The ability to identify psychological problems is an indicator highly qualified manager. A prerequisite for the formation of this useful skill is the understanding that it is necessary to highlight two features of the decision-making process. First, decision making is not an irrational process. Logic, argumentation and realism - important elements this process. Careful analysis, development and evaluation of alternatives is also important for him. Second, managers should never consider their decisions to be completely rational. Personal factors and character are also elements of decision making. Knowing how behavioral factors affect the whole process and each of its stages separately, helps to understand how administrative decisions are made. It is also important because there are several types of decisions that managers have to make, which we will discuss in the next section. J. March proposed to group the psychological problems of individual decision-making as follows.

• 1. Attention problems. A person cannot pay attention to many objects at the same time. That's why psychological theory decision-making considers as the main thing how a limited resource is spent - attention.
• 2. Memory problems. The ability of individuals to store information is limited: memory fails, records and files are lost, the sequence of events is erased or distorted. The ability to search for information in various databases is also limited. The knowledge accumulated by some members of the organization is often difficult to access for other members.
• 3. Problems of understanding. Decision makers have limited understanding abilities. They have difficulty using and summarizing information to establish causal relationships between events, often drawing the wrong conclusions from the information they have, or being unable to combine different pieces of that information to give a coherent interpretation.
• 4. Communication problems. The ability of people to exchange information is also limited. Difficulty in communication not only between different cultures, different generations but also between professionals of different specialties. Miscellaneous groups people use different theoretical models(paradigms) to simplify the real world.

Finally, the same people accept different solutions, depending on whether they act alone or in a group. Such phenomena are called "phenomena collective decisions"(O. A. Kulagin). The following phenomena of collective decisions are distinguished:

• groupthink;
• polarization effect;
• the effect of "social facilitation";
• the phenomenon of "learned dissonance";
• effects of volume and composition;
• the effect of "asymmetry in the quality of decisions";
• the phenomenon of idiosyncratic credit;
• phenomenon false consciousness;
• the phenomenon of the virtual solver;
• conformity phenomenon.

groupthink causes unintentional suppression critical thinking due to the individual's assimilation of group norms. In other words, the individual unconsciously sacrifices his ability to critically evaluate alternatives for fear of causing discontent among other members of the group. The tighter the group, the stronger desire each of its members to avoid a split, which makes the hundred inclined to believe that any proposal supported by the leader or the majority of the group members is the right one.

In a cohesive group, the main danger lies not in the fact that each member hides his objections to the proposals of its other members, but in the fact that he is inclined to believe in the correctness of such a proposal without carefully weighing the pros and cons. The dominance of groupthink is manifested not in the suppression of dissent, but in the voluntary rejection of doubt in the name of group consensus.

Exploring the causes of groupthink, the English researcher I. Janis identified eight causes of groupthink:

• 1. Illusion of Invulnerability Most or all members of the group share the illusion of their own invulnerability, which prevents them from objectively assessing even quite obvious dangers and turns them into "over-optimists" who are inclined to make very risky decisions. This illusion also renders them unable to see clear signs of danger.
• 2. False rationality. Victims of groupthink not only tend to ignore warnings of danger, but also collectively invent rationalizations for downplaying warning signs, as well as other messages that, if taken seriously, would cause the group to be subjected to critical analysis assumptions used by the group in making decisions.
• 3. group morality. Victims of groupthink blindly believe in the ultimate justice of their group's goals, and this belief causes them to ignore ethical or moral aspects the consequences of the decisions made. In practice, this manifests itself in the fact that similar questions do not come up at group meetings at all.
• 4. Stereotypes. Victims of groupthink hold stereotypical views of the leaders of hostile groups. The latter are considered villains, honest attempts negotiating with whom to resolve differences is not worthwhile, or too weak or stupid to effectively counter any measures taken by the group to defeat them, no matter how risky these measures.
• 5. Pressure. Victims of groupthink put direct pressure on any individual who expresses doubts about any of the group's delusions or puts forward arguments in favor of an alternative course of action to that approved by the majority of the group. These features are a consequence of the norm of consent-seeking, which is expected from loyal members of the group.
• 6. Self-censorship. Victims of groupthink avoid deviating from what might be called group consensus; they keep their doubts to themselves and even involuntarily downplay their own doubts.
• 7. Unanimity. Victims of groupthink share the illusion that the group is unanimous in accepting nearly all the arguments made by groupthink in favor of the majority view. This symptom is partly a consequence of the symptom described above. The silence of any of the participants in the meeting (actually restraining his objections) is misinterpreted as his full consent with what other meeting participants are saying.

When a group of people who respect the opinions of their colleagues comes to an agreement on any issue, each of its members is inclined to believe in the group's correctness. Thus, in a group where there are no clearly expressed disagreements between members, consensus (often false) begins to be perceived as proof of the correctness of the decision made and replaces critical understanding of reality.

8. Gatekeepers. Victims of groupthink assume the role of gatekeepers, protecting their leaders and groupmates from unpleasant information that could destroy the group's previously shared belief in efficiency and morality. decisions taken. If there is any doubt about the correctness of the decisions made, the members of the group say that the time for discussion has passed, the decision has been made, and now the duty of the group is to provide all support to the leader who has assumed the burden of responsibility. I. Janice Leads next example"gatekeepers": at a big reception in honor of his wife's birthday attorney general US Robert F. Kennedy, who was constantly informed about the plan to invade Cuba, took then Secretary of Defense A. Schlesinger aside and asked him why he objected to the invasion plan. After hearing his answer coldly, Kennedy said, "You may or may not be right, but the president has already made up his mind. Don't try to change his mind. Now is the time for all of us to help him in any way we can."

When a decision-making group exhibits all or most of these symptoms, a careful analysis of its work reveals a number of typical shortcomings. It is these shortcomings that lead to the adoption of poor-quality decisions for the following reasons:

First, from the very beginning, the group avoids overview all available alternatives and is limited to a discussion of a small number (usually two) alternative courses actions;

secondly, the group does not re-discuss the course of action that was originally approved by the majority after risks and obstacles that were not discussed before are identified;

third, members of the group spend little time discussing the non-obvious benefits of alternative courses of action or previously unnoticed ways to reduce costs, due to the excessiveness of which alternative courses were rejected at the first stage of decision-making;

fourthly, members of the group pay little attention to obtaining information from experts in their own organizations, which could help to more accurately assess potential costs and benefits;

fifth, members of the group show an interest in facts and opinions that can be interpreted as confirming the correctness of the chosen policy, and tend to ignore other facts and opinions.

polarization effect. In the process of making collective decisions, when members of the group directly interact with each other, the so-called polarization of risk takes place. This phenomenon consists in the fact that the decision made by the group turns out to be more or less risky, depending on what, on average, the risk attitude of the group was before the discussion of the problem. If initially the group was more conservative than risk-averse, then as a result of the collective decision it becomes even more conservative and cautious. In this case, there is a "shift to caution" effect. If the group was initially more risky than cautious, then after discussion its propensity to take risks increases, and the group makes an even more risky decision. In this case, the opposite phenomenon is observed - the effect of "shift to risk". Thus, a polarization effect occurs: after the discussion, the group's opinion "shifts" towards one of the poles - extreme risk or extreme caution.

Previously, it was believed that collective decisions are always less risky than individual ones. The discovery of the "shift to risk" effect was quite unexpected for researchers, since this phenomenon contradicted the prevailing ideas that collective decisions, unlike individual ones, should be more accurate, balanced, rational, and therefore less risky.

However, experiments have shown that in many cases the group demonstrates a greater propensity to take risks than each of the participants individually. A. V. Karpov offered several explanations for this phenomenon:

Firstly, in the conditions of collective problem solving, the so-called diffusion of responsibility takes place. General responsibility for final result is distributed among the members of the group, and, as a result, for each of them it becomes smaller, which encourages them to make more risky decisions;

secondly, the risk in the minds of people has a positive value. Therefore, risky behavior is more highly valued by others than cautious behavior, which is usually associated with indecision. Since any person wants to be valued more highly, it is in a group that he begins to demonstrate risky behavior to a greater extent than in solitude. As a result, the participants in the discussion, as it were, begin to compete "who is more risky", which directly affects overall value the risk of a collective decision.

Subsequently, the researchers clarified that the group makes a riskier decision if the initial group assessment was already biased towards risk. Otherwise, there is a "shift to caution." On this basis, O. A. Kulagin comes to the conclusion that the most reasonable explanation the polarization effect is information influence hypothesis. During the discussion, group members listen to the opinions of other participants, who, in order to confirm their position, can cite new and sometimes unexpected arguments, which their colleagues did not even think about. If the group as a whole is conservative, then when discussing the problem, each of its participants receives new information for themselves, which only reinforces their cautious position. Naturally, in this case the collective decision turns out to be even more cautious and conservative. On the other hand, if before the discussion the group was radical and optimistic, then in the course of the discussion the members of the group once again become convinced of "their rightness" by listening to the opinions of other participants. As a result, a collective decision turns out to be even more risky.

The effect of "social facilitation". The term "facilitation" is derived from English verb facilitate- facilitate, assist, assist. The fact is that the presence of other people or even one observer in a number of cases increases the activity of people, has a "facilitating" effect on the performance of individual actions and the adoption of individual decisions. In other words, it is easier to work and make decisions in a group than alone. However, later it was found that this is only half true. As experiments have shown, the behavior of people in the presence of observers becomes more confident and accurate only when solving relatively simple and familiar problems. When do you need to decide difficult task, then the presence of other people "fetters" and interferes. Thus, the group facilitates the right decision simple and makes it difficult to solve complex problems correctly.

However, further research showed that social facilitation can lead to the opposite phenomenon - the so-called the Ringelmann effect. It consists in the fact that under the conditions collective activity the personal effort and productivity of each member of the group is reduced. Most likely main reason"social laziness" is the division of responsibility for the final result among all members of the group. In addition, under these conditions, people do not so clearly feel and understand the connection between their individual efforts and overall result activity, which leads to a decrease in their activity.

The phenomenon of "learned dissonance". This phenomenon arises from the fact that many members of the group, even before the start of the discussion or during the collective solution of the problem, understand the impossibility of influencing the final group decision. Therefore, they seem to foresee in advance that the final decision of the group will not take into account their individual preferences and, as a result, this decision will be contrary to their personal interests.

Similar psychological attitude further fixed in the minds of people ("learned"), which leads to a noticeable decrease in their creative activity in the process of making collective decisions.

Effects of volume and composition. In the process of collective decision-making, there is often a volume effect, which consists in the fact that groups that are too large and too small in volume (number of participants) take less effective solutions than groups having some optimal size. As studies show, the size of this optimal volume is not constant, but usually lies in the range of four to eight people. Thus, the quality of collective decisions has non-linear dependence on the number of persons involved in its preparation and adoption: with an increase in the size of the group, the quality of decisions increases, reaches maximum value and then starts to decline.

The reason for this is that groups that are too small tend not to have enough information and the necessary diversity of opinion to make decisions. quality solutions. On the contrary, too large groups very strong negative effects interpersonal interaction such as risk polarization, social laziness, learned dissonance and others that reduce the quality of collective decisions.

At the same time, it was found that the effectiveness of the decision-making process strongly depends not only on the number of participants, but also on the composition of the group. As you know, decision-making groups can be "equal" or differ in certain characteristics - age, gender, professional experience, education, cultural level, official position, etc. The totality of these differences is described as the "homogeneity-heterogeneity" of the group. As a result, it often appears composition effect, which lies in the fact that groups that are too homogeneous and too heterogeneous tend to take less good decisions than groups that have some "optimal" degree of homogeneity. This is explained by the fact that in extremely heterogeneous groups it is very difficult to combine or even harmonize the positions of participants due to their strong differences.

On the other hand, in completely homogeneous groups, the quality of decisions is negatively affected by the very similarity of positions, views, attitudes and attitudes. personal qualities their members. Therefore, such groups lose the necessary diversity of ideas and opinions. In addition, it is the homogeneity of the group that creates the prerequisites for the emergence of groupthink.

The effect of "asymmetry in the quality of solutions". This phenomenon describes the differences in the influence that a group can have on the quality of people's individual decisions, depending on their status within this group. As O. L. Kulagin points out, the effect of "asymmetry in the quality of solutions" has a twofold manifestation:

First, the group has more possibilities in order to influence the quality of individual decisions of its ordinary participants, rather than the quality of decisions of the leader. Due to his status as a leader in lesser degree succumbs to the influence of the group and rarely changes his decisions;

secondly, the group has less opportunity to change the leader's bad decision, compared to how the leader himself can convince or force the group to make a different decision. This phenomenon clearly shows that the influence of the group on individual solutions individual subjects depends on their hierarchical status and position in the group, even if formally it is considered that all participants in the discussion have "equal" rights.

The phenomenon of idiosyncratic credit. This phenomenon is a kind of group permission to deviant behavior, i.e. behavior deviating from generally accepted norms. At the same time, different members of the group may be allowed different deviations from group norms. The magnitude of such a deviation usually depends on the status of group members and their past contribution to the achievement of group goals: the higher the position of the individual within the group, the greater freedom behavior and utterances he possesses.

The phenomenon is amplified in new or unique environments, as well as in situations of innovation that require fresh and original solutions. Thus, it is obvious that the phenomenon of "idiosyncratic credit" manifests itself primarily in the activities of the leader (due to his special position and highest status in the group), as well as in non-standard situations that require solutions that go beyond the prevailing stereotypes. The amount of such credit determines the "degree of freedom" of a member of the group. Therefore, the very phenomenon of "idiosyncratic credit" should be considered not only as psychological effect but also as a real mechanism for making collective decisions.

The phenomenon of false consent. It consists in the fact that during the discussion, some members of the group may take a kind of position of conciliation with the leader or with the majority. However, this is not due to the fact that their views really coincide, but to completely different reasons: lack of competence, weakness of character, lack of personal views, unwillingness to think and spend energy on solving the problem. Taking this position, the subject is not included in the group discussion, but only actively emphasizes his agreement with other participants, who, as a rule, have more high status. Moreover, this agreement is not supported by any arguments at all. Moreover, it may not even coincide with the personal beliefs and preferences of the subject. At the same time, in the processes of making collective decisions, another behavioral attitude is clearly manifested - the desire to "stand out", to emphasize one's importance and special role in a group.

This setup usually results in the opposite phenomenon - the phenomenon of demonstrative disagreement. In this case, individual members of the group formally behave "exactly the opposite": they actively deny any opinions that do not coincide with their "point of view", and deliberately oppose themselves to the group. However, but in essence, their behavior is also not based on any meaningful and noteworthy arguments and aims to attract the attention of more authoritative members of the group.

The "virtual solver" phenomenon. Here the "virtual solver" is a person who is not really in the group, but who, according to the group's opinion, "should appear and solve the problem" (A. V. Karpov). Usually this phenomenon is perceived and evaluated by people negatively, as it leads to the fact that decision-making is delayed or postponed for indefinite term. However, the "virtual solver" phenomenon has one positive trait: in the process of waiting for the "virtual solver", the group involuntarily prolongs the preparation of the decision and therefore, in some cases, increases its validity.

"Mirror" in relation to this phenomenon is the phenomenon of "expansion of the solution area". It has two main features:

• the group has an illusory idea of ​​its high role in solving certain tasks that are really within its competence, i.e. that no one but this group will solve them;
• in the group there is a tendency to unreasonably expand their powers. This leads to the fact that the decisions of higher bodies are replaced by their own. group decisions, and, thus, the area of ​​tasks to be solved, included in the competence of this group, spontaneously expands.

The phenomenon of conformism. This well-known socio-psychological effect is often observed in the processes of collective decision-making and consists in the fact that many people make decisions and make judgments only on the basis of the opinions of others, even if it contradicts their own. Numerous experiments have been conducted to investigate this effect, which have shown that people tend to conform when they are opposed by even a small majority of the group. Thus, this phenomenon can be called differently effect of agreement with the majority. It has several characteristic features:

firstly, as the majority increases, the tendency to conformism in the rest of the group increases, but it does not grow above a certain level. In other words, the influence of the majority on the minority is not unlimited, but has some reasonable limits. So, in one of the experiments, with an increase in the number of figureheads playing the role of the majority, the subjects agreed with their incorrect opinion in 33% of the answers, and the consent of the minority did not rise above this level;

secondly, it was found that agreement with the majority increases with an increase in the size of the group, i.e. in large groups, most have more than strong influence on a minority than in small ones;

thirdly, the majority has a significant impact on the minority only if it is unanimous in its assessments. If "dissenting" or "doubting" appear among the majority, then this influence sharply weakens. In particular, in one of the experiments, a participant was included in the majority, who, unlike the others, gave the correct answers to questions. test questions. This led to a surprising effect: the number of cases when the subjects agreed with the incorrect answers of the majority was reduced by four times, i.e. conformism has become four times less than before.

In the future, the researchers went even further. They posed the question: How does the minority of a group influence the behavior of the majority? To answer it, experiments were conducted in which the subjects were in the majority, and the nominees who deliberately gave incorrect answers were a clear minority of the group. It turned out that the minority is also capable of influencing the majority and forcing it to agree with itself. However, to do this, one important condition- The minority must take firm, consistent and coordinated positions. Only in this case can it have an influence on the opinion of the majority. So, in the next experiment, the group consisted of four subjects and two "dummy". If the nominees unanimously gave incorrect answers, it was found that, on average, in 8% of cases, the subjects agreed with them. If the minority began to hesitate, then the majority of the group agreed with him only 1% of the time. This phenomenon is called effect of minority influence, must be taken into account in collective decision-making processes when minority The group hopes to change the balance of power and sway the discussion in their favor.

Results and conclusions

Such psychological factors as mood, emotions, sympathies, desires actively influence the decision-making process. They operate at both the individual and group levels. Therefore, there are personal and group psychological factors.

Personal factors are characterized by the peculiarities of individual perception of problems, the influence of stereotypes in the assessment of people and situations, the phenomenon of a halo. In this way, rational thinking when making decisions, it always acts in the form of subjective rationalism.

Another psychological factor is defined as making "adequate" decisions that are not the best, but satisfactory, corresponding to the accepted criteria. The reasons for making adequate decisions are determined by the short time frame for making a decision, the desire to resolve this problem and move on to other issues, unwillingness to engage detailed analysis, which requires more experience and high qualifications, as well as limited rationalism, i.e. incomplete, inconsistent rationalism, due to handicapped human intelligence in information processing.

Methods that facilitate decision making are called heuristics. stand out the following types heuristic approaches: decomposition or decomposition of the problem, framing or consideration of the problem from a certain angle, "simplification" of the problem.

To determine the individual psychological problems of decision-making, it is advisable to identify the difficulties arising from the limited concentration of attention, memory, human ability process information, problems of understanding and communication.

Collective decision making is often limited groupthink- a way of thinking in group decision-making, when the desire for agreement becomes so strong that it makes it impossible to realistically assess alternative courses of action.

What are psychological problems? What are the ways to solve psychological problems?

A psychological problem is an internal problem of a person related to his world map, value system, needs, interpersonal relationships, etc.

Despite the fact that psychological problems are difficult to divide into subtypes, since any internal conflict has a tendency to spread to other areas, so family problems become personal, and personal become spiritual, but we will still try to classify them.

are problems associated with biological entity a person - uncontrollable fears, anxiety, dissatisfaction with oneself, one's physical data, worries about age, problems in the sexual sphere, etc.

Subjective psychological problems- these are problems associated with the need to perform any activity: lack of skills, knowledge, skills or will, knowledge, insufficient level of abilities or intelligence, lack of energy, irrationality, etc. Subjective psychological problems are very often disguised as problems of a different kind. Few people are able to admit, say, that he is stupid, instead a person tries to find a problem in interpersonal relationships believing that people are prejudiced against him or are plotting against him.

- these are problems related to the position of a person in society: complex inferiority, lack of status, image problems, problems related to communication with colleagues, family members, friends, partners, any role problems.

individual problems - these are problems related to the achievement of long-term goals, self-realization: existential fears, a sense of the meaninglessness of being, experiences of lack of time, experiencing insurmountable obstacles, loss of self-esteem, sudden crises, problems at work, etc.

For some reason, in our country it is customary to solve psychological problems on their own, without the help of a specialist. Turning to a psychotherapist for help is considered a weakness by many people, and even ridiculed. We fix Appliances at the master, mental problems we trust friends or relatives who, unfortunately, are not always able to help.

If on your life path an obstacle has arisen in the form of a psychological problem that prevents you from living, and you cannot find the key to solving it on your own, do not try to postpone the problem “for later” or forget it, seek help from a specialist, because he knows firsthand how to start those mechanisms which will help to cope with many psychological problems.

What is psychoanalytic therapy?

This is the oldest technique of psychotherapeutic work that exists today. The goal of psychoanalytic therapy is for the client to gain a deeper understanding of their feelings, desires, driving motives, gain greater confidence in themselves and their abilities, achieve personal integrity, through the experience of testing relationships in safe conditions.

It is necessary to distinguish between psychoanalysis and psychotherapy. Psychoanalysis suggests frequent meetings with an analyst (4-5 times a week), deep work to study the "mazes" of the client's soul, use of the couch. Psychotherapy is aimed at more specific goals, the frequency of meetings can vary from 2 times a week to 1 time per month. During psychotherapy, the therapist and client usually sit facing each other, and the level of problem solving is not as deep as in psychoanalysis.

What psychological problems can be solved with the help of psychoanalytic therapy?

In the course of psychoanalytic therapy, the patient can resolve the following psychological problems: self-doubt, longing, loneliness, chronic "bad luck", the inability to build friendships or love relationship, obsessive fears, complex inner experiences, somatic diseases arising on nervous ground, dependencies. If you speak to medical language, then the work of a psychotherapist is, first of all, the treatment of neurosis, depression, psychosomatic diseases and sexual disorders.

Questions from readers

October 18, 2013, 17:25 Hello! I want to help a friend deal with his problem, because he himself does not want to seek help from professionals. he had such a situation. An unfamiliar girl seduced him and persuaded him not to use protection, they had a sexual intercourse, after which, within a month, that girl convinces young man that she is pregnant, but at the same time she does not want to go with him to the doctor to get tested for hCG, or at least take a test with him so that he can immediately see the result. She convinces him that the test shows 2 strips, but does not give any evidence, she says this all the time either in correspondence on the Internet or by phone. And now I'll tell you a little about this girl. She lives alone, she is 20 years old, does not study, does not work, lives either in the urban-type settlement or in the village, judging by her stories to that martyr, she really wants a child, BUT my other friend and I are almost sure that she has problems with psyche or she simply scoffs. She lies that she can’t go to donate blood from a vein because she came to her ex-boyfriend and beat her and she's bruised while her close girlfriend says that her boyfriend did come, but they sat and drank tea. Also, this girl wrote farewell SMS to all her girlfriends and friends, saying that she was going to commit suicide. She does not agree even for money to go with my friend to the hospital to prove the fact of pregnancy. He is a student, all on his nerves, he walks not on his own. Could you please tell me if she has an attention deficit disorder? maybe she just enjoys bullying him? After all, she constantly does everything so that he begins to pay attention to her, writes to him that they say that’s it, don’t write to me anymore, and then writes to him again about pregnancy. He says that he will go with him to the hospital, and then to last moment cancels everything. Please help me understand this situation, it seems to me that she has psychological problems. Thank you.

Psychological problems are "internal" problems that a person cannot rationally explain.

And if there is no explanation, then it is quite difficult to solve such a problem on your own.

For example, such a problem as unreasonable jealousy.

Often people realize that this case there is no reason for jealousy, but he cannot help himself, emotions overwhelm him and he makes a scandal from scratch.

TYPES OF PSYCHOLOGICAL PROBLEMS

There are an innumerable number of problems associated with psychology, but there are also those that, in certain moments life, in one form or another, is present in almost everyone:

• lack of confidence and low self-esteem

• anxiety, uncontrollable obsessive fears and phobias

• problems in communication and relationships with others

• harmful addictions and sick attachments

• depression, age crises personalities

• psychological complexes

• dissatisfaction with oneself, one's appearance or character traits

IS THERE A PROBLEM?

It happens that a psychological problem is obvious, but a person does not notice it point-blank or, on the contrary, sees it where it does not even exist. In the first case, they say problem situation is covert.

On the one hand, if the situation is not perceived as problematic, then there is no problem at all.

On the other hand, although the problem is not visible, it is still there. Such an invisible problem can greatly complicate life, and also, over time, turn into a foundation for other psychological problems.

The second case is even more interesting. There seems to be no problem, but a person creates it in his mind, and therefore in reality. Making up problems can be a serious psychological problem in itself.

WHAT IS THE ESSENCE, EVERYTHING?

Most psychological problems arise from unmet needs.

A psychological problem is always a conflict between what is desired and real situation of things.

You do not have what you would like to have, or, conversely, you have what is not desirable for you. It can be anything from any character trait to a very real thing, such as a car.

Here are some examples of psychological problems:

• Dmitry wants to easily make new acquaintances, but in fact he is very shy, it is difficult for him to start and maintain a conversation with a stranger. Constant thoughts "I'm not like everyone else, something is wrong with me!" do not give rest and the situation is aggravated every day

• Alexander dreams of having a car of a certain brand, but in reality he does not have a car at all and he considers himself a complete loser, unable to achieve his goal

• Veronica always wanted to be a good wife and mother, but she nervous work and she, coming home after have a hard day, often takes out anger on loved ones, and then tirelessly blames himself

• Lydia considers herself ugly, so she perceives compliments as flattery or ridicule and, of course, reacts aggressively to them, which surprises and scares off boyfriends a lot

HOW TO GET RID OF A PSYCHOLOGICAL PROBLEM?

The first thing that can be advised is to contact a specialist. The option is correct, but, unfortunately, according to different reasons not available to everyone. A competent psychologist may not be around, and services of this kind are not cheap.

You can try to resolve the internal conflict on your own. If you decide to go this route, then following tips will come in handy:

- be aware of the fact that no matter what specific problem you have, it is not unique. There are thousands of people in the world in the same situation.

If you are pessimistic, then every little thing turns into global problem so it is very important to have a positive attitude

It is necessary to fight not with the consequences, but with the cause. Otherwise, the spiritual conflict will inevitably arise again over time.

You may not be seeing the problem where it really is! For example, if you often have conflicts with relatives, you may blame yourself for intemperance and bad character, but in fact you just do not have enough attention, care, love, etc.

Internal conflicts are rooted in the area of ​​the unconscious. The subconscious directs all our actions, but we do not even notice it.

Throughout life, we accumulate tons of negativity in the subconscious and this gives impetus to the development of serious psychological problems.

So, if you did everything right, now you have a Client ready for work, and in the next step we need to find out What specifically needs to be worked on?.

Our whole life is desire for comfort and an attempt to avoid discomfort. it key thesis which is very important to understand. Behind any action there is either a “motivation to” (by doing this, I will receive love, approval, pleasure ...), or a “motivation from” (by doing this, I will be able to avoid shame, guilt, danger ...).

To understand this, let's look at some simple psychological problems, such as phobias. The client is afraid of dogs, so he does not go to the park near the house. That is, his behavior is “motivation from” (to avoid danger, even imaginary). Speaking in public, the Client feels shame and, in order not to feel it, he does not speak.

Let's make it one step harder. For example, a woman uncontrollably eats sweets, put on weight and wants to get rid of it. It would seem that here the “motivation to” is to eat sweets in order to enjoy, but if you dig deeper, it may turn out that in this way she seizes another, already uncomfortable feeling (resentment, guilt ...).

Eventually at the heart of any psychological problem is some kind of feeling, most often uncomfortable. It is either itself a problem, or has a second level (secondary benefit).

The secondary benefit is what protects the Client from the primary discomfort.

For example, a person is afraid of public speaking, but if you still have to speak, then he no longer feels fear, but shame and reacts sharply to laughter from the audience and criticism. Thus, his fear protects from not being ashamed. Fear is a secondary benefit.

Or a person is constantly sick so that relatives take care of him, pay attention to him, and in this way he receives love and respect, because without this he feels loneliness, which is the cause of discomfort. If he were comfortable, there would be no need to get sick.

It is clear that people do not realize most of the reasons, and in order to find them out, I developed a special diagnostic technique using the Makulov method.

Let's spend it now with you. Think of any uncomfortable situation from the recent past that you would like to change your reaction to. For example, you are afraid of something, or you are offended, or you are ashamed.

1. Mentally find yourself in this situation and remember where in your body you have an uncomfortable feeling? In the chest, in the stomach, in the throat?

For example, you remembered how afraid of your boss, and you had a feeling in your chest. As long as we don't care what that feeling is, we'll deal with that in the next chapter.

2. Ask yourself: what specifically could happen to make this feeling intensify? What would you say or do in this situation?

For example, the boss will tell you: you are not doing well, I will fire you.

For example, abandoned and unnecessary.

4. Where is this feeling? In the same place in a breast or it was displaced? For example, shifted to the stomach.

5. Find the dominant - out of all the people you know who could do the same (fire / quit) to make you as uncomfortable as possible.

For example, mom.

So, we need to find exactly that very uncomfortable feeling that the Client is so diligently avoiding. The negative self-determination “what I am in this situation” is primary and forms our further reactions.

For example, "I'm a nonentity", which means that when people treat me like significant person I will feel ashamed, feeling that I am not worthy of it. Or “I am weak”, which means that I will experience fear of conflict, realizing that I cannot win.

Each of us has just a bunch of such beliefs, firstly, because our parents grew up in the USSR, and secondly, because it is much easier to manipulate a child than to educate him, respecting him as a person.

Now I will give you a diagram that the participants of our seminar use for diagnosing, and according to it, you yourself will diagnose another problem in yourself and write down the results.

As a result, you should get something like:

Situation "Fear of public speaking":

1. In the chest.

2. They will laugh.

3. Small.

There may not be a secondary benefit, for example, a boy put two fingers into a socket, he was shocked, he is afraid of sockets. Detailed scheme diagnostics is given below:

Now we can go further. We divide feelings into different character and by intensity. For example, the same resentment in the throat may be stronger or weaker depending on the situation (intensity), but it's all the same same feeling in nature. But if we compare the resentment in the throat and the fear in the stomach, they will already be different in character - that is, in general, different feelings.

Your task now is to find in yourself and write out all the uncomfortable feelings that are different in nature and carry out diagnostics with each one according to the scheme above. In fact, these will be your main psychological problems to work through.

It's easier to go from the brightest (most uncomfortable) to the least uncomfortable. And further in hypnotherapy, we will also follow from what is most disturbing now, it is simply easier to work.

Only when you do a complete self-diagnosis and understand what's what, start doing it for your Clients or just friends. You can lend this book to your friend, and when you are both in the subject, it will simply be easier for you to train.

Correctly carried out diagnostics according to the method of V. Makulov usually gives the Client a mini-enlightenment and creates trust, because So no one has figured out his problems yet.

A problem that is psychological in nature, that is, "internal" for a person, associated with his picture of the world, value sphere, conflicting needs, confusing interpersonal relationships, etc.

It is difficult to divide psychological problems into subtypes, since any internal conflict, any internal confusion tends to expand: family problems very quickly become personal, personal - spiritual, etc. Since psychological problems are closely related to human needs, it is easier to classify them (problems) in relation to the concept of "need".

1. Individual psychological problems. Problems related to the biological essence of a person: problems in the sexual sphere, various kinds of uncontrollable fears and anxiety, psychological disorders, dissatisfaction with one's own appearance, physical data, worries about lost youth, etc.

2. Subjective psychological problems. Problems associated with the performance of a purposeful activity by the subject: lack of will, knowledge, skills, insufficient level of intelligence and other abilities, confusion in the goals of the activity, lack of energy, irrationality, etc. Very often, subjective psychological problems are disguised as problems of a different kind. Few people, for example, enjoy feeling stupid; instead, a person begins to literally look for problems in interpersonal relationships, for example, he may decide that others are biased towards him or build intrigues.

3. Personal psychological problems. Problems related to a person's place in society: lack of status, inferiority complex, image problems, problems in relations with a sexual partner, children and other family members (family problems), colleagues, friends and enemies, problems in a team, role problems and etc.

4. Individual problems. Problems associated with self-realization and the achievement of long-term goals: a feeling of emptiness of being, loss of meaning in habitual activities, feelings of lack of time, existential fears, loss of self-esteem, experiencing insurmountable obstacles that stand in the way of achieving long-term goals, sudden crises (death loved one, loss of important property), problems at work and in business, in hobbies, etc.

57. Conversation with an aggressive subscriber on td.

Aggressive subscribers

Makhovikov identifies two areas of aggression: benign aggression that occurs in a person in response to a threat to his life, well-being, etc.; and malignant aggression, which is a manifestation of destructiveness and cruelty towards others. When a telephone aggressor calls a consultant, he needs a release and tries to violate the consultant's personal boundaries.

The consultant cannot defend his boundaries in the usual way for him, and the aggressor hears this very well, because. the tone changes, the pause increases, etc. Such dialogues, as a rule, become unfinished. This leads to feelings of guilt, anxiety, confusion, annoyance, a state of frustration for the consultant, and emotional burnout.

The destruction of an aggressive subscriber is due exclusively to verbal aggression, which leaves no visible traces behind, it is easy and accessible for the subscriber and extremely sensitive for the consultant. One of constructive ways The solution to this problem is the completion of the dialogue or the establishment of some kind of framework, which already leads to a decrease in the anxiety of the consultant and with the help of this, one can move towards a constructive relationship. If the consultant realizes that he does not have the ability and strength to work with such a subscriber, if the life of the subscriber is not in danger, then it is advisable to end this dialogue and ask the client to call back another time.