Thoughts About Step-In Sociometry

Tue Jun 30 08:33:35 CDT 2009

This is an example of the practical experience that we can begin to share with one another. Your email is worth a brief  journal article, and I bet others have their own ideas about different themes. 

    (This to Grouptalk in General as well as to Dale)

      One point struck me about your earlier words about gaydar and other sensitivities. You mentioned "most..." rather than "all..." have this sensitivity, and that was a good point. I'm intrigued with those who are not "most." That is, who like me is a little dense? There seems to be a spectrum of talent for just about everything, from singing to picking up subtle non-verbal interpersonal and group signals. There is actually a condition called dyssemia, meaning poor-functioning (dys) of reception of signals (semiotics, semaphor) -- those kids at school who didn't get it which hair styles, clothes styles, ways of speaking or carrying the body were fashionable; when another person was interested or bored; and so forth. 
     This may also be intensified by early experiences in which it isn't much fun to read others' signals.
              The point here is that a bit of social skills training can include elements of sensitivity-building associated with sociometry. But it may not come as easily and naturally to som folks than others. 

    Thanks, Dale!  Warmly, Adam
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: ABE Psychodrama 
  To: GroupTalk 
  Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 12:56 AM
  Subject: Thoughts About Step-In Sociometry

        Dear All, 

        My experience with step-in sociometry is that can be quite revealing and often deepens the intimacy in a group.  However, I do step-in sociometry somewhat differently than I have witnessed from other directors.

        I start by saying that step-in sociometry reveals the hidden connections in a group, and that one of the goals in a group is to make the covert connections overt.  I explain that most gay people have “gaydar” and most people who aren’t gay don’t have “gaydar.”  This is also true about many other issues.  Any heroin addict can enter a strange city and find a hit within a few hours.  That is because the addict seeks cues and notices cues about drugs.  The same is true if we are a person in recovery, or a survivor of abuse.  Our antennae are up and we are looking to see how others react to those topics that are sensitive for us.  

        My instructions are that only those persons who are willing to share about themselves can ask a question in step-in sociometry.  I don’t do voyeuristic step-in sociometry.  When a person steps into the circle I ask them to say, “Who like me?”  I instruct the other group members that if they are willing to disclose and connect that they should step-in and join hands with the person in the inner circle.  I also instruct the group members that f they haven’t experienced the issue or don’t want to self-disclose at this time they should stay in the outer circle.  I remind the folks in the group that we are certain that those in the inner circle have experienced this issue, but we don’t know for certain that those in the outer circle have not also experienced this issue.

        I then explain to the group members that the persons in the inner circle know what they know experientially, and those in the outer circle  only understand cognitively.  I remind the folks in the inner circle that those with them in the inner circle really get this issue and understand how this issue or circumstance affects their lives.    

        I usually demonstrate the first step-in and I only do one step-in.  

        I do not step-in for the other questions.  I ask that each group member ask one step-in so that everyone gets a turn.    If it is a new group and lots of newcomers then I focus on low risk things but things that would be important for the group to know about one another. Some examples of my low risk step-in questions are (and those are true for me): “Who like me is an only child?”;  “Who like me lost a parent when I was young?”;  “Who like me struggles to balance work and play?”  

        If the group is seasoned, safe and has developed trust with one another then I demonstrate a (one) higher risk questions:  “Who like me had a parent who was an alcoholic?”;  ‘Who like me has ever been depressed?”; and “Who like me pay so little attention to my physical body that it causes me physical problems?”  

        When people choose to step-in with a criteria that is limiting I ask them if they are open to making the circle bigger.  For example, a person may step in and say, “Who like me was repeatedly physically, emotionally and sexually abused by a parent.” or a person may say, “Who like me lost a parent by suicide when they were five years old.”  I teach them that by broadening statements they can still speak their truth while gaining connections to others.  I might suggest they ask, “Who like me was abused by a parent?”  or “Who like my has lost a loved one through suicide?’  If the person doesn’t want to make the issue broader so that others can join with him/her it tells me a lot about that person.  

        Frankly, my only problem with step-in sociometry is too much disclosure.  I try to limit step-in sociometry to one round.  Usually my groups spend a lot of time discussing their sharing, the impact their sharing has on them, and the issues that arise when they share intimately with others.  

        Certainly I have experienced persons say things like “Who like me wears contact lenses?”  When I hear those kinds of things I know that the safety and trust that I had thought had been developed in the group has not.  As a director, that means that I must return to issues of safety and confidentiality and trust building.  As we could say “It’s all good information for the group leader.”  

        Dale Richard Buchanan

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Grouptalk mailing list
  List at grouptalkweb.org
  http://grouptalkweb.org/mailman/listinfo/list_grouptalkweb.org

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
  Version: 8.5.375 / Virus Database: 270.13.0/2210 - Release Date: 06/30/09 06:10:00
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://grouptalkweb.org/pipermail/list_grouptalkweb.org/attachments/20090630/901afe05/attachment.html>