(This is the beginning of a new era for me. I have become accustomed to publishing in various recognized professional journals, but now I just want to get the word out, and there are other reasons I will write about shortly.)<\/p>\n
Although the empty chair technique arose from psychodrama psychotherapy, like many \u201ctherapeutic\u201d techniques, this approach can help psychologically-minded people in general. That is, it\u2019s really for applications in everyday life. All it requires is imaginativeness. It helps to have another friend or family members around who know you and are somewhat familiar with this way of dealing with your taking the time to \u201cthink out loud.\u201d They (trusted friends or family) are in the role of \u201caudience\u201d as you engage in this or that bit of process.<\/p>\n
Publishing this on the internet recognized that our internet-connected culture has perhaps gained enough \u201cpsychological-mindedness\u201d so that it\u2019s possible.<\/p>\n
Most people need to be witnessed, heard, known. Humans are social animals. This technique helps people think through their jumbled thoughts about some issue. To help, what\u2019s needed is that other people around can be oriented to the technique.<\/p>\n
So people need to hear themselves think out loud. That\u2019s why talking to yourself seems crazy. It is crazy only insofar as the social sensitivity is blunted: Normally, people don\u2019t do that. But if you can get friends to play along; if you and they can realize that life is to some extent like theatre—a metaphor of life-as-theatre—it works. This requires people recognizing that we all need a bit of what might have been called the equivalent of psychotherapy to get things clear in our minds. But that\u2019s beginning to happen with more psychologically-minded people. Then a person can feel validated in thinking things out, if one can get others to join in on the process, which friends and family in this psychologically literate age have learned to do naturally.<\/p>\n
With this proviso\u2014that others involved know the \u201cgame\u201d\u2014the use of \u201cas-if\u201d\u2014the use of what the inventor of psychodrama, Dr. Jacob L. Moreno, called the concept of \u201csurplus reality\u201d\u2014then it\u2019s no problem: People can think aloud, which adds a bit of definiteness to what would otherwise be rather blurred in the mind.<\/p>\n
The empty chair technique also can be used for working through a situation when the other can’t be there (died, moved away; or the other doesn\u2019t talk to mere mor-tals). But really, it’s for getting ideas out of your head so you and the audience can hear more objectively and give feedback. It\u2019s of course about talking to someone who is not able to be present. More anon.<\/p>\n
Thinking Out Loud versus Musing<\/strong><\/p>\n People think they think, but often they muse, or the adopt an opinion from someone who seems to have thought, and they claim to agree with them, saying that they thought that too. Really coming up with an independent thought may be slightly different.<\/p>\n Really, people sort-of think. Actually, often political leaders say what we are in-clined to agree with and we say \u201cyeah.\u201d The trouble is that when<\/strong> our leaders speak and we ae inclined to agree, then doubts, opposite thoughts, are repressed, pushed aside. Hearing one side articulated by a leader whom we are tempted to follow, inclined to agree with, has the unfortunate side effect of implying that the matter has indeed been thought through. This is an illusion! The opposite thereby gets \u201cun-said\u201d and hidden, and the opposite, or doubts, might be also sort-of true. So taking personal responsibility to have a conversation about it\u2014presenting both sides\u2014getting both sides said out loud, equalizes it and allows higher functions to operate, higher functions such as judgement.<\/p>\n It is generally unacknowledged how much plausibility counts for belief, but there\u2019s a big difference. Lots of things can seem plausible but on closer inspection are full of flaws. Astute advertisers, political campaigners, and others feed on these. They talk themselves into believing their own propaganda, so most seem (to themselves) sincere. But the whole things stands on the ground of sort-of hypnotized focused attention. (Indeed, much of human life operates not on ab-solute truth, as it seems to do, but rather on illusion, which seems like absolute truth!)<\/p>\n Another pseudo thinking process is a sort of rehearsal. It\u2019s lining up your thoughts. In this sense, one talks to oneself. The problem is that those who do generally don\u2019t bother to have an audience who can say, \u201cDid you hear what you just said?\u201d This reinforces craziness.<\/p>\n Knowing about psychodrama presupposes this audience and works to keep the conversation more balanced. There is an audience who tests reality. (There\u2019s a function in psychiatry known as \u201creality-testing\u201d\u2014asking \u201cbut is it so?\u201d There\u2019s enough political ambiguity that this is in fact rather elastic. The current Presidency of the USA tests this frequently!)<\/p>\n Back to psychodrama: Having an audience reinforces the need to reality-test. Speaking nonsense is not okay, and people know it. There\u2019s a huge gap, though, speaking propaganda, mouthing cliche<\/font>s, engaging in bulls…t, and it blurs over into what is assumed that everybody-knows (but actually only a small cadre of believers agree on, and not really in detail), and there are many other forms of what I (charitably) call \u201cblurred thinking.\u201d <\/p>\n This blurring carries over into courtesy, while efforts at making conversation more accurate seems \u201cpicky.\u201d We give each other lots of room this way, overlooking dumb things\u2014or maybe it\u2019s us who is dumb?<\/p>\n Anyway, talking out loud, it helps to clarify your thoughts by arguing with yourself and knowing there\u2019s an attentive and critical audience out there. It doesn\u2019t help if you can harangue the audience into meekly agreeing, though. But there\u2019s a middle area where one has a reality check, and that\u2019s where talking out loud to oneself, with a respected audience listening, makes sense. <\/p>\n Summary<\/strong><\/p>\n Most people are not committed to clarity, though. Just getting along suffices. Folks just want to get by without a lot of friction, which allows the world to go on. A lot of nonsense, cliche\u2019d thinking, and stupid stuff disguised as thoughts that are obvious or \u201ceverybody knows\u201d slip by without comment\u2014in the service of fellowship and harmony.<\/p>\n It needs to be thus, until the level of discourse or intelligence rise, which may (for most people) be never. But for people who can keep up, asking themselves as well as others \u201cis it so?\u201d then talking out loud with an audience willing to say \u201cthat\u2019s just not so\u201d is a useful tool.<\/p>\n For example, rehearsal may be helpful when preparing for an ambiguous encoun-ter. You don\u2019t know what the other person or people will say. Or it may be to clarify your own thinking. The technique of multiple parts of self is helpful. Part of me thinks…. while another part wonders….<\/p>\n Rehearsal also my be used to communicate to those near and dear how you are mixed in response or just mixed: Part of me while another part of me… It\u2019s more inclusive to the other person, expressive you willingness to be open to the others\u2019 feedback. One needs seeks help in deciding. Comments?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" (This is the beginning of a new era for me. I have become accustomed to publishing in various recognized professional journals, but now I just want to get the word out, and there are other reasons I will write about shortly.) Although the empty chair technique arose from psychodrama psychotherapy, like many \u201ctherapeutic\u201d techniques, this […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2813","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blatner.com\/adam\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2813"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blatner.com\/adam\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blatner.com\/adam\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blatner.com\/adam\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blatner.com\/adam\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2813"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blatner.com\/adam\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2813\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2814,"href":"https:\/\/blatner.com\/adam\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2813\/revisions\/2814"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blatner.com\/adam\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2813"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blatner.com\/adam\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2813"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blatner.com\/adam\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2813"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}