3.26.2010

No Empathy

The first staffing that I mentioned before also included another, separate mess that I tried to clear up in the second staffing, but only got worse.

In the eating disorders program, partial hospital patients are supposed to follow their whole meal plan when they are at home. Patients are not supposed to weigh themselves. I did not follow my whole meal plan for the first week and I did weigh myself. There were daily "check in" sheets to fill out with what we ate for dinner and whether we had used any eating disorder "behaviors"*. I lied to the staff on these sheets and I lied to the staff when they asked me about these things. I did not trust the staff or the hospital program and I acted on that distrust by restricting what I ate and by weighing myself. Eventually, when I trusted a little bit more, I started eating my full meal plan. Because I was weighing myself, I saw that my weight wasn't increasing and I was able to trust a little bit more. At that point, I started being honest with the staff and on my "check in" sheets about weighing myself and not eating everything I was supposed to.

I was upfront with the staff about my distrust of the hospital program and the staff. I wrote my psychiatrist a letter that described several areas of distrust. She had read that letter before I went to the hospital. Hospital-therapist read the letter when she did my psycho-social assessment. Hospital-dietitian read the letter when we had a meeting to establish that I am a real vegetarian (as opposed to an eating-disorder vegetarian) and that I was not willing to compromise about my vegetarianism. I mentioned several times in conversation that I did not trust the program or the staff. I'm pretty sure I made my distrust clear.

By the time of the first of the two disastrous staffings, I had been honest with the staff and on the "check in" sheets for a few days about what I was eating and about weighing myself. The dietitian expressed surprise at the fact that I was weighing myself when it came up in the staffing. Though that may not have been a reprimand, it felt like one (I don't care if that is unreasonable because I can't change how I felt about it into something more rational). I had written on the "check in" sheet for the past few days that I had been weighing myself, so, as far as I was concerned, I had done my part in communicating this "behavior" to the staff. It was not my fault that the dietitian didn't know I was weighing myself. My psychiatrist asked why I was restricting and weighing myself. I said that I did not trust the staff or the program. I said that weighing myself actually gave me a tiny amount of trust in my meal plan and that it was a large factor in my beginning to follow my meal plan, though no one seemed interested in that genuine positive. The staff were pointing out ways in which my behavior was sub-optimal in the context of the hospital program. They may not have been angry, scolding, or disappointed in me, but that is how it felt. It felt like an attempt to shame me into reform.

Later, I asked the dietitian if the "check in" sheets were meant to be a device of communication between the patients and the staff and she said that they were, but that the therapists usually took them. Hospital-therapist never spoke up and said, "Oh, maybe I should have showed you Jessa's 'check in' sheets because they had information you would have wanted to know." Hospital-therapist said nothing, just letting me sit in the discomfort of the dietitian's surprise, letting it appear that I was responsible for the misunderstanding, or at the very least, not acknowledging that the misunderstanding was largely because she dropped the ball on communication.

When I reflected on the staffing, I thought it was absurd that the staff would react with surprise at my acting on my distrust of them and the hospital program. I made my distrust very clear; it would have been more reasonable than not for them to have expected me to act on my distrust. I thought about how I would have liked to have seen that situation handled: with empathy. I would have liked them to acknowledge that acting on my distrust was an understandable thing for me to have done, and perhaps that my distrust was reasonable given my past experiences. Empathy would have validated my feelings of distrust and made the whole confrontation feel less accusatory, but I did not feel any empathy from anyone in the room in response to my situation. This seemed inconsistent with what they taught me about the importance of empathy and validation and good skills for relating with those around me.

At the next staffing, I brought this up. I had already established with the staff individually that I had done my part in communicating my "behaviors". I told them that I did not feel any empathy from any of them, when it seemed like empathy would have been the proper response, especially within what they teach us of relating to others. My psychiatrist cut me off and accused me of black-and-white thinking when there wasn't any (more about black-and-white thinking later). Hospital-dietitian said that perhaps there wasn't any empathy in the room for my situation. I was shocked. Right away I did the logic to notice that, if I could assume that this was a genuine possibility from her perspective, she had just admitted to me that she personally had no empathy for my position (because if she had empathy, a lack of empathy in the room would not have been possible from her perspective). I did the logic, but the result was so egregiously awful and shocking that I didn't fully believe it until later when I could slow down and say to myself, "Yes. She really did say what I think she said." I think my psychiatrist may have noticed what hospital-dietitian had implied about her own lack of empathy, because she immediately followed what hospital-dietitian said to say that she had felt empathy for my position, although she had perhaps not expressed this. Hospital-therapist was, again, silent throughout. There was no recognition that the lack of expressed empathy on their part was perhaps a lapse in good relationship skills on their part. There was no recognition that it was reasonable of me to expect that they would have expressed empathy or that it was reasonable for me to feel slighted when that expectation of empathy went unfulfilled.

----
* In the hospital, there is a lot of intentionally ambiguous talk about eating disorder "behaviors". I put it in quotation marks because it is a use of the word that is particular to that context. "Behaviors" include things like purging, restricting what you eat, weighing yourself, taking laxatives, over-exercising, etc.

8 comments:

  1. Your experience of the world is so incredibly detailed!

    I wonder how often this group of professionals (even those that work together daily) make contradictory assumptions about definitions of myriad everyday words and phrases. Rachel has kindly taught me that "normal" people do not remotely care about linguistic precision -- as long as what a person says fits an existing mental mold for an appropriate comment in the current situation.

    This is to be expected perhaps as people in general are extremely predictable -- analysis of daily movement of hundreds of people by the location of their cell-phone signals (with permission for the study) showed that the vast majority of an individual's daily movement is very predictable. There are different patterns -- some people travel regularly, and others stay at home whenever possible, but VERY few people ever change patterns.

    I would be very interested in the answers of those in the room to a couple written questions (written to avoid discussion and consensus). I would ask, "What is empathy?" "When should a mental health patient feel empathy?" and "When should somebody treating patients with eating disorders feel empathy?"

    I suspect you would get wildly contradictory answers to all three questions from all four of you -- even if those with whom you have discussed empathy in the past answered with your previous discussions in mind! When one person (i.e. Jessa or Ken) tries very hard to avoid all the maddeningly pervasive definitional ambiguity by holding tightly to the ACTUAL definitions of words (rather than constantly assuming meaning based solely on assumptions of what a person is likely to mean)

    I also suspect that such an exercise would be pretty pointless in the context of your struggle, but I've never been one to let priorities or objectives get in the way of acquiring interesting knowledge. Or perhaps I simply have place an abnormally high priority on acquiring interesting knowledge...

    My word: versi

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hrm, I did not finish the last sentence in the fifth paragraph (as might be inferred by the absence of a period, or just the glaring sentence fragment). This is perhaps a symptom of leaving in the middle of writing the sentence, and posting days later after the exciting conclusion to this poor, unfulfilled fragment was long forgotten!

    my word: mollecti

    ReplyDelete
  3. I have recently begun to suspect that a lot of people only vaguely express their meaning (they don't bother to be very specific or accurate, but their jumble of words is enough to get the jist across) and only vaguely interpret what they hear (they don't listen carefully, they only bother to hear the jist). It is frustrating to me because I will get asked a lot of questions that I've actually already answered if they bothered to actually pay attention. And when I pay attention to exactly what they say, and get genuinely confused because they didn't say what they meant (i.e. when I'm not just being a sass about it), they get mad at me and complain that I'm arguing semantics. Of course they mean that I'm derailing the conversation by being picky about some small unimportant point. But really, semantics is important and I was having a hard time understanding them, I was trying to clarify.

    Even if most people don't use language this precisely, I find this to be a poor excuse in the case of mental health care professionals. They get very picky about some aspects of linguistic precision. If I say something in black-and-white terms, even if I don't actually think of it that way, but it is just easier to say that way, they will pounce on it and point out my black-and-white thinking. If I say I felt yelled at, they will pounce, saying that no one actually raised their voice. Even if I did not say I was actually yelled at, only that I felt yelled at. Even though "yelled at" is often used colloquially/metaphorically to mean "scolded" without necessarily involving raised voices. If I point out a lack of linguistic precision on their part, even of the very same sort they will pounce on me for, they act like I'm just being annoying.

    So they pounce on my lack of linguistic precision, yet complain when I am equally precise but to different ends. And they pounce on my lack of linguistic precision even when I was precise, even when I phrased things exactly how they offer as the alternative to black-and-white thinking or whatever, because they weren't paying enough attention to my actual words, only the jist.

    Maybe it is that they have been taught to look out for these particular things, black-and-white and all, but don't realize that it is linguistic precision that they are after, so don't recognize it as the same thing when I go after linguistic precision. Still, I don't think that is a good excuse. They can't have their cake and eat it, too.

    ReplyDelete
  4. In many cases they CAN have their cake and eat it too -- it's pretty rare to come across people as smart as you, and as you have noted, it's not really linguistic precision they're after. With most people (who don't carefully analyze every word) simply changing some pervasive patterns of thought can strongly influence their mood. Their goal is to help people, and tailoring their methods to the average person probably significantly increases their success rates!

    The way you express yourself can have a profound effect on your emotions. This is why they stress affirmations -- even if they're not true (as you've objected in the past) they actually work. In a sense they really can become true (at least when dealing with how you see yourself) if repeated often enough.

    Of course, your intelligence easily gets in the way by trying to muddle out a consistent set of rules for this whole therapy/treatment thing so the selective obsession for linguistic precision looks bizarre without context.

    Unfortunately, the more you analyze their speech for inconsistencies, the more you'll find and (I suspect) the less you will "succumb" to their mind hacks. As the mind is strongly influenced by patterns of speech and thought that CAN be consciously chosen this is not necessarily good even if it allows you to maintain your noteworthy linguistic talents!

    I have no idea how to quit pulling apart the speech of people you don't trust -- it drives my wife absolutely nuts in church when sermons that are syntactically and logically nonsensical nonetheless seem to have some obscure meaning that everybody "assumes" but is obviously not taught by the sermon itself! I do often wonder how many people hear the same message under the overall "stop sinning" or "reject fear" platitudes, but that's besides the point.

    What I DO know, is that you can hack your own mind outside of external treatment, or even in opposition to any treatment. Placebos work even when you know they're placebos (especially if you assume they'll work because you know they did in the past), and you really can influence your view of the world by telling yourself something you don't actually believe. I don't even have to lie to myself -- there are myriad situations (like a critical boss, or a partially completed goal) where my first reaction is to accept blame or criticize myself. It's most effective if you DO contradict yourself -- for example, if you believe you're a worthless failure, you tell yourself that you accomplished something even if you don't feel it (worthless failure is an emotional judgment call, I don't see contradicting what I feel as lying as long as I don't reject THAT I feel it). Even just focusing on details or situations or aspects of situations where you were successful can strongly improve your view of the rest of your world

    Anyway, I know it's nothing new to you, I'm just musing before work.

    Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

    (my word: quater)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hey...just wanted to say that I really enjoy your blog. It's refreshing to read something so detailed and honest. I look forward to reading lots more from you.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Tendril-Squishing indeed!

    Cheers!

    ReplyDelete
  7. "I have recently begun to suspect that a lot of people only vaguely express their meaning (they don't bother to be very specific or accurate, but their jumble of words is enough to get the jist across) and only vaguely interpret what they hear (they don't listen carefully, they only bother to hear the jist). It is frustrating to me because I will get asked a lot of questions that I've actually already answered if they bothered to actually pay attention. And when I pay attention to exactly what they say, and get genuinely confused because they didn't say what they meant...."

    This is one of my top frustrations when it comes to communication. In the face of this happening repeatedly, I often choose to limit my conversation with some (most) people, or limit my topics in anticipation of my meaning (or words) being misunderstood/misinterpreted.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'd meant to also say that it is extremely exhausting to be the sole party in a communication who takes reasonable steps to be understood clearly, or to make sure that they are understanding clearly.

    ReplyDelete

I have controversial views on a controversial topic. Things can get heated. You are welcome to disagree with me, but please be respectful about it.