has positive effects on the brain which in turn has a healing effect on the psyche – without application of any external chemicals or medication.

The point that I am making here is that the therapists of the 1940’s and 1950’s who discovered new ways of supporting people in distress and then laid down the foundations for humanistic modalities, and the neuroscientists who from the early 2000’s to date have been making discoveries in the neural activity of the brain that are rigorously, scientifically proving the theories of the mid-20^th century humanistic psychotherapies, are telling us very little that is really new.

They are rediscovering old wisdoms, proving them using logic and science, and then repackaging them for a modern audience so that we (the modern audience) will be swung over to their way of thinking and choose such methods when we are forward-planning in respect of helping people in distress.

And we, being immersed in technology for a few centuries now, are more receptive to such arguments than we would be if they were from an ancient text.

For example, recently I read a fascinating article about new studies on how the adolescent brain develops, and how discoveries made about the limbic system and prefrontal cortex explain why adolescents take a lot of risks.

As I said, I am fascinated by this research and love reading about it – but no one can deny that it has been known for millennia that adolescents take more risks than mature adults – and adolescent risk-taking and immaturity is referenced in literature and stories since ancient times.  (As the old saying goes, adolescents are old enough to know it’s dangerous but young enough to do it anyway).

The essential message of the Johari Window, (i.e. that the unconscious mind influences our behaviour and we are not aware of it) has also been known to humanity for a long time.

An example might be Napoleon, when asked who his best General was, replied, General Luck.  This was not a play on words, he was acknowledging (perhaps unconsciously – but I didn’t know Napoleon that well so I can’t be sure) that luck is not a totally random phenomenon, rather it is somehow or another caused by something that is within us that we might not be aware of, and Napoleon twigged this!

And talking about ancient, linked to the above are the endless studies done, and our fascination with how other mammals behave, in particular our close cousins chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans and similar species.

The studies into their behaviour are done because we feel that we can learn something from them about relationships, identity, conflict resolution, and even childhood growth and development.

Now the fact that the content is not new doesn’t mean that they are worthless, or that I (as a fan of person centred therapy and the discoveries of neuroscience) want them to stop.

Far from it – in fact the more that the ancient texts (and the words and exhortations of poems, songs, plays, films and art of all descriptions in every culture all over the world) are proven to contain the more enlightened ideas in respect of helping very distressed people the sooner compassion, love, creativity, warmth, trust, relationship, understanding, empathy and genuineness will – in our choices of methods of healing very emotionally distressed people – not only complement the world of pharmacology and psychiatric drugs, but, over time, become the dominant modality.

Neuroscience [1] is bringing, and will bring about in the future, great changes in the way we help people and educate and support children – a lot of the time proving to the sceptical that which has always been known to the wise. Much of the reason for this is that, as I said above, the sceptical are very impressed by technological and scientific knowledge.

And, to finish this post, I am sure that prophets like Jesus, Muhammed and many others did the same thing – i.e. drew on ancient wisdom for the people of their times. 

Summary:  I will call this type of development circular development, where developments do contain new and innovative elements and knowledge, (such as the role of the limbic system/prefrontal cortex in risk-taking by adolescents) but also contain knowledge almost always known to us in some form.  The existing knowledge is repackaged (and sometimes reinterpreted) to adapt to existing cultural and social conditions – as I explained in a previous post – to make it attractive to the general public.

In the next post I will look at what I will call stepped development.

[1]. It is probably a bit over the top to say that neuroscience is to our education, well-being etc. what the silicon chip is to electronics – but it is certainly bringing fresh impetus to the assertions of person centred psychotherapy that the problems, as described above, that have always beset society are rooted in our emotional selves.

In contrast to the previous post, I don’t believe that there are many modern developments in science and technology that involve rediscovering what was known thousands of years ago and/or has always been known in different guises or forms. 

While undoubtedly many things that were known have been forgotten or lost the vast majority of great technical innovations happen in a stepped, linear fashion. What is discovered is built on what is known already – but it is not really known before it is discovered.

Take, for example, the silicon chip.

This is the little device that has, arguably, brought more changes to the world in the last 50 years than there have been at any time in human history.

No-one in Brian Boru’s day (the early 11^th Century) knew what a silicon chip was.  They knew what sand was, from which silicon, the material that makes the chip, comes from.  But they had no idea that in another thousand years, sand (and related silicon based material) would be processed/synthesised etc. into tiny pieces invisible to the naked eye and be used in the way it is nowadays.

The journey from sand and stones to the silicon chip involved thousands of painstaking experiments and application of complicated theories in physics and chemistry, materials science, mathematics, applied mathematics and engineering in a wide array of disciplines too numerous to mention.

One development led to another, accidental happenings were important as were communication across many different scientists and engineers in different universities and laboratories in different countries, loads of trial and error and the all-important harnessing of electricity [1] before the unique properties that silicon had were discovered and then used to effect change in humankind.

I am writing this on a table made of wood.  I have no idea what as yet undiscovered properties it might have that might bring significant changes to the world.

The same is the case with plastic.  People in the mid-1800’s knew what oil was, but they didn’t know that it would some-day be synthesised into a compound known as polyethylene that would then become plastic that could replace metal, stone, wood, and paper and that would never rust, chip or rot away in the ground and decay.  Similarly, I have no idea what uses plastic will have in even 20 years’ time!

Let us look now at technological developments in healing emotional distress.

As I have stated already, the belief grew that because science brought such advances to healing physical illnesses the same could be done in healing mental illnesses. This made a lot of sense when you think of it.

But unlike humanistic therapies, mainstream medical healers (predominantly psychiatrists and chemists) generally did not tap into ancient wisdom and what was already known.

In fact, what was already known was generally dismissed, thought to be old-fashioned and best assigned to history.  Alleviation of mental illnesses focused instead on new developments in science, biochemistry etc. and how various mixtures of chemicals affected the brain.

True, some of the pharmacological drugs that were (and still are) manufactured used knowledge known for centuries about how herbs, roots, and plants had the potential to change moods and mental states, but the drugs synthesised were seen as new.  They bore very little resemblance to the original herbs, roots and plants, and most importantly, the new drugs had potential to make vast profits for huge corporations, and they still do.

Summary:  I will call this type of development stepped development, where a development, or invention, (like the silicon chip) is a new link added to a very long chain where the previous link is a more primitive version, (or a less developed version), of the latest.  The new link will appeal to the general public because it will solve a mechanistic societal problem, (such as how to go halfway around the world in one flight, or wash clothes quieter) increase comfort, convenience, or simply appeal to that part of us that loves novelty.

[1]. Actually, electricity is an interesting one!  The fact that electricity (and magnetism) existed had been known since ancient times, through lightning and other observed phenomena.  However its usefulness to humans was made possible by experiments that were done from the 1600’s to today, largely in a stepped, linear manner.