Method # 2 ??

Why is it better to get our news from a newspaper than from television?

There is a right answer — or at least a ‘two-point’ response (vs. a ‘one’ or a ‘zero’). In the dark ages of IQ measurement, such questions found themselves huddled together in a ‘sub-test’ call Comprehension. The intent of these fifteen or so queries was to test an individual’s understanding of social roles, practices, and conventional standards of behaviour — the ‘why and how things work’ in our culture. The latter day ‘down-grading’ of the test itself to ‘supplementary’ status (read, ‘optional’) says perhaps a little too much about what’s currently valued.

Screen Shot 2021-03-11 at 2.59.44 PMWhat isn’t political nowadays? Timing and sound bites rule. Balance and in-depth examination have been displaced in favour of encapsulated ‘scoops’, ‘breaking news’ — orchestrated to trade on a news cycle’s ‘treat of the week’; or more properly, treat of the instant. And washed through the filter of political correctness and ratings. The bandwagon has supplanted the orchestra.

So to Harry and Meghan’s ‘bombshell’ tell-all with Oprah. It was difficult to miss the carefully crafted, stage-managed, scripted frame that surrounded this ‘intimate and candid sharing’. And I’m sure that airing the interview on the eve of International Women’s Day, as a jury is being selected in the murder trial of Derek Chauvin (George Floyd’s killer), against the backdrop of BLM was all just some fortuitous accident. Not! Oprah didn’t become a billionaire by throwing something against a wall to see what sticks.

I’ve come to accept that the Americanization of Harry is long since a done deal. This is an incomplete individual who continues to struggle with his menu selections — as in ‘Will that be fish or fowl?’ Royal or no? And, as my mom was ever so fond of reminding me, ‘if you hang around with kids from the South End, it will lead to trouble!’ (Bearing in mind that the ‘South End’ was five blocks away in our small, southern Ontario border town.) Harry appears to have leapt from adolescence to, well, late adolescence in recent times — easy pickings for the more world-wise, image-managed folk with clear(er) ideas of what they want, where they’re headed, and how to get there. Harry, sadly has been compelled to make some difficult choices. In the face of a growing awareness that fence-sitting, in aid of having his cake and. . . was not working out.

Equally, in this ‘Age of Divisiveness’, simply making a quiet call and getting on with the business of same is not an option. ‘Herd loyalty’ must be declared, good guys and bad guys named and shamed, and a public spin spun. And with such widely aired and shared proclamations, victims and villains are all the more clearly drawn — and available to be adopted as icons, symbols, and spokespeople for causes in this increasingly partisan world.

But first the drama needs to tick the relevant boxes, to provide traction and points of attachment for movements, lest the viewing audience fail to connect the dots in the intended fashion.

Let the dot-connecting begin. . . A little something for everyone.

- Racist innuendo.
- Mental health allusion.
- Echoes of one or two prior tragic scenarios
- Cult control / and attendant helplessness and isolation
- David and Goliath narrative

I like to think of myself as neither a rabid monarchist nor a barking populist. What I do find increasingly disturbing is the ease with which ‘responsible news sources’ (and others!) are able to be manipulated and ultimately exploited to self-serving ends. All the usual suspects hopped on with all the usual biases and slants. CNN and MSNBC scrambled to interview BLM and psychiatric sources. Fox and its ilk championed (gulp!) the polar opposite.

And so to the opening question. The ‘right answer’ can include:
- In depth coverage
- Assignment of opinion to editorial pages
- Balanced reporting
- Paced, measured absorption of material
- Fact checked substance

Perhaps Method # 1 has something to recommend it after all.

Choir for the Non-Singer

. . . to borrow rather liberally from John Spong’s 2007 book title.

Wilson: “Mind listening while I ruminate?”
Tim: “No, just do it over there in the bushes.”
(Home Improvement, 1994)

main-qimg-7a562edd217b0d55008b1334cd4c4a64So this feels a bit like being a next-door neighbour to something; but looking over the fence at it. Not so very different from the (borrowed) passion many of us feel as we watch the ongoing melodrama staged for our entertainment (I’m sure!) south of the border. Opinion forms, but entitlement to speak it, to judge it, is always a bit iffy. So with that fuzzy disclaimer out of the way. . . I’ll channel my inner Wilson in this effort at Church Improvement.

Living adjacent to church music for the better part of three decades, it’s impossible to remain distanced from, unmoved by the choristry. On reflection, pie charting life so far — the usual ‘work, home, leisure’ wedges — would see this element, music, inform any and all ‘slices’. Where and how we vacation, where we choose to live, circles of friends who surround us, and the myriad dramas and melodramas played out before us for three decades bear witness.

Peering over the fence affords a certain perspective, the detachment allowed the observer; but not so available to the participants themselves. Couple this ‘arm’s length’ point of view with a penchant for identifying patterns, dynamics, and a passion for making sense of human behaviour. . . and a ‘diagnosis’ begins to take shape.

Communities, by their nature are a melange. A mix of personalities, agendas, motivations for membership, loyalties, needs . . . you name it. Moving to a town, no one really expects homogeneity, a seamless blend of sameness and agreement. Generally we find a way to coexist, to assimilate, to accommodate. Compromising where we have to; establishing boundaries to maintain our individuality where we can. We find our place in the grand scheme.

And choirs, to this outsider, seem to be no different. The hierarchy is clear. The roles are defined. The mayor, the neighbourhoods, the prominent citizens, the foot soldiers; conductor, vocal registers, leads, and. . . the alto line. Turf wars surface, bylaws are transgressed, egos tweaked — but the ‘village’ somehow survives, finds its balance again and settles into place, homeostasis restored.

Now consider for the moment, as a point of comparison, the scenario recently played and playing out in a political forum not so very far away. For two and a half centuries, the ‘peaceful transition of power’ has characterized the US and its installation of a new (or reprised) administration — until now. While the rest of the world has acknowledged a 46th president, functionally half (or close enough) continue to pay homage to number 45. The resulting chaos has impeded what should have been a perfunctory hand off and preparation for the next era. Confusion and a wholly unnecessary seismic rift has widened, perhaps defining and highlighting an essential schism that has always been resident — but ‘managed’. Too many cooks (by one) do spoil the broth.

And so to the clerical equivalent. The relationship between clergy and musician is complex — and has been ever thus. An overlapping, coordinated, consultative marriage may produce the satisfying result that has typified the western church for far longer than the aforementioned republic to the south. Sacred music has been fostered, sheltered, and championed with a mutual enhancement and appeal that has kept many of us ‘Wilsons’ connected and ‘in the pews’. All good — until it isn’t.

The church appears to share a few things with its current political dopplegänger — at least where the more dysfunctional examples are concerned: autocracy and a marginalizing of the ‘will of the people’ amongst the most evident. Particularly in times of transition, attempts at seizing the decision-making reins fuel divisiveness, promote a ‘choosing up of sides’ with all the expectations of stated fealty. Ultimately this creates a fault that, at best, destabilizes, dilutes the institution; at worst, destroys it. A resistance to ‘trusting the process’, relying on lay expertise that has well-served the institution is supplanted by a clerical compulsion to control and direct — to its peril!

One final constitutional parallel, this time with a monarchal flavour. Could we, just for the sake of metaphor of course, examine the role of, say a Queen Elizabeth. A symbol of an institution, guardian of ceremony and tradition, the nominal head of the church — but one that is obligated to otherwise ‘stand back and stand by’ — to horribly mix metaphoric content. Clergy have long since come out from behind the curtain. No longer are they perceived as the ‘wizards’ (pointy hats aside) that embody a direct conduit to a deity; the intermediary without whom the parishioner’s prayer is not heard. Martin Luther pretty much put pay to that.

Clearly, there continues to be a role: custodians of ritual. The day-to-day governance, the matters of ‘state’ are overseen by a corporation and counsel, by representatives of the people, and by ‘managers’ selected for their skill set and expertise. Perhaps it’s best to concede, to confine function to consultation and support, leaving music to the musicians. Perhaps autocracy has hit its best before.

How it feels on the other side of the fence.

So Does It Work?

Screen Shot 2021-01-24 at 12.34.33 PM copy

Is the sky blue? Is exercise good for you? Do politicians lie? One could say ‘yes’ to all of these ‘universal truths’ and be right . . . most of the time. But, like many questions that beg a one-word, absolute, black or white answer, some of the time that ‘yes’ would be wrong — or, minimally, too reductionist, unqualified, misleading.

The house research muse happened on a podcast recently somewhat invitingly entitled Does Psychotherapy Work? Right up there with is there a unified theory of everything?. At some very basic level, a simple ‘yes’ is a pretty compelling answer. However, like those days when it’s cloudy, daily workouts have inched towards ‘positive addiction’, or an elected official actually tells it like it is, the answer is, at the very least, more nuanced.

Evidence-based ______________. Fill in the blank as you will: programming, treatment, practice. The list stretches to the horizon. The current ‘buzz phrase’ has popped up across any number of disciplines, generally attached to an increased need for accountability, science-based ‘proof’, appropriate resource allocation, program efficacy. Gone are the days of reading the bumps on someone’s cranium, channeling Woody Allen as he sits with his analyst five days a week, exorcising evil spirits, and (dare I say it), intercessory prayer. Show me the beef have belatedly become the new watchwords. Demonstrated proof of effectiveness, controlled studies are the foundation of evidence-based intervention. Injecting bleach evidently doesn’t make the cut. Critical thinking over snake oil.

An essential companion to an evidence basis is measurement of outcome. I drop a glass of milk to the kitchen floor, the glass usually (in my case) breaks and the contents spill. I hit my thumb with a hammer and I feel something I describe as pain (and occasionally say some words). Pretty predictable, pretty reliable results. Basic physics and anatomy. Running these ‘experiments’ repeatedly isn’t going to produce a different outcome — ever. Certainty, though messy and painful, is assured.

Enter psychotherapy. The universe of ‘what constitutes psychotherapy’ has been being refined for well over a century. Study after study, meta analyses, and careful replications have created for practitioners a tool kit with a relatively reliable track record. Results not quite as predictable as losing grip of a glass or a misdirected hammer swing — but better than past life regression!

A metaphor or two. I use an iMac with two terabytes of storage; and just for convenience, I carry a one kilo backup buddy that lets me take my office on the road. And, once on said road, my interactive sat-nav stares back at me from the car’s dashboard. My Apple II+ with a brain now eclipsed by my watch and the comfortable satisfaction refolding a paper map are distant memories. I certainly have the equipment to do wonderful things (and rarely get lost!). But I’m 74. Despite fancying myself pretty tech-savvy, I sometimes reflect on my ‘facility’ with these marvellous ‘gadgets’. In short, great tools do not, on their own make for great results. After all my now sainted mother stored her potato chips in the stackable clothes dryer and never did get the hang of that VHS machine. The tool is necessary — but insufficient in the absence of some very essential conditions!

The most efficacious (I love the very sound of that word) of interventions, ever so thoroughly validated, are only as good as the practitioner into whose hands they fall. Only ‘work’ if they’re the right match for a presenting complaint; brought to one’s office by a client who’s willing to engage. And only produce measurable, long-term change when the ‘fix’ facilitates the development of a sustained practice. The caution of a revered mentor continues to echo in my mind: Insight without action is bullshit!

Back to outcome, the elusive challenge of measuring it — and, perhaps, in the bargain offering an answer to the question at the top of this piece. The sine qua non (another ‘flows trippingly off the tongue’ favourite!), of course is the ‘tool’, the treatment itself. And, for the sake of argument, let’s assume all credentialed practitioners are created equal and competent. Which means they’re all pulling the right screw driver out of the pouch for the job. We’ve stacked the therapeutic deck pretty favourably.

So I take out my ruler, stick it under my tongue for 30 seconds and note that my temperature is 10 inches (allowing for old technology and metrics). Hmm? Nothing wrong with the ruler; no problem with the protocol. Just a meaningless result. Welcome to the world of outcome measurement. Some age old issues remain. Principal amongst these: Are we measuring the right stuff? In a meaningful way? With a valid and reliable test? And, for good measure (in the spirit of same), repeatedly and over sufficient time?

Tests purporting to tap into the holy grail of psychotherapy abound, ranging from short and useless to long and unwieldy. The ‘quickies’ are widely employed and easily interpreted. And almost certainly measure your body temperature in units of length!

One or two rungs up the ladder are longer, better normed, less easily ‘fooled’ instruments. Mapping the course of change is usually possible with these — with two important riders. They are typically ‘self-report’ which brings along all manner of client-based biases — intended or no. And with these, the hobbling of comparing a therapeutic technique’s effectiveness across a client group (not just measuring one individual’s progress over time). One person’s ’28’ as it were, may be quite different from another’s — an ‘I feel pretty good’ versus ‘this is pretty much how I always am’. Still, better than ‘the ruler’.

Finally, the ‘gold standard’ instruments address most of the above concerns — but at a cost measured both in time (for completion) and dollars (expensive). Great information, reliably assessed. Just painfully impractical to administer repeatedly — not to mention client resistance (the ‘Oh God, not again’ dilemma).

So does psychotherapy work? Yes it does. . . sorta, kinda, probably, I guess — with good tools, skilled mechanics, right ‘gadget’ for the job, and committed customers with an eye for future maintenance. How do we know? Well. . . that’s the rest of the story, isn’t it.