Michael, Dan and Company,
Some interesting things arising here lately. I tend to read when I can and
respond rather tersely. This is one point that seems to need to be made though:
while training is very helpful, no amount of training can instill competence if
the practitioner lacks the necessary sensitivity to the field, or the capacity
to see beyond their own issues into the field of the client.
My wife and I attended what probably remains the most exhaustive and intense
training available in SCW. Six full weeks of work over a two year period, with
extensive personal work in between. Our trainer was Heinz Stark, who is a
master of the form and an excellent teacher as well. This is to say that we had
every opportunity to take in and to excel in the presentation of Constellation
Work. In spite of this, there were those from our group who appeared at the end
of the training to still be somewhat lacking in competence.
On the other hand, we were introduced to the system by a dear friend who had
only encountered it a short time before we met in Cornwall. She was able to
perform competently without any formal training and only a limited exposure,
because she has the capacity to do so.
My point is that competence in this field is not synonymous with training,
though I am extremely grateful for the training we received. It is a necessary
but not sufficient precursor to competence.
What do the rest of you think?
namaste,
Kenn Day
Sent from my iPad
On Dec 31, 2012, at 4:22 PM, Michael Reddy <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dan and All,
Thanks to everyone for the wonderful contributions to this discussion.
Deborah, I also agree completely about the paradigm shift aspect of this.
I've written in TKF about this, and will share that with you privately.
On Dec 31, 2012, at 12:21 PM, Dan Booth Cohen, PhD wrote:
Only about 1 in
10 trainees achieves competence.
Dan, first, I'd be interested to know where you get this statistic. Is it
just anecdotal or what? I mean it seems too vague to be useful as stated.
So second, I would like to know, to belong to your population of "trainees"
here, what is required? Consider the following very different groups that
could all be labelled "trainees."
GROUP A--attends for example something like 3 sessions of 3 days each over
aournd 6-9 months. Does no reading, nor any kind of practice exercises
duirng this time. Is really more there for the personal healing.
GROUP B--attends about the same 18 days of training, already has or else
forms a clear intention to facilitate, reads, and faithfully does any
assigned reading, exercises, or practicing
GROUP C--same 18 days, plus clear intention, plus excercises and practice,
now adding a second lengthy training, or else at least three to four 2 or 3
day workshops with different facilitators.
GROUP D--Does everything listed for Group C, but also starts doing private
practice-constellations for friends and relatives, and/or gathering the same
friends and relatives for small group experiments. May not charge for these.
GROUP E--Does all of the above, plus has access to and attends regularly for
at least a year an organized "practice group" of fledgling facilitators who
take turns working on each other
So, Dan, if you want to say that 1 out of 10 "trainees" in the broadest sense
of GROUP A achieves competence, that's one thing--and it may be true. But we
all know that many come to trainings and don't really form a clear intention
to facilitate. They are getting personal healing and/or testing the waters.
Of course, it would be great to know what proportion of people "just testing"
this really is. And maybe the quality of the trainings and a sense that
facilitating is difficult scares some away from forming the clear intention.
But now, are you still claiming that 1 out of 10 "trainees" who are in the
smaller Group C category don't achieve competence? And what are you
asserting about proportions of those in Group D and Group E who do or do not
achieve competence?
(Notice that I did not yet include a GROUP F, which includes all preceeding
activities, now adding some active professional supervision afterwards).
It seems to me that, in order to make your assertion into a useful statement,
as opposed to just something that sounds very depressing, at least this kind
of clarity around what constitutes "training" must be achieved. Not to
mention even yet, what your standards are for what constitutes "competence."
Something in me does not want to let poorly conextualized, very depressing
statements about our work go unchallenged--especially from someone of your
stature. They can further deter people from wanting to try to learn in the
first place, which I do not feel is what we want. We want people to want to
learn, and we want very much to get better at the training, and at achieving
felxible, but real consensus about what constittutes "competence."
OK, now, another set of questions comes up for me here as well. Can a person
become competent at private constellations without doing a lot of work in
groups? Can a person become competent at private constellations without at
least practicing group constellations for a time? While I agree that the
form needs to be liberated fromt he group-only connection--I'm not sure it
can be wholly independent of group work. Could you have learned what you do
privately without facilitating a lot of group constellations (at whatever
level of competence)?
Best,
Michael
Michael Reddy, PhD, CPC, ELI-MP
michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
610 469 7588
www.reddyworks.com
Holistic Health & Happiness
DIAL IN TO OUR FREE, WEEKLY, QUESTION & ANSWER
TELECONFERENCE--THE CONSTELLATION CALL
Q&A on Family Constellations and Coaching
Tuesdays 8-8:45 PM EST
(530) 216 4363 PIN 481775#
What is The Constellation Call?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
