My experiments in psychiatry  1

The Hall of mirrors

The experiment consists of a room separated in the middle with a wall with a two-way mirror (the "mirror" of the name) on the same principle as the interrogation rooms that can be seen in movies or on TV. (N.B.: Even if the name is “mirrors”, in the plural, there was one mirror)

On one side of the room there was my appointed mental health counsellor and me. Also a chair for each of us and a small coffee table with a phone on it near the chair of the counsellor. Our chairs were oriented to be face to face, four to six feet from each other, and about four feet from the wall along the aforesaid mirror.

We wore, each of us, a clip-on microphone which was connected to a sound console on the coffee table near the phone.

On the other side, behind the two-way mirror, were four, six or eight different persons, depending on their availability, all specialized in mental health care (psychologist, therapist, social worker, educator, etc.) whose no faces I had seen. I knew afterward that they were sitting on two rows, facing the mirror. The back row was raised two feet high by a platform so that the people sitting in that row could have a good view of the meeting on the other side of the mirror. In front of the first row there was a small table with a cordless phone. On top of the two-way mirror, there were two speakers connected to the sound console in the other room.

The duration of the session was fifty minutes: thirty-five to forty minutes in the Hall of mirrors and then ten to fifteen minutes in the counsellor's office for a post-mortem analysis.

The principle was the following one:

The session with my counsellor began. When the phone rang, the counsellor answered and listened to the recommendations given by one of his colleagues behind the two-way mirror. He then hung up and put into immediate practice one or several recommendations that were suggested.

And so it was throughout the meeting.

(The idea was to use the experiences of many specialists in mental health care onto the same patient during a therapy session.)

Then, ten to fifteen minutes within the end of the session, the sequence in the Hall of Mirrors ended. And so, I and my counsellor headed to his office where I gave my impressions of the meeting and decide whether another meeting was necessary or not.

A maximum of ten meetings for this exercise were suggested. I was the only decision maker in the number of meetings that I wanted to do.

Positives:

1) I was facing a whole slew of mental health care experts, the best of the best therapists who, through their combined effort, could speed up the resolution of the problems I was experiencing.

2) It also allowed me to test a different therapeutic approach, to give me additional tools on the resolution of my mental health problems.

Negatives:

1) Every time the phone rang, the counsellor-patient link was automatically broken. After several "phone calls" the distance between the counsellor and me was digging further.

2) The counsellor, by answering the phone, lost more and more credibility in my eyes; if therapists behind the two-way mirror often called up, it gave me the impression that the counsellor lacked experience. Or was passing by many important things he forgot to tell me. Or appears not to be able to lead the discussion smoothly. He looked like, in my view, a puppet.

3) If the number of interventions of the therapists was anemic, the principle of the Hall of Mirrors itself was becoming obsolete.

4) Each therapist behind the one-way mirror gave me the feeling to impose its own view of the problem and its solutions, regardless of others, which could make interventions confused at times.

5) Because of the two-way mirror, soundproofing was deficient; I could occasionally hear a therapist, behind the mirror, cough. (A mirror isn’t a wall.)

6) The feeling of being watched and scrutinized by a group, whose faces I hadn’t seen nor known, developed in me a discomfort.

7) Mental health care solutions can’t be “speeded up”; it takes time, much time sometimes....

Conclusion:

The idea “on paper” was excellent! That's why I wanted to do this experiment. But in reality, this exercise slowed the resolution of my problems with the numerous interventions which led to some confusion.

Also, the bond of intimacy necessary between counsellor and patient could not be settled properly.

Nevertheless, I am very glad I tried it; now, I know…