Re: Ethics

Yes, I agree. Well put. It is important, when considering an analysis of Erickson's interventions, to place him and his actions in historical context. This implies three important distinction for me: he was seen as a medical psychiatrist (not a Ph.D. or MSW or MA); he was see that way in the 1930-50s (primarily); psychiatry and pychology was much less accessable and was more mysterious to non-professionals at that time. As a result people expected him to be authoritarian as a medical expert and they did not often possess concept and opions about his treatment suggestions based upon a background in pop-psychology (no venus/mars, no games people play, no Oprah, no infomercial about personal growth, no psychocybernetics, etc.).

I could go on, but the point is, that as Dr. Zeig has pointed out, one must be sure to extrapolate about how Dr. Erickson's tactics, conduct, attitudes, etc., would unfold in today's environment were he to be practicing now.

And too, when borrowing ideas for interventions from him, be sure to adjust and attentuate your conclusions based upon this historical variation.

Replies:

There are no replies to this message.

| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |

Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.