Écoute empathique / Psychothérapie
Écoute empathique, à distance ou sur place à Royan, France, pour soulager l'angoisse, la dépression, les traumatismes de l'enfance, les dépendances, les comportements parfois diagnostiqués comme troubles obsessionnels, schizophrénie, etc.
Je n'ai pas de diplôme en psychothérapie. Quand j'allais très mal, les psychiatres, psychologues, psychothérapeutes que j'ai trouvé n'ont pas su m'aider. J'ai donc cherché, et continue à chercher, des méthodes plus efficaces, et j'utilise les meilleures que je trouve. Comme l'écoute empathique (Rogérienne), qui est peu enseignée. C'est efficace, mais ça demande plus que du savoir livresque, et je me suis formé par la pratique.
Vous n'êtes pas assez heureux/heureuse? Pas satisfaite/satisfait de votre vie?
Je vous aide à retrouver le bonheur. Essayez-moi, c'est gratuit!
Ce que je fais, c'est vous écouter, vous accompagner avec empathie pendant que vous faites le point sur ce qui se passe, ce qui vous gêne, ce qui vous satisfait et ce qui ne vous satisfait pas. Ceci aide à trouver du calme, et à y voir plus clair. Et progressivement vous arrivez à mieux définir vos objectifs, et comment les atteindre.
Comme disait Carl Rogers   :
Je peux témoigner que quand vous êtes en détresse psychologique et que quelqu'un vous entend, vraiment, sans vous juger et sans essayer de vous changer, sans chercher à s'occuper de vous à votre place, eh bien on se sent sacrément mieux!
Lorsque j'ai été écouté et lorsque j'ai été entendu, je peux re-percevoir le monde d'une nouvelle façon et aller de l'avant. C'est incroyable à quel point des problèmes qui semblent insolubles deviennent possibles à résoudre lorsque quelqu'un écoute, comment des confusions apparemment sans espoir se séparent en courants qui s'écoulent relativement clairement.
Ceci rejoint mon expérience personnelle, et c'est ce que je m'efforce de vous apporter. Grâce à la considération bienveillante, et à l'empathie, que je continue à perfectionner et à apprendre de Carl Rogers et de son élève Marshall Rosenberg  , et aux méthodes et aux modèles de psychothérapie développés par Pia Mellody   et Peter Levine  .
Vous pouvez aussi entendre les détails de mon parcours, à chercher et ensuite soigner les traumatismes de l'enfance qui m'handicapaient, pour savoir d'où vient ma compréhension de ces troubles. Je suis convaincu qu'avoir sombré dans des extrêmes de désespoir et de faiblesse, de peur, de confusion, et de douleur; et ensuite d'avoir touché le fond, et ensuite d'avoir eu la chance de trouver une voie vers le salut et une solide paix intérieure, cette expérience et le fait d'en tirer les leçons, tout ça est très utile pour comprendre et épauler d'autres personnes qui traversent des difficultés similaires.
Je ne pense pas que j'aurais pu apprendre ça à l'université ou dans n'importe quelle autre formation. Le résultat pour vous, c'est que vous parlerez à quelqu'un qui a vécu quelque chose de semblable à ce que vous vivez, quelqu'un qui peut se faire une idée du genre de situation difficile dans laquelle vous vous trouvez.
Options de paiement
Je demande un paiement seulement si vous êtes satisfait(e) des résultats que vous obtenez.
C'est similaire à la façon dont je propose les logiciels sur ce site depuis 1996 (mon métier précédent): vous êtes libre de télécharger et d'utiliser les logiciels, et de ne payer que lorsque que vous êtes satisfait(e) que vous appréciez suffisamment les avantages qu'ils vous apportent.
De plus, vous ne payez que ce que vous estimez être équitable, dans la mesure de vos moyens. Je suis convaincu que c'est un arrangement qui donne de bons résultats.
Lorsque je me débattais avec une angoisse qui risquait de me submerger, j'avais très peur de dépenser le peu d'argent que j'avais pour payer une thérapie qui serait inefficace. Le fait d'avoir vécu cette expérience est une autre raison pour laquelle je propose mes services sans vous demander de vous engager à payer.
Si vous préférez payer chaque séance de façon traditionelle, parce que ça réduit la peur d'être redevable de quelque chose, on peut aussi procéder comme ça.
Options de consultation
Vous pouvez réserver des consultations à l'avance, ou bien demander à l'impromptu si je suis disponible dans 10 minutes. La durée des consultations est celle qui vous convient, du moment que je suis disponible. On peut parler pour juste quelques minutes si vous voulez, ou une heure, ou deux. Du moment que ça nous convient à tous les deux. Et vous pouvez arrêter quand vous voulez.
Vous pouvez m'envoyer un email à l'adresse ci-dessous pour prendre contact. Ensuite on pourra utiliser Skype ou WhatsApp ou Google Hangouts ou Discord ou meet.jit.si (qui ne nécessite pas de donner ses informations de contact) ou autre, pour des conversations audio ou vidéo. Ou des messages texte, si vous préférez.
Le modèle d'immaturité developpementale de Pia Mellody
La matrice des chemins vers la libération (basée sur la Communication NonViolente)
Le tableau entier est visible en Français ici. Je le trouve très utile pour savoir où je peux faire des progrès.
Carl Rogers on loneliness
“When I take the gamble, the risk, of trying to share something that is very personal with another individual and it is not received and not understood, this is a very deflating and a very lonely experience. I have come to believe that such an experience makes some individuals psychotic. It causes them to give up hoping that anyone can understand them. Once they have lost that hope, then their own inner world, which becomes more and more bizarre, is the only place where they can live. They can no longer live in any shared human experience.
I can sympathize with them because I know that when I try to share some feeling aspect of myself which is private, precious, and tentative, and when this communication is met by evaluation, by reassurance, by distortion of my meaning, my very strong reaction is, “Oh, what’s the use!” At such a time, one knows what it is to be alone.
So, as you can readily see from what I have said thus far, a creative, active, sensitive, accurate, empathic, nonjudgmental listening is for me terribly important in a relationship. It is important for me to provide it; it has been extremely important, especially at certain times in my life, to receive it. I feel that I have grown within myself when I have provided it; I am very sure that I have grown and been released and enhanced when I have received this kind of listening” --Carl Rogers, A Way of Being.
Carl Rogers on what makes for effective therapy
“The first element could be called genuineness, realness, or congruence. The more the therapist is himself or herself in the relationship, putting up no professional front or personal facade, the greater is the likelihood that the client will change and grow in a constructive manner. This means that the therapist is openly being the feelings and attitudes that are flowing within at the moment. The term “transparent” catches the flavor of this condition: the therapist makes himself or herself transparent to the client; the client can see right through what the therapist is in the relationship; the client experiences no holding back on the part of the therapist. As for the therapist, what he or she is experiencing is available to awareness, can be lived in the relationship, and can be communicated, if appropriate. Thus, there is a close matching, or congruence, between what is being experienced at the gut level, what is present in awareness, and what is expressed to the client.
The second attitude of importance in creating a climate for change is acceptance, or caring, or prizing—what I have called “unconditional positive regard.” When the therapist is experiencing a positive, acceptant attitude toward whatever the client is at that moment, therapeutic movement or change is more likely to occur. The therapist is willing for the client to be whatever immediate feeling is going on—confusion, resentment, fear, anger, courage, love, or pride. Such caring on the part of the therapist is nonpossessive. The therapist prizes the client in a total rather than a conditional way.
The third facilitative aspect of the relationship is empathic understanding. This means that the therapist senses accurately the feelings and personal meanings that the client is experiencing and communicates this understanding to the client. When functioning best, the therapist is so much inside the private world of the other that he or she can clarify not only the meanings of which the client is aware but even those just below the level of awareness. This kind of sensitive, active listening is exceedingly rare in our lives. We think we listen, but very rarely do we listen with real understanding, true empathy. Yet listening, of this very special kind, is one of the most potent forces for change that I know.
How does this climate which I have just described bring about change? Briefly, as persons are accepted and prized, they tend to develop a more caring attitude toward themselves. As persons are empathically heard, it becomes possible for them to listen more accurately to the flow of inner experiencings. But as a person understands and prizes self, the self becomes more congruent with the experiencings. The person thus becomes more real, more genuine. These tendencies, the reciprocal of the therapist’s attitudes, enable the person to be a more effective growth-enhancer for himself or herself. There is a greater freedom to be the true, whole person.” --Carl Rogers, A Way of Being.
Carl Rogers on certification
“The third challenge I wish to raise, especially for clinical and social psychologists, is the radical possibility of sweeping away our procedures for professionalization. I know what heresy that idea is, what terror it strikes in the heart of the person who has struggled to become a “professional.” But I have seen the moves toward certification and licensure, the attempts to exclude charlatans, from a vantage point of many years, and it is my considered judgment that they fail in their aims. I helped the APA to form the ABEPP* (as it was then known) in 1947 when I was president of the APA. I was ambivalent about the move then. I wish now that I had taken a stand against it.
I am not in any way impugning the motives, the integrity, and the efforts of those who aim toward certification and all that follows from it. I sympathize deeply. I wish there were a way to separate the qualified from the unqualified, the competent worker from the opportunist, the exploiter, and the charlatan. But let’s look at a few facts. As soon as we set up criteria for certification—whether for clinical psychologists, for NTL group trainers, for marriage counselors, for psychiatrists, for psychoanalysts, or, as I heard the other day, for psychic healers—the first and greatest effect is to freeze the profession in a past image. This is an inevitable result. What can you use for examinations? Obviously, the questions and tests that have been used in the past decade or two. Who is wise enough to be an examiner? Obviously, the person who has ten or twenty years of experience and who therefore started his training fifteen to twenty-five years previously. I know how hard such groups try to update their criteria, but they are always several laps behind. So the certification procedure is always rooted in the rather distant past and defines the profession in those terms.
The second drawback I state sorrowfully: there are as many certified charlatans and exploiters of people as there are uncertified. If you had a good friend badly in need of therapeutic help, and I gave you the name of a therapist who was a Diplomate in Clinical Psychology, with no other information, would you send your friend to him? Of course not. You would want to know what he is like as a person and a therapist, recognizing that there are many with diplomas on their walls who are not fit to do therapy, lead a group, or help a marriage. Certification is not equivalent to competence.
The third drawback is that the urge toward professionalism builds up a rigid bureaucracy. I am not personally aware of such bureaucracy at the national level, but it certainly occurs frequently at the state level. Bureaucratic rules become a substitute for sound judgment. A person is disqualified because he has 150 hours of supervised therapy, while another is approved because he has the required 200. No attention is given to the effectiveness of either therapist, or the quality of his work, or even the quality of the supervision he received. Another person might be disqualified because his excellent psychological thesis was done in a graduate department that is not labeled “psychology.” I won’t multiply the examples. The bureaucrat is beginning to dominate the scene in ways that are all too familiar, setting the profession back enormously.
Then there is the other side of the coin. I think of the “hot-line” workers whom I have been privileged to know in recent years. Over the phone, they handle bad drug trips, incipient suicides, tangled love affairs, family discord, all kinds of personal problems. Most of these workers are college students or those just beyond this level, with minimal intensive “on-the-job” training. And I know that in many of these crisis situations they use a skill and judgment that would make a professional green with envy. They are completely “unqualified,” if we use conventional standards. But they are, by and large, both dedicated and competent.
I think also of my experience in groups, where the so-called naive member often has an inner wisdom in dealing with difficult individuals and situations which far outclasses that of myself or of any other professional facilitator. It is a sobering experience to observe this;. Or, when I think of the best leaders I know for dealing with groups of married couples, I think of a man and a woman, neither of whom has even the beginning of satisfactory paper credentials. Very well qualified people exist outside the fence of credentials.
But you may protest, “How are you going to stop the charlatans who exploit persons psychologically, often for great financial gain?” I respect this question, but I would point out that the person whose purpose is to exploit others can do so without calling himself a psychologist. Scientology (from which we might have learned some things, had we been less concerned about credentials) now goes its merry and profitable way as a religion! It is my considered judgment that tight professional standards do not, to more than a minimal degree, shut out the exploiters and the charlatans. If we concentrated on developing and giving outstanding personal help, individuals would come to us, rather than to con artists.
We must face the fact that in dealing with human beings, a certificate does not give much assurance of real qualification. If we were less arrogant, we might also learn much from the “uncertified” individual, who is sometimes unusually adept in the area of human relationships.
I am quite aware that the position I am taking has disadvantages and involves risks. But so does the path to certification and licensure. And I have slowly come to the conclusion that if we did away with “the expert,” “the certified professional,” “the licensed psychologist,” “we might open our profession to a breeze of fresh air, a surge of creativity, such as it has not known for years.
In every area—medicine, nursing, teaching, bricklaying, or carpentry—certification has tended to freeze and narrow the profession, has tied it to the past, has discouraged innovation. If we ask ourselves how the American physician acquired the image of being a dollar-seeking reactionary, a member of the tightest union in the country, opposed to all progress and change, and especially opposed to giving health care where it is most needed, there is little doubt that the American Medical Association has slowly, even though unintentionally, built that image in the public mind. Yet the primary initial purpose of the AMA was to certify and license qualified physicians and to protect the public against the quack. It hurts me to see psychology beginning to follow that same path.
The question I am humbly raising, in the face of what I am sure will be great shock and antagonism, is simply this: Can psychology find a new and better way? Is there some more creative method of bringing together those who need help and those who are truly excellent in offering helping relationships?
I do not have a final answer, but I would point to one suggestive principle, first enunciated for me by my colleague Richard Farson (personal communication, 1966): “The population which has the problem possesses the best resources for dealing with the problem.” This has been shown to be true in many areas. Drug addicts, or former drug addicts, are most successful in dealing with individuals who have drug problems; similarly, ex-alcoholics help alcoholics, ex-convicts help prisoners—all of them probably more effectively than professionals. But if we certify or otherwise give these individuals superior status as helpers, their helpfulness declines. They then become “professionals,” with all the exclusiveness and territoriality that mark the professional.
So, though I know it must sound horrendous, I would like to see all the energy we put into certification rules, qualifications, licensure legislation, and written and oral examinations rechanneled into assisting clinical psychologists, social psychologists, and group leaders to become so effective, so devoted to human welfare, that they would be chosen over those who are actually unqualified, whether or not they possess paper credentials.
As a supplement to guide the public, we might set up the equivalent of a Consumer Protective Service. If one complaint comes in about ineffective or unethical behavior, it might well be explained away. But if many complaints come in about an individual’s services to the public, then his name should be made available to the public, with the suggestion “Let the buyer beware.”
Meanwhile, let us develop our learning processes in psychology in such new ways that we are of significantly more service to the public than the “instant gurus,” the developers of new and untried fads, the exploiters who feed on a public obviously hungry to be dependent on someone who claims to have the answer to all human problems. When our own lasting helpfulness is clearly evident, then we will have no need for our elaborate machinery for certifying and licensing.” --Carl Rogers, A Way of Being.
Carl Rogers videos
Marc Moini 2019