Psychological Universals

Professionals do not have all the possible answers to intervene in any situation, whether conflicting or not. Would be to think that they have managed to "isolate" all possible behaviors and reactions, plasma in a book as a formulary (like drugs, where we see the indications, dosage, side effects, compatibilities, active, etc.). Fortunately or unfortunately, there is no such book because human reality is so complex that each of us is a particular universe.

Now, what is possible, as does our physiology, is to identify and study those "universal psychological" we match each other. For example, if we took a blood sample from a group of healthy subjects, we would see that variations in the number of red blood cells to be between 4 and 5 million. We would say that in this case, the physiological basis or Universal, is between 4 and 5 million.

At no time did we say "we must have exactly 4.7 million red blood cells to be healthy." There is talk of ranges of values ​​or "physiological margins of error" because we are not machines and each is subject to many variables, among which we cite as an example, the age, sex, temperature, state general physical condition, etc.

It is common practice that I ask students or professionals who supervise, whether this or that psychological intervention was good or bad, if what they did at one point was correct or not. These and similar questions, and presuppose the existence of "a model accurate answers infallible" and as I said above, there are no such models.

It should make clear that there are no interventions good or bad. There are only appropriate or inappropriate interventions. You see, the "tactics", ie touch and common sense to intervene in any situation, is much more important than "technical" with what is done.

For this reason, I always ask my interlocutor, to tell me how was the outcome of their dispute. If I answer that was satisfactory, it did the right thing. This answer, it seems worthy of platitudes, but indeed, there is an axiom of communication, which is strictly enforced: "The result of communication is the response you get." If you are able to redirect a difficult situation, you're using the "technique" right, be it consciously or not.

Any professional worth his salt, must be open and willing to invest in the acquisition of new tools (see the post the toolbox), which will help improve their work.

These "basic tools" are called Universal or Psychological Foundations of a technique. It is those lessons that will give us an advantage over conflicting partners. Always managed to make "5 minutes ahead of events" and that, in most cases, is the difference between success or failure of what we propose.

Imagine you want to improve your tennis with a good teacher. The first foundation that will teach you will get to know well the racket. You might think that's silly, because how would I know not to take a racket? Of course you know "hold" a racket, but you do not know is that there is a way to "hold" different as the blow that you give.

The different grips are the result of effort and study of many people who have dedicated their lives to further the art of tennis. This is not a whim of the teacher, but a basic foundation of the technique taught. If you listen, you change your game. Initially, it is very likely to pass through a phase of confusion and discouragement, which do not give foot ball (see the post a few words about learning in psychotherapy) and you feel like giving up. What happens to you, is that so far, your game you've been building your technical shortcomings offset.

The results will not be immediate, but should remember that everything worthwhile in life takes time to get it and there are no shortcuts.