Who would study psychology unless they had some issues?!-Chapter 673 - 602: Failure and Remedies (Part 2)

Among them, there’s the part about logistics allocation.

At the same time, the files in hand actually have notes verifying the logistics allocation situation in various sectors of the disaster area.

From this perspective, though the instructor may be an outsider to the technicalities of psychological assessment, they are absolutely professional when it comes to facts-based verification.

The conclusion Nan Zhubin reached is that the allocation of logistical supplies is normal.

With difficult traffic conditions in the disaster area and the pressure and variation across multiple sectors, no supplies can be delivered as promptly as Team Leader Li claimed.

Under normal circumstances, if the visitor still shows the current reaction, then the cognition they display is unquestionably problematic.

The individual evidently holds an incorrect cognition regarding the speed of logistical allocation, even creating a "phantom enemy" because of it.

Quickly reviewing the visitor’s situation in his mind.

Nan Zhubin planned to attempt using [Socratic questioning] to initially intervene with Team Leader Li.

[Socratic questioning] is a central and powerful technique within cognitive-behavioral therapy.

It is a consulting dialogue technique named after the Ancient Greek philosopher Socrates, focusing not on imparting answers but guiding visitors through a series of carefully structured, open, and systematic questions to explore their Self in depth.

Consultants use this questioning method to help visitors examine their ingrained, often negative, and rigid thought patterns. The ultimate goal is to help visitors uncover the biases or illogical aspects in their thinking and actively cultivate new, more realistic, and constructive cognitions.

Following a step-by-step process, [Socratic questioning] primarily presents five types of questions in consultation one by one.

These are "clarifying questions," "exploring evidence and counter-proof questions," "exploratory questions," "consequences assessment questions," and "logical inquiry questions."

In the earlier intervention, the dialogue between Nan Zhubin and the visitor already implicitly contained the first parts of "clarifying questions" and "exploring evidence and counter-proof questions," which were used respectively to present the visitor’s current erroneous cognition and the basis for these erroneous cognitions.

Next, try to counter proof the visitor’s erroneous cognition.

Then use "exploratory questions," such as "Isn’t there another possibility for the supply delay?" to break the singularity of the visitor’s thinking and guide the visitor to develop new cognitions;

Follow with "consequences assessment questions" to present the possible outcomes of the visitor maintaining the current cognition, and finally use "logical inquiry questions" to expose the irrationality of the visitor’s cognition.

[Socratic questioning] is not just a technique; it’s also a conversation style woven into every corner of consultation.

Theoretically, it can be applied to the current situation.

...

Having made up his mind, Nan Zhubin repeated what the visitor just said:

"Hmm, you said the application you submitted is always ’under review,’ and when you call to follow up, you’re always given vague answers. So you feel they are deliberately delaying."

Nan Zhubin tried a [Counter-proof]: "I’m not very professional in this aspect, but I’d like to ask if you know how coordinators in other sectors handle supply applications, and whether they receive the same treatment as you?"

Team Leader Li was silent for a moment upon hearing this, looked into Nan Zhubin’s eyes, and said, "Yes."

The [Counter-proof] seemed successful.

But Team Leader Li’s gaze made Nan Zhubin’s heart skip a beat.

[Leaning back, eyes slightly narrowed, eyebrows lowered and drawn together.]

[Lips tightly closed, corners of the mouth slightly downturned, chin slightly raised.]

[Is this [Aloofness] and... [Skepticism]?]

Before Nan Zhubin could react to this, he heard Team Leader Li suddenly say, "When I previously talked to our instructor, he also asked the same question as you."

As if a switch had been turned on, Team Leader Li continued, reacting impulsively: "Are you trying to say that other sectors are treated the same as mine, so our sector hasn’t been deliberately targeted, and it’s tough for everyone to work, right?"

"Then I would say, the slow logistics allocation for everyone highlights issues with the people behind it."

"Next, you would try to advise me if there might be other possibilities, such as pressures on the back end causing logistical difficulties, or traffic on the way delaying time, or other incidents causing the current situation—"

"—In short, the ones at fault aren’t those behind the allocation of supplies; it’s me. It’s my thoughts that are wrong, right?"

The visitor looked into Nan Zhubin’s eyes: "Then you’d suggest I take a break, focus on the work at hand, and stop overthinking things—"

...

Listening to the visitor’s rapid-fire accusations.

Nan Zhubin blinked.

—This is bad.

Strictly speaking, what Team Leader Li said isn’t wrong; that indeed was Nan Zhubin’s intended process afterward.

Many intervention methods using psychological techniques aren’t particularly profound; individuals with some social experience or communication skills can apply them in daily life.

Thus, while learning psychological consultation techniques, many people often feel, "I seem to know these techniques; why learn them?"

This idea isn’t entirely incorrect.

However, it’s similar to knowing that a cut needs disinfection, debridement, and suturing but few dare to perform such procedures alone, opting instead to visit a hospital.

Because with the same procedure, a doctor’s technique is more refined. They can choose the most suitable suture line, stitching method, and even the fewest stitches based on the location, size, and nature of the wound.

Swap a rough-handed amateur into sewing up the wound, the best result might be an unsightly scar; worse, it could fail to stop the bleeding entirely, requiring reopening and resuturing; the worst scenario would be piercing something unintended, causing secondary damage.

Evidently, Team Leader Li’s instructor is such an amateur.

He prematurely advised Team Leader Li with rudimentary reasoning, achieving minimal effect, perhaps even worsening the situation.

This left Nan Zhubin, holding needle and thread, a bit flustered, as the same therapeutic approach is evidently no longer applicable.

This is also a common scenario many "backup" consultants encounter.

Simply applying [Socratic questioning] directly won’t work.

Nan Zhubin sighed inwardly—this form of psychological intervention isn’t appropriate either.

In normal psychological consultation, the first two or three sessions are typically spent building the consultation relationship.

Once that relationship is established, even repeated use of [Socratic questioning] like this wouldn’t provoke such intense reactions from the visitor.

In a well-established consultation relationship, the visitor might even reevaluate themselves.

Nan Zhubin had prior experiences of initiating intervention during the first consultation, but that was usually when the visitor had a strong desire for help or other favorable conditions were present.

But for now, it’s too rushed.

There’s no choice, though, as the current environment necessitates shortening data collection time and employing fast intervention methods to provide short-term relief for the visitor’s condition.

This is also the distinction between "psychological intervention" and long-term "psychological consultation."

Nan Zhubin took a deep breath, preparing to make amends.

...

"Team Leader Li," Nan Zhubin said, "please listen to me, I absolutely do not think you’re overthinking. Quite the contrary, I believe everything you’ve seen and experienced gives you ample reason to reach this conclusion."

"If I were you, in your position, I might feel just as anxious and skeptical as you do."