Dr. Andrew Ritcheson

Like most things, this site is a work in progress.  Please bear with me…

Live Well

Andrew

I am in the process of writing a little essay to address this question that often comes my way.  Stay tuned.
A

Seneca, writing at the beginning of the first millennium AD, observed this truth: We are more often frightened than hurt; and we suffer more from imagination than from reality.  This seems as accurate now as it was in ancient Augustan Rome.  Our distinctively human ability to imagine is as skilled at beguiling us with fantasy, as it is at gripping us with terrible fear.  Although this fearful imagination rarely reflects an objective or probable reality, this does not make its impact on the way we navigate our lives and our sense of well being any less.  In many respects, the impact of imagination is even more pernicious.  This places the imagination in a powerful position in determining both our emotions state and whether experience is disagreeable, pleasurable or neutral.  Indeed, imagination, as Seneca has described it is on a level footing with reality itself.

The phenomenon that Seneca, perhaps unknowingly at the time was alluding to is also a defining characteristic of many fears and phobias.  This characteristic is that fears and phobias are most often irrational.  This is because contact with what is feared is either unlikely to happen, or will not result in the feared consequences.  The harm –the “suffering”— thus, remains imagined or anticipated, and a function of being frightened rather than being directly hurt or even in a real situation where being hurt is a likely outcome.  Yet, despite rarely or never encountering what is feared, and very infrequently –if ever– having ones specific fears confirmed, aversion and avoidance persists, and in some cases worsens. 

Of course, the maintenance and worsening of the fear might be due to a variety of other mechanisms.  For instance, mechanisms causing maintenance might be socially or culturally transmitted information, observations of others, or simply not having an occasion to appropriately confront the feared object or situation and overcome or reduce the fear response.  However, returning to Seneca’s remark, another potentially more pernicious and potent agent of maintenance and enhancement of anxiety and fear may be the imagination itself. 

If the imagination is, indeed, capable of supplanting or mimicking reality as a source of hurt and fright, as Seneca suggests, it is in direct opposition to positive growth and change.  Negative or fearful imagination’s impact in this regard can be ubiquitous and timeless, as it can never be hidden from, whether it is the echo of a previous experience or the feelings and images of dread directed towards a future one. 

For the treatment of both clinical and non-clinical fear and anxiety –whether that is social, phobic, or generalised- an important focus is identifying and attempting to understand our fear-related imagination, negative predictions, and resulting continued experience of discomfort and frustration.  These represent blockades to making effective and lasting change, and although clearly difficult to broach, and sometimes appearing overwhelming, can be addressed and worked through in regular one-to-one therapeutic sessions.

I have a personal life coach practice in London, which sees people with many issues including fear and anxiety.  I invite you to have a look at my website www.DrRitcheson.com which describes my background, practice, approach, and details about how to be in touch.

This is a copy of a post I recently made in response to a post that coaching may in fact be a kind of “therapy lite,” but that having some clinical training -as a Doctor or Psychologist might- is a real benefit to the coaching client: more here: http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2007/08/15/do-you-need-a-life-coach/
This is a very interesting topic, indeed, and as the Life Coaching industry continues to grow, one that will have increasing importance.  Dr. Marks brings up a familiar distinction between patients who present with some sort of clinical syndrome and those who do not fall into any diagnostic criteria, but nonetheless, would benefit from ongoing contact of some sort.  I often encounter this in my own practice.  I am not sure, however, that the sub-clinical end of the continuum represents, necessarily, “therapy lite.”  These are individuals who, although not presenting in acute distress or disability, could and do benefit from our skills, which are normally reserved for the less well part of the population.  What happens is less therapeutic (full fat or half fat), and, yes, I suppose, more of a coaching or mentoring enterprise.  Embracing this distinction has provided a real sense of breadth to my practice, and allows me a great range of clinical contact.  However, it does little to allay my fears that there are many people functioning in the role of coach or mentor with very little in terms of training, awareness of professional responsibility and limitation, ethical guidelines, supervision etc.  I often wonder how well prepared these coaches and mentors are to operate effectively and appropriately as professionals occupying a position of considerable influence and privilege.  I am, in the end analysis, worried about it, and currently investigating the possibility of arranging some “post qualification” training for life coaches who wish to consolidate and develop their core clinical skill set, having found their training, for this and other reasons, to fall rather short of the mark…

Psychologist or Life Coach:  I need Help Finding Help!
 
This is a quandary that seems to be experienced with ever-increasing frequency, and indicates an uncertainty not only in how the lay public seeks help, but also in how they understand and characterise their own needs. 
 
The contemporary helping professional functions in a great number of guises, which presents the client, patient, or training candidate with a staggering array: psychiatrists, psychologists, psychotherapists, life coaches, mentors, counsellors, and any of a number of other designations.  Each of these professionals lay claim to a particular area of expertise and specialised practice, and each of them have trained and become certified through different routes, of varying length and strenuousness.  And, to further complicate the situation, a vocal portion of this array will tout their qualifications, approaches and treatment remits as being the best or most appropriate.  It does not seem unlikely to think that sometime in the near future, we will hire people to help us find help.
 
This article does not seek definitively and exhaustively to explore the characteristics - similar, dissimilar and unique - of the many approaches and forms of help available.  It concerns itself instead only with the basic relationship of Psychology to Life Coaching, the exploration of the idea of a Psychological Coach, and its ramifications for training and credentialing.  The article also refutes the suggestion that in terms of their respective backgrounds, approaches and techniques, they are fundamentally different, or that in some way Life Coaching represents a valueless “therapy lite” and that Psychology has nothing to offer except when a clinical diagnosis is involved. 
 
These two appellations – Life Coaching and Psychological Therapy - more usefully mark different modalities or foci of interaction with clients, lying at either end of a wellness or need continuum (for instance, clients who are mentally ill versus clients who are “life ill”) than wildly opposed theories and systems of treatment.  It is my belief that the Life Coach and the Psychologist are a good deal more similar than many would have you believe, and that the basic clinical tools and techniques typical of many modern psychotherapeutic approaches are in many respects identical to those that should be employed in good Life Coaching. 
 
The absence of quantifiable mental illness does not mean that the issues are any less serious, or deserve anything other than the highest-level, qualified, professional attention.  Accordingly, those clients who, although not clinically unwell, seek to make change of varying degrees of depth in various aspects of their lives, should expect to benefit from the skills -empathy, intuition, formulation, unconditional positive regard, professional and ethical awareness, assessment of risk and other such core competencies- possessed of a practicing psychologist or someone who had undergone advanced training, and not settle for something more dubious.  This under no circumstances implies that a cold, dispassionate, pathology focused, and medically-borrowed model of mental illness need be applied to the life coach seeking population, but instead that the specialised skills of engagement, thinking about thinking, and responsible client contact, have an equally valuable application to the well and the unwell alike. 
 
A client who seeks to overcome a deep depression, and benefits from the structured approach of cognitive behavioural therapy, for instance, is not entirely unlike the high-functioning executive who has experienced a revelation of profound career dissatisfaction, and who requires a structured, collaborative coaching approach to help him or her become oriented towards an attainable set of goals and to live life -professionally or otherwise- more optimally.  Only one of these people fits diagnostic criteria; both, however, are in need.  This need, I propose, is best filled by the psychologist coach; someone who has benefited from formal, recognizable training and a period of supervised practice and is equally at home in dealing with problems and concerns both clinical and non-clinical, and capable of differentiating between the two.  The inclusion, if possible or appropriate, of the full spectrum of human needs, can also add real depth and satisfaction to ones practice.  It allows the seeing of clients who might otherwise be deemed “not ill enough.”  Furthermore, stepping-up and claiming this area of need also provides the public with a more safe, qualified, and ethically and professional accountable alternative to the sometimes dangerously unqualified practitioners. 
 
“Psychologist or Life Coach?”  I suspect that this question will remained unresolved and subject to further discourse.  Perhaps the key is greater public education about various treatment domains, as well as more stringent regulation.  Maybe the solution lies in the public feeling justified in taking their experience and needs – even if not psychiatric – seriously enough to demand the best.  It might also be strongly encouraged that these helping professionals are not only honest with their clients, but candid with themselves, about the limitations and appropriateness of their skills when it comes to the enormous range of people seeking input and support.  Surely this is an open topic and very much in development, and its outcome, for now, seems impossible to
predict.
 
-
 
Dr. Andrew Ritcheson operates a Psychology and Life Coaching practice in London.
 
http://www.DrRitcheson.com
 
 

Greetings All,

I wish you all a great amount of holiday cheer.  I am pleased to say that my Chelsea practice will be opening in the new year, and am happy to great new clients in the area, and further afield.  I am also pleased to report that earlier this month, my son, Edward, was born here in London, and is thriving.

Live Well,

Andrew