September 15th, 2025

About being right, wrongly

So it happened again. You’d think I’d learn, eh?
      A couple of months ago I blogged about a listener who wanted to hear the song I’d played a year before with fairies in it. A few weeks ago someone wanted the song with the bubbles. Just to be clear, fairies and bubbles had never been a inspiration for any song I’d composed. After trying out different ones with my listeners I was able to locate the songs inspiring those unique subjective experiences for them. Now I feel the fairy-ishness and the fizz in those songs whenever I play them. The songs have come to mean something different for me based on the experience of them by others.
      Oh, and then there was the song I’d always associated with the wind swept heather of Scotland. It took a listener into the tropical forest of Jamaica. 
      What am I to make of this? I used to wish people would just get it right, recognize what I was describing when I composed a song. But not any longer. Now I think it’s kind of fun when the mood and impetus within a song transports to different places than I could’ve imagined on my own. My creative endeavours trigger my listeners to look inward, return to an experience of meaning for them.
      Let’s call this in-sight.
      And, let me reflect on just how loaded that word happens to be.
​      Early on in my career as a psychologist I was trained on something called a mental status examination. I was required to conduct one of these on every client. As well as querying usual mental health symptoms (things like sleeping, eating, activity level, flow of thought, distressing emotions) it had me check for client insight. In that setting the term “insight” had a very specific meaning. The client had insight if they agreed with what the psychiatrist had diagnosed them to be and would comply with treatment.
      Later in my career I discovered there was an entirely different use of the word insight, one quite the opposite of agreeing with the psychiatrist. Insight emerged within clients through thoughtful evaluation of their personal motivations, values and habitual patterns of behaviour and relationship. The insight orientation in psychotherapy involved respectful questioning and gentle feedback. Through that process, the client discovered something uniquely their own, something they could act on responsibly to trigger personal growth.
      However, the culture and regulation of my former profession was not so inclined to the latter perspective. It was about doing things right. We were to make the right diagnosis and then apply the right treatment regime. When it came to ethics, the right thing was rote following of codes standards, guidelines and best practices. 
      Over the course of my career I began to recognize the limitations and harm that such rightness can involve. Enacting externally defined rightness shuts down one’s own critical thought, negates creative solutions to unique circumstances, and disqualifies nuance. 
      The alternative? Rather than striving to be the arbiter of the right for my clients, as a psychologist I encouraged them to find what was good: goodness both within them and around them. Latching on to it, clients could grow their own sanity and functionality.
      Often clients would ask what was the right decision for a particular situation. My typical response was that rather than finding the right decision the client needed to make the first of a series of good decisions. Each good decision would move them closer to what would eventually solve the problem. A good decision was in keeping with their values, opened up options and, provided them with more resources to address the larger issues they faced.
      Working this way I needed to get to know the uniqueness of the client, not reduce them to a single dimension of disorder or deficit. It helped to know the pace of life change for the client and what gave them a sense of meaning and satisfaction. Sure, I could suggest options and ideas. These were given not to solve the problem but to open up new possibilities. Typically the client came up with more suitable directions than I could have, their perspective and possibilities triggered by things I’d suggested. 
​
I debated what title I would put on this blog. I really wanted to call it “Standing up to the tyranny of the right”. Of course, that would’ve immediately been considered a political statement (and for those who know me, there would be knowing nod of the head).
      There are times when holding to what is correct is apt and helpful. Our national neighbour to the south is providing us with a cautionary tale about about firing scientists and eliminating regulations for health and safety. We’ll see how that turns out.
      As a psychologist I often found myself occupying two worlds, not ones defined by right and left but two worlds were defined by distance, about three metres distance. 
      Let’s consider the inner one. Within that sphere I could influence for change, recognize nuance, enact sensitivity, and celebrate emergent awareness. Psychotherapy is within that sphere, the zone of conversation. Within that sphere being right about things was both counterproductive and disrespectful. In there it was especially important to be guided by values of respect for the dignity and self-determination of others. 
      Then there is the other sphere, the one out past those three metres. In interacting with others out there, I want to make correct choices and have others do so as well, you know about things like driving on the right side of the road and stopping at stoplights.
      Getting back to the fizz and fairies, there are a mixture of folk listening to my music at the coffeeshop. Most are in the distant sphere with their lattes, conversation partners and phones. I hope my music is pleasant for them. But there are others who are clearly in the inner sphere, the one of meaning and relationship. It enriches me to have them there.