Countless times have I heard that someone has been through a “Hearing Voices training” only to learn that what they actually mean is that they’ve participated in one of those voice hearing simulations with headphones and recorded voices alternately screaming and whispering in their ears. These things are not equal. In fact, the simulations can be 
dangerous, especially when done in isolation, or led by people who misguidedly think that headphones ranting words at someone might somehow increase their ability to comprehend.
Voice hearing simulations are meant to increase understanding of and empathy for the experience of those who hear voices on the regular. (See the ‘Empathy Initiative‘ for just one of many examples.) When integrated into much longer trainings that discuss research, alternative perspectives, strategies, and ways that voice hearing can be part of a full life, that can be effective. However, the standard voice hearing simulations circling our nation — the ones that fail to unpack the meaning behind the exercise and discuss its various implications — miss the boat in several ways.
Voice Hearing Simulations are Sensationalism at Their Best
The most sympathetic folks who go through a voice hearing simulation tend to come out of it saying things like, “Wow. That was so hard,” or “I don’t know how I’d ever get through an actual day like that,” perhaps peppered with a few exclamations of “Those poor people!” It paints voice hearing as one of the most intense, disruptive experiences one could possibly have, and basically leaves others with a feeling of, “Oh, now I get why people who hear voices couldn’t possibly function right.” It pushes pity and a grotesque sort of awe more than understanding.
Voice Hearing Simulations Increase Fear and Hopelessness
About a year ago, I was co-facilitating a Hearing Voices training. Participants were almost entirely people working in peer roles, but not all of them had first-hand voice hearing experience. Now, as a part of that training, we routinely do a voice simulation exercise (though still not the headphone version). At the conclusion of the exercise in that particular round, a training participant spoke up and said, “Now that I’ve been through that, it’s hard to imagine how anyone hearing voices could ever have a job.” Fortunately, I was co-training with someone who had the presence of mind to retort something along the lines of, “Well, you are in a training where people who hear voices are not only working, but might just be training you on how to do your job!” Yet, I’ll never forget the lesson that comment conveyed: People will think that this sensational presentation of voice hearing at its relative worst represents the full picture of what voice hearing is like in its entirety.
Voice hearing simulations capture the experience of voice hearing at its worst, most frightening moments. The voices bank on catching you off guard. They are designed to be distracting, scary, and mean. Although they are certainly informed by what some voice hearing experiences are like, they represent only a fraction of the truth. They don’t do anything to teach how people work through that, the many effective strategies they use, or any of the benefits that some come to find in this way of being in the world. Voice hearing simulations are also very common among so-called sensitivity trainings for police officers, but it’s baffling to me why anyone would think that sending hordes of police officers through a training that reinforces the idea that folks who hear voices are completely unable to function or think clearly would somehow make them believe that individuals with this experience are less dangerous. Pity and fear aren’t great harbingers of compassion and kindness.
Voice Hearing Simulations are Rooted in the Idea That Voice Hearing is Bad
As aforementioned, voice hearing simulation exercises are designed specifically to make participants feel frightened, overwhelmed, and unable to function. The basis for these exercises seems to be caught up in that false dichotomy that tells us that all that gets labeled ‘mental illness’ is either ‘your fault for being weak and bad’ or ‘not your fault because you’ve got an illness over which you are powerless at least some of the time’. I suppose if all we’re aiming to do is train cops to understand that people aren’t necessarily being willfully combative or ignoring their demands, then that’s something (though the news and behavior of police officers at these sorts of trainings suggests its really not much at all). But voice hearing simulation fails miserably at teaching them that voice hearing itself doesn’t have to be feared. In fact, many people who hear voices have never sought out help for it, because it wasn’t a particularly frightening experience to begin with. In some cultures, voice hearing is the norm not the exception. And even with those for whom voice hearing started out as scary, many have come to a place where their voices help in myriad ways like keeping them company or reminding them of things they forgot.
Not all that we don’t understand must be sectioned off and gotten rid of. Not everything that brings up big feelings must be numbed out.
Voice Hearing Simulations Paint Erroneous Pictures That All Voice Hearing Looks the Same Way and Doesn’t Change Over Time
For most people, voices change in some way over time. That might mean that the voices themselves change (their tone, their emotion, and/or their message), or it might mean that the recipient of the voice begins to understand things in a different way (e.g., understanding the message behind different words, and therefore being less scared of them, etc.). Often the two go hand-in-hand, and increased understanding and relationship between the voice hearer and the voices they’re hearing helps shift the content, too. Yet, voice simulations basically leave people with the impression that the whole experience is static. It teaches people that voices are likely always surprising, scary, and distracting. That moment in time becomes all someone participating in a voice hearing simulation may ever know.
In actuality, the Hearing Voices Movement — from which the most useful ‘hearing voices’ trainings are generally drawn — has long been talking about the shifting experience of hearing voices with great depth. For example, Hearing Voices Movement co-founder and psychiatrist, Marius Romme (together with Sandra Escher), has written at length about the “three phases” of voice hearing as discovered by research.
These phases include (in brief) the “startling” phase (during which voices tend to be most surprising), the “organizational” phase (during which people come to better understand and make meaning of the experience), and the “stabilization” phase (where balance — often in living with the voices — is regained). This framework is not meant to suggest that these are the only possible three phases, or that they necessarily work in any kind of order, and some feel critical of the phases because of their somewhat medicalized feel and wording. However, whether one resonates with the phases, or continues to reach for something even clearer and true, it’s evident that any sort of training that leaves everyone permanently subsisting at “startle” is a problem.
(Check out page 10 of this Australian Hearing Voices publication for more details on this topic.)
Voice Hearing Simulations Perpetuate the Idea That There Is and Can Be No Relationship Between the Voice and Voice Hearer
In reality, when someone hears a voice or sees a vision, it is typically related to their own experience, even if in a highly metaphorical sort of way. Meanwhile, the fact that pre-recorded simulations will be devoid of any personal meaning reinforces the belief that voices are typically meaningless; random misfirings of one’s brain. This is an especially problematic belief when one considers the fact that the way a voice hearer often gains a sense of control over a more difficult voice is to make meaning of it.
Similarly, the simulation does nothing to demonstrate the power of building relationship between the voice hearer and the voices they’re hearing. While this doesn’t work for everyone, many people do develop relationships — often amicable ones — with those voices that felt like they were once disconnected, meaningless ramblings.
I know, I know. Some of you will argue, “These voice simulations, they’re better than nothing!” But they’re not. Because sometimes “a step in the right direction” lands you in a ditch… usually one dug by people who never had any business attempting to be your guide in the first place. (And no, it doesn’t fix it when you develop a voice hearing simulation and then rope a voice hearer into loosely legitimizing it by having them stand at the front of the room in your stead.)
The idea that we can help people genuinely empathize with another person at the expense of any sort of respectful regard for their actual experience is kind of absurd at its root. In fact, if you think about it, that sort of “empathy” often seems to form the foundation for all the worst “diversity” and “sensitivity” trainings (i.e., the vast majority of “diversity” and “sensitivity” trainings) for every marginalized experience known to human kind.
We can do better. In fact, we have done better, although — as systems of oppression tend to work — those with the most marginalized voices remain overshadowed by the behemoths in the field (National Alliance on Mental Illness and so on) in spite of the higher quality and greater validity of what we have to offer.
Clearly we need to start pointing more people in the right direction.
Sera:
I agree with you on most points however people who may experience disturbing voices on a daily basis may get blamed for being lazy and unproductive. Dealing with negative voices or intrusive thoughts/perceptions may require a lot of intense work and the work may appear to others as a character deficit because it takes away from a person’s ability to focus on activities that are group related. I’m sympathetic to the folks who claim that these simulations are ‘better than nothing’ Although I don’t completely agree with this statement, one of the points of the simulation is to elicit empathy from the general public. It would be better if your criticism came with an alternative public education plan. It’s not very practical to suggest that people supporting loved ones who hear voices in a home=based environment, enroll every household member in a four day IPS training. These trainings are financially beyond the reach families like ours. I think the point of the simulation is to create something that is within reach of most famlies.
Report comment
Madmom,
I tend to agree more with Sera. My case may, or may not, be typical. Since my “voices” were created with the psychiatric drugs (via antidepressant and antipsychotic induced anticholinergic toxidrome).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxidrome
What percentage of voice hearers’ “voices” are created via antidepressant and/or antipsychotic (or other drug) induced anticholinergic toxidrome, is currently not even a subject of research. Despite the fact I personally believe it should be studied.
Although I do understand why it’s not been, or being, studied. How embarrassing it would be for the medical field if it was learned that most of the evil “voices” that people are subjected to, are actually created with the supposed psychiatric “cures” … as was my experience.
Nonetheless, I agree that teaching others to believe that “voices” are irrelevant to one’s personal experiences is unwise, and does not allow others to truly garner either true empathy, or insight, into the experience of hearing “voices.” My psychotomimetic “voices” were 100% in sync, and relevant, to what I later learned to be true.
In 2005 I was handed over medical evidence of the abuse of my child. My psychotomimetic “voices,” of which I suffered from 2002 to 2005, were the “voices” of the alleged rapists of my child, and their pastor. Those satanic “voices” bragged incessantly about abusing my child. My psychiatrist told me not to believe them, so I ignored them, until the medical evidence of the abuse of my child was handed over.
As it turned out, my psychiatrists’ belief my “voices” were not relevant to me or my family’s life were 100% incorrect. What he initially claimed was a “delusional religious conspiracy,” did become a real life medical/ religious “conspiracy” to cover up the abuse of my child in 2005. A real life medical/religious “conspiracy” that is oddly still on-going, and was in part confessed to by an ethical insider of my former religion’s synod offices in his 2007 book. I’d be one of the likely many “widows” mentioned in the Preface of this book. And I’ve learned recently that the seminaries are teaching, not just belief in the real Bible, but they’re still teaching belief in the now debunked as “invalid” DSM “bible.”
https://books.google.com/books?id=xI01AlxH1uAC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
And the research that Sera points out, that people do eventually develop a way to deal with the “voices,” or go from a “’startling’ phase (during which voices tend to be most surprising), the ‘organizational’ phase (during which people come to better understand and make meaning of the experience), and the ‘stabilization’ phase (where balance — often in living with the voices — is regained).”
By 2005, I’d already gone through these phases, and with not just the original three “voices,” or souls, who I personally heard. But also supposedly with all those within the collective unconscious with whom I’d befriended during my lifetime.
My many beloved friends within the collective unconscious were seemingly harassing the satanic pedophile “voices” by 2005, which did seem to minimize the satanic “voices” for me. And, thankfully, once I was finally weaned off all the psych drugs, once the anticholinergic toxidrome poisonings ended, so also ended the satanic pedophiles’ “voices.”
So to teach people that “hearing voices” is totally irrelevant to one’s own life, as today’s psychiatrists believe, and as these “voice hearing simulations” do, is unwise. Because there is a chance the Jungians, and other psychologists who believe in a collective unconscious, may in fact be the wiser people within the “mental health” field. At least that is now my personal take on my odd, psychotomimetic “voice hearing” experience.
Report comment
Madmom,
Are you talking for yourself or just in general? I don’t know if you would accept any help from me, but I’ve had experience with my wife’s ‘voices’ for the last 11 years: how to engage and interact with them. I really don’t think someone needs an expensive class to do it, (sorry Sera) and I’d be happy to get you started. I think you would find it easier than you realize once you got going.
Sam
Report comment
Madmom,
I wouldn’t suggest IPS for hearing voices at all, actually. I think the 5 day IPS core training is useful for lots of things, but not that.
However, there are alternatives already established. I struggle with not being too self-promoting, so I left out some of the work we do at my workplace but perhaps I shouldn’t have, so let me offer it here now:
We offer three day trainings intended primarily for current and future hearing voices facilitators and sometimes others join those trainings, as well… but they are long.
My co-worker, Caroline Mazel-Carlton coordinated a webinar specifically geared toward family, and I’m sure she’ll do that again in the future.
She and another co-worker of mine, Marty Hadge, fairly regularly offer three-hour trainings on trauma-informed strategies for working with voice hearing like this one: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/VoicesPittsfield2019
Caroline, Marty and several others on our team also do a variety of other hearing voices trainings. Everyone who trains on this topic either currently hears voices (true of the majority of our trainers), or has had experiences that fit under the Hearing Voices umbrella.
And we certainly arent the only ones. We have brought out Peter Bullimore and company from England several times, and will have them out again in April. in fact, if you look at our January newsletter, you’ll find information about what Peter and Shaun Hunt will be offering in MA and FL in the spring. https://madmimi.com/s/3ea57d
There is no excuse for the simulations as they are offered. I understand what you are saying, but there *are* better options that simply don’t have the backing of the simulations so people don’t hear about them. That is the result of NAMI and all the other marketing behemoths (see the next article I hope to publish for more on this point). But the options *do* exist. And often they are low cost or free, offered by people who have that experience, and far more meaningful.
Report comment
I found some simulations on YouTube and mostly read the comments looking for what people who identify as schizophrenic had to say. One video had 15,928,626 views.
Wile not schizophrenic and never heard voices I have been to psychosis hell and I know that is just something that can’t be simulated with audio video.
Report comment
Thanks, the_cat! While I do think it’s useful to attempt to increase understanding across people, I don’t think these simulations even begin to actually accomplish that!
Report comment
My understanding, as to those who “hear voices”, is that they always sound like “inside-the-head” voices, and not like a voice heard from “outside” the head.
Once, decades ago now, a nurse doing an “assessment” of me newly arrived for a short jail stay, asked whether I “hear voices”. I calmly looked at her, and simply replied: “No, I *SEE* voices, and I *HEAR* colors….”…. She had that “wtf?” look on her face!….
It was a riot….
Thanks, Sera. How did I miss this story for over a year? It saddens me, to see what the “mental illness industrial complex” has devolved down into….
Report comment
I am always struck by the fact that it isn’t what’s happening inside someone’s head that’s the issue. The real issue is how they react to it. If it makes them fearful or distracted or otherwise disturbed, then it’s a problem that society must fix for the afflicted through the arena of psuedoscientific psychiatric medicine. But for those people whom it doesn’t bother, no one outside of that persons head may ever know.
I’ve always steered clear of psychedelics precisely because I knew seeing or hearing things that weren’t objectively real would be upsetting to me. I suspect that the people who are less bothered by that type of phenomena are also less likely to have suffered the types of severe trauma that can lead to psychosis.
Interesting point of personal experience, I once asked my mom in my early 20s how I get my brain to shut up and get some peace and quiet. (Because the monotony of constant thoughts in your own voice is boring.) Her response was that she didn’t know, that she had the same “issue” but that it didn’t bother her. So my complaint of intrusive thoughts was her evidence that she was a thinking person who had plenty of things to ponder and never got bored. And so it boils down to differences in personality and how we each interpret both inner and outer experiences.
Report comment
It’s absolutely true, Kindredspirit. And, in fact, there is research at this point I believe that suggests that people’s sense of having control and understanding over what’s happening means they’ll be less negatively impacted by it.
How something impacts us and our lives really *is* the key point… although the mental health system doesn’t necessarily see it that way, and the simulations certainly don’t convey that point at all. For example, I used to have visions telling me to hurt or kill my daughter when she was a baby. I eventually figure out why… they were a message to me about how I was blaming my body for the babies that died by miscarriage before she was born. Once I figured that out, they lost a lot of their power over me. Before that, I at least knew better than to tell anyone about them… I don’t think the system would have cared at all what the visions meant…
Report comment
You were lucky/smart enough not to go near the “system” that would have prescribed pails of neurotoxins
Or electrocuted you and separated you from your baby. Unfortunately many ppl facing this kind of distress seek “professional” mental death “experts”, often losing their autonomy, Hope, ability to recover or to develop coping skills.
Report comment
I’ve always steered clear of psychedelics precisely because I knew seeing or hearing things that weren’t objectively real would be upsetting to me.
Not to be overly tangential, but that’s not what actually happens in a psychedelic experience. But this is a discussion that can be postponed till the next “psychedelic therapy” blog.
Report comment
Wish my first shrink had proposed psychedelic drugs. My parents would not have become so enamored with them. Mom wouldn’t have kept shrieking, “Rachel, shut up and take your LSD.”
See, fun drugs are naughty. If they make you feel lousy and the dealer wears a pretty white coat they’re good for you.
Fun=naughty drugs
Feeling like crap=life saving meds
Very strict home. No booze ever! Yet my folks wanted me to take mind altering drugs due to the faux respectability. Sigh.
Report comment
I think the schizophrenic artwork should be banned as well. ” Look at that crazy art that crazy person made!” Further convincing “normal” people how crazy , the person named crazy is. We do not know the circumstances the artist was under when they use all purple for skin color. M.I.A. uses this art as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia
Another example is the writing on the wall some mad people do.
https://imgix.ranker.com/user_node_img/50071/1001406724/original/teaching-empathy-through-schizophrenia-simulators-photo-u1?w=650&q=50&fm=jpg&fit=crop&crop=faces
“Look at that mad rambling” people say. Did he/she have anything to write on, like paper? No ? So what can a person write on when they feel the need to write/do art? Besides does anyone like looking at a blank white (jail-that-isn’t-a-jail) wall? https://www.123rf.com/photo_6339633_an-image-of-a-depressed-prisoner-sitting-in-his-prison-cell-marking-days-on-the-wall.html
Report comment
purple guy in the article https://www.ranker.com/list/schizophrenia-inducing-videos/brandon-michaels
Report comment
Thanks, Mark. I think for me, the art has a lot to do with how it’s conveyed… if it’s an art display expressly by “crazy” people – like what nami periodically offers and basically just saying “hey crazy people make good pictures too” – then yeah, not a fan. However, if it’s an art installation respecting people’s experiences, or the difference and brilliance that brings that art forth… I can certainly respect that!
Report comment
“Art reflecting extreme experiences” perhaps?
Report comment
‘Video Designed To Make You Experience Schizophrenia Is The Scariest Thing You’ll See All Day ” goes with the above link
Report comment
“Voice hearing simulations” are problematic because they falsely imply that voices do not have personal meaning.
Report comment
Yes, that’s a large part of it, for sure!
Report comment
My experience is different from many here. But I started hearing evil voices at age 9. My family was homeless and I blamed myself for offending Dad’s employers I was expected to kiss up to. (I was an ornery kid who knew stuff I shouldn’t. My folks were always being blamed for not keeping me under control and punishing me severely enough.) After a year or two I willed my inner bullies away. But at 14 we were homeless for several months again. Bullying/sexual harassment in my new high school drove me bonkers again.
Anyhow, after a bad reaction on Anafranil keeping me awake for 21 days straight the voices came back. The drugs made them worse–like I could no longer push them away or filter them. The neuroleptics destroyed my ability to control my feelings or imagination.
Off the crap finally! I have processed my painful feelings finally. No “therapist” necessary. The drugs did NOT make the voices leave–they amplified them and weakened me so I couldn’t fight them like I normally could have.
Report comment
Thanks for sharing your experience, rachel777. I think everyone’s experiences are different/unique in some way, but what you described sounds similar to many I’ve heard… especially how the voices connect to something in the environment and self-blame somehow, as well as how the psych drugs didn’t actually make the voices go away. So true for so many people. In any case, thank you for sharing a piece of your experience here.
Report comment
Hi Sera
our son lives in Waltham. Sometimes I wish I could swing by and meet you and we could find a point of collaboration. We may not see everything identically, but I appreciate much of what you have to say. I keep hoping some day to find someone who realizes we SO’s hold a vital part of the key to changing this battle of perspective and also keeping our loved ones out of the system…when we know what is needed…I keep hoping to empower other SO’s to understand they don’t need an ‘expert’ do the overwhelming majority of things our loved ones need to feel safe, loved and begin to heal.
For me, I never saw my wife as crazy, but she always said that just meant I was weird and not normal like most people, lol. I guess that’s a good thing. But after living 11 years with her florid d.i.d., I realized that there really is very little that is different between me and her…just a matter of degrees mostly, and in fact, I learned a lot about myself by observing how the various girls interacted. Even the ‘extreme’ states associated with d.i.d. really don’t seem that extreme nor that far out of my own experience once I began to look for points of similarity.
Take care,
Sam
Report comment
Loving your wife and not considering her crazy make you different. But different can be a good thing if the Mainstream is wrong in what they’re doing.
Report comment
Sam,
Thanks for your comment, and I certainly remember you from other posts. You are welcome to come visit, btw!
I think where I remember us diverging most is around what ‘peer’ and the role of family is specifically… that said, I’m not sure we diverge all that much. I *do* think it’s essential to *not* confuse family members with ‘peer supporter’ not because family can’t be key, but because NAMI, the whole ‘family partner’ peer scene, etc have had truly dangerous and damaging implications in how they’ve confused those things… and centered family voices *over* the voices of those most directly impacted.
I also do believe that ‘peer’ is more about how two people interact and the nature of their connection, and I remember you resonating with that… but I just think that needs to work in concert with having key experiences (being in the system, etc) in common or else it drifts too quickly into nami land. Although, as I say that, I can also say that our community takes a pretty broad perspective on what ‘peer’ means, too… So, it’s gray.
But somehow, I think we need to continue to hold the tension that exists between family (especially chosen family like significant others) having really important roles *and* recognizing that very often they still come with power dynamics and other complexities and historical trends that mean differentiating is also important.
I fear I’m rambling… perhaps due to being in a vacation state of mind… but ultimately, I’d be all for more trainings, supports, and opportunities for patterns and other family to have positive impact in someone’s struggles… just not to the point of confusing that with the expectation that someone can typically be in that role *and* be in a ‘peer supporter’ role such as we are usually talking about It here.
Sera
Report comment
Hi Sera,
perhaps ‘peer’ isn’t the correct word for me. Typically I refer to myself as my wife’s healing partner, but I’m also her primary attachment figure (as she is mine) and a host of other things. I do understand the fear of NAMI on this site, but me saying a 1000 times “I’m not like that” isn’t going to convince anyone of anything, and I don’t expect people to read thru my blog to see otherwise. I do understand ‘power dynamics’ but our marriage couldn’t be more egalitarian, and I learned VERY quickly that even my suggestions had to be couched very careful in non-coercive terms so that everything, ultimately, was 100% her choice.
Report comment
Hey Sam,
I tend to believe you aren’t replicating the NAMI stuff I speak of. However, my believing that doesn’t mean that I suddenly think it’s a good idea to confuse the language, as that opens the door for further issues with others. I believe you that you and your wife have played the meaningful healing roles for one another that you describe, but I do think It’s much more useful when you use that language as opposed to language that’s been claimed in other ways. (Although, iin general, I hate the ‘peer’ language in the way it’s used today almost entirely across the board._
Report comment
I’m still learning, Sera. Until I came to MIA 2 years ago, my wife, son and I operated in a little bubble completely outside the system and the only contact I had with others was thru my little blog. We had no idea, other than thru TV and Hollywood (and I discounted those portrayals), that people with mental health issues were treated so inhumanely, because I NEVER treated my wife that way. And so I accept what you all (from the system and mistreated by family) say, but it’s just beyond me because despite all the issues the trauma causes our marriage, we have walked this journey TOGETHER and I have viewed ‘her issues’ as ‘our issues’ to be overcome together.
Take care,
Sam
Report comment
I’ve seen it many, many times…. For a so-called “mental patient”, often, their Family is BOTH the WORST, and the BEST thing going for them in their lives….
NAMI and their ilk insist delusionally that they are only ever “best”, instead of acknowledging the truth that the Family is usually the root of the problem!….
Report comment
I agree. It bothers me when they chant “don’t blame the parents, don’t blame the parents!” Sometimes (not always) the parents ARE partly or largely to blame!
Report comment
Posting as moderator: If you let me know the comment you want deleted, I’ll do so. I’ll see if I can figure it out.
Report comment
Steve,
I just didn’t mean to repeat the *entire* blog in my comment is all…
Sera
Report comment
Oh, OK. I think someone already removed that comment. Thanks for the clarification.
Report comment
Removed for moderation.
Report comment
According to William Glasser hearing voices is “creative symptoming” or the imagination run amok to cope with emotional pain. Thomas Szazs referred to it as “believing a lie.”
The way I choose to deal with them is a little like Will Hall’s method. But significantly different.
It’s not scientific but it works for me. I wouldn’t recommend it for everyone. Not fully effective til I went off the pills though.
Report comment
Rachel777,
Can you clarify what you mean when you reference Will Hall’s method?
Thanks,
Sera
Report comment
Answering back to nasty voices who put you down by questioning the validity and telling yourself the truth. As well as the voices–whatever they may be.
Also a form of coping with “negative self talk” which can be the same thing.
Report comment
I don’t think it is accurate to refer to that as Will’s method. I believe you that it is an approach he uses, but certainly doesn’t sound like one he developed himself. Thank you for clarifying, tho!
Sera
Report comment
Okay. Chalk it up to my not knowing. 🙂
Report comment
If you ever get where that doesn’t work, the option we took was I validated the angry voices, understanding that much of their anger was based on past wrongs and trauma, and then slowly I helped them to see that today was no longer the same as in the past. But I also had to take responsibility for the anger I had caused the first 20 years of our marriage, much of it in ignorance, because I didn’t understand what was going on.
It’s a two-step process, but worked well for us. In fact the angriest of all (my wife’s defender) who vehemently hated me when she first joined our family, she and I recently got engaged after a long pre-engagement.
Report comment
I never have found these simulations very realistic. Of course, I’ve never had the experience, but some of them seem to be designed by other people who are totally speculating and have no such direct experience themselves. How real are these simulations? Do people who actually KNOW what it’s like participate in making them? How many are dedicated to the purpose of compassion and understanding and how many are designed to sell drugs?
Report comment
Do they even consult folks who hear voices for the model? Somehow I doubt it.
“About Them Without Them” should be the motto of mental “health.”
Report comment
Steve and Rachel,
Even if they did have an individual “conduct the orchestra” and come up with a recording that accurately represents that person’s voice-hearing experiences, they’d still be making a huge error in trying to generalize that person’s experience to everyone else, as if “hearing voices” is the same experience for everyone, as if the “voices” mean no more than intrusive white noise. Trying to present “the experience” as if there is such a thing only serves to reinforce all those attitudes they love to refer to as “stigma.” And, it reinforces their mis-understanding, “oh yes, I understand hearing voices- I took the training” and since they now know all about it, there’s no getting them to listen.
Report comment
Good point LS!
Report comment
I agree. It always seemed hokey to me. Glad to know others with more direct experience agree with me.
Report comment
Steve,
There’s one that supposedly Pat Deegan put together, but I’m skeptical of *all* the pre-recorded nonsense for all the reasons I already named. I *will* say, though, that the reason I titled the article “almost” is because there are trainings – such as the ones offered through the western mass rlc – that offer live simulations. That means that people – often including many people who have heard or do hear voices – provided a live simulation experience. We have found some value in that because a) it is offered contextually and b) it is debriefed after the simulation at length and most importantly c) it’s embedded in a broader training that talks about all the other pieces of the experience including how different it can look from person to person and moment to moment.
AND as also noted in the article above, the exercise *still* runs the risk of encouraging people to take away sensationalized ideas and/or generalize… but that is at least also discussed in the debriefing process.
Ultimately, I don’t think even the recorded simulation exercises constructed by people who hear voices could ever not be hugely problematic.
Sera
Report comment
Love Love LOVE it when people tell me how to share my experiences with others, that I shouldn’t mention if it’s difficult or scary, that sometimes I Do think of acting out. This is tantamount to the lgbt civil rights protests where they wanted protesters to dress in suits so they didn’t look so flamboyant. Always best to share the sunny side of psychosis I guess.
Report comment
Seltz6912,
I’m not sure who this comment is directed at? Did you take my article to be suggesting that only the “sunny side” of voice hearing, etc be shared? That’s certainly not what I was saying… not even close… and I don’t think anyone else was saying that either, tho maybe I missed something?
If that is what you took away from this article at first glance, I hope you’ll read through it again, as it’s just not what it actually says.
Sera
Sera
Report comment
Removed for moderation.
Report comment
I think another piece of this project I dislike is that it’s very one dimensional. The experience of psychosis can encompass so many more phenomena than just voices, (visions, beliefs, sensory feelings, etc) and it comes in such a wide range of severity. I’m afraid someone would take this simulation and it’s scariness to portray all non objectively real experiences as frightening and unwanted or disabling intrusions.
The fact is that everyone experiences things that aren’t there, unexplained physical sensations or thinking you see a bug out of the corner of your eye, or thinking you’ve heard something. Feeling phantom phone text sounds or vibrations are ubiquitous. Everyone with a smart phone has experienced this. Our new apartment has keyless entry doorlocks that beep when they’re unlocked. Every time I hear a similar beep, my first thought is that someone is unlocking the door. Does that make me crazy or just mean I am habituated to beeps meaning door opening? It’s classic Pavlovian training and response but an argument could be made that I look at the door out of paranoia if one was ignorant of Pavlov’s experiments, I suppose.
So portraying hearing voices in such a scary way means those people getting this training are likely to walk away feeling fearful of and perhaps pity for the poor mental patient when what we really need is a public service project that aims to make people more aware of the widespread nature of altered experiences, how completely normal they actually are, and humanizing those who are disturbed by severe psychosis.
Report comment
Y90
Report comment
I do wonder if a better way to teach others empathy for hearing ‘voices’ is to help people see the similarities in their own internal communications. Like I said before, after watching the 8 girls in my wife’s system interact and helping them to heal and dealing with lies associated with the original trauma and oft repeated things, I began to wonder if my own internal communication was just a milder version of what she/they were experiencing. I also wondered if the dissociation was a factor for my wife: that as the dissociative walls began to come down, new areas of her mind began to release ‘pent up’ memories and associated words, sounds and such and these would feel very foreign to her at first until she began to accept them as part of her larger self.
idk…watching her taught me to learn to listen to myself better and recognize and validate those things that I had previously ignored for a variety of reasons…maybe this makes no sense to anyone else, but it seemed to help me empathize with her and listen to myself better…a win/win
Report comment