Fight
the Brain or Change the Brain
Recent research in neuroscience
tells us what we had thought impossible is now possible. Early implicit (non-verbal bodily held) learning – the kind of learning that can also drive most forms of psychological distress, can actually be
erased under the right circumstances.
First let’s take a look at what this means.
Implicit learning is laid down in the
nervous system by early repetitive emotionally charged and/or traumatic experiences. As the child grows, it becomes linked to basic beliefs about the self.
Here are some common examples:
I am inherently bad/dirty/stupid/ugly…etc.
I can't depend on anybody - I have to do it all myself.
Love is
dangerous/painful/violent/exploitive and it’s best to avoid and/or to just expect all relationships to be like that
Feelings are dangerous - it's best not to have any (or at least not to let them show).
To love is to be mistreated/to mistreat
If I try I will fail, so best not to try
Needing is wrong, dependence is wrong – it’s best not to have
any needs
These kinds of basic self- beliefs, or “scripts” can drive large areas of life. Because they are laid down implicitly, they tend to be immune to logical questions or arguments.
This is because they are actually held in the body and nervous
system rather than in the “thinking brain” and are faster and more automatic
than logical thinking because they were originally somehow tied in to
perceptions around survival (the messages may have originally been communicated
by needed childhood caregivers, for example).
Fighting
the Brain
Since most forms of psychotherapy are
verbal, we have believed up until recently that the only way to cope with this kind
of dysfunctional learning was to challenge the logic of such beliefs and set up
competing neural pathways that would eventually, through a great deal of
practice, become available as the “preferred” neural pathway. This is the foundation of much of cognitive
and behavioural psychology.
Nevertheless, competing new beliefs learned
logically in adulthood can never completely replace implicitly held beliefs laid
down and reinforced in childhood, and so relapse must be constantly guarded
against, especially when something associated with the earlier learning reappears
in the current environment (a"trigger" - e.g. a boss or spouse implying the same message).
The most common way set up competing
beliefs is via Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, whereby the dysfunctional beliefs
are deliberately challenged with new thoughts and learnings which are then
rehearsed in new behaviours repeatedly until the old beliefs lose their
original power. Psychoanalytic or psychodynamic interpersonal therapies also
challenge old implicit learning via the therapeutic relationship itself,
whereby repetitive experiences of (hopefully!) non-exploitive, consistent,
secure attachment with the therapist replace the old beliefs that were based on
exploitive, inconsistent, insecure early attachments.
Example:
CBT: Old implicit learning: “If I try I
will fail, so best not to try” as applied to job hunting (for example). CBT
points out the illogic of the assumptions and encourages rehearsing new
alternate thoughts such as “if I try, even if I fail, I can still learn
something of value – and sometimes I will succeed.” Behavioural rehearsal might involve the
assignment of applying for xyz jobs and keeping track of any learnings or
successes to challenge the old learning. Through repetitive practice the new learning creates
a new available pathway that offers an alternative to the older learning –
however it doesn't replace it, and confirmations of the old learning (such as
failures that don’t result in positive learnings) can always send the person
back to the old learning. I call this
approach “fighting the brain.”
Changing
the Brain
In their recent book, Ecker, Ticic and
Hulley (2012) present the basic components necessary to erase dysfunctional implicit
learning, and then examine numerous contemporary forms of psychotherapy to
determine which types incorporate these components. Not surprisingly, most do.
However, some forms of therapy are more efficient, systematic, and deliberate
in their use of these components than others, making for a considerable
difference in the likelihood of success and the length of time it takes to get
there. The components are as follows:
1.
Identify and access the memories
of the original experiences that laid down the implicit dysfunctional self-beliefs
2.
Retrieve the
accompanying learning simultaneously
with the memories: both emotional
and schematic
3.
At the same time as the
feelings, memories and beliefs are retrieved, provide repeated experiential
disconfirmation of the dysfunctional learning
a.
Disconfirmation must “make
sense” emotionally
b.
Original learning plus
disconfirmation must be repeatedly paired within a 5 hour window
c.
After 5 hours a built-in
mechanism re-locks the synapses
Each
of these steps correspond precisely to phases 4 through 7 desensitisation stage
of the standard 8 phase EMDR
protocol, even though EMDR was developed 20 years prior to the current
confirming discoveries in neuroscience.
My main concern here is that this “new” approach, even if applied systematically, will probably have similar limitations and cause similar results to those that have emerged from years of research and practice in EMDR. It will seem miraculous when applied to dysfunctional learning caused by a single –incident trauma; but it won’t be so simple when dealing with the many ego states that develop in response to repeated developmental trauma and dysfunctional implicit learning.
When
ego
states are split off by trauma, they are sometimes unable to “share” information
from one state to another. This is what enables many survivors of horrific experiences to function at a
much higher level than they might otherwise if the full impact of the traumas were
experienced by all parts of self equally. This also means that it is essential,
when applying the above steps, to make sure that the ego states that hold the
implicit dysfunctional learning are the
same ego states that are exposed to the disconfirmation of that learning.
I
think we will find, as we did with EMDR, that more complex forms of traumatic
implicit learning are most effectively addressed with a combination of trauma
processing (or Implicit memory “erasure”), somatic mindfulness, and ego state
work.
References:
Ecker. B, Ticic , R, &
Hulley, L. (2012). Unlocking the
Emotional Brain. New York: Routelege
Shapiro, F, & Forrest, MS,
(2004) EMDR: The Breakthrough Therapy for
Anxiety, Stress and Trauma. New York: BasicBooks
Tronson, N. C.; Taylor, J. R. (2007). Molecular
mechanisms of memory reconsolidation. Nature
Reviews Neuroscience 8 (4): 262–275