This is an old revision of the document!
The Kinaesthetic Pattern
The Kinaesthetic Pattern, often abbreviated to the K-Pattern, is one of the central practical patterns within IEMT. It is concerned with feelings, emotional states and somatic responses that the client can identify as problematic, unwanted or no longer useful.
The purpose of teaching this section is not merely to give trainees a script to remember. Trainers should ensure that practitioners understand the logic of each question, the reason for the order of the questions, the timing of the delivery, and the kinds of client responses that can easily derail the process if handled poorly.
The practitioner should not be trained simply to remember what to say. They should be trained to understand what they are doing.
Prerequisite: the introductory test exercise
Before applying the Kinaesthetic Pattern, the practitioner should already have completed a simple eye-movement test exercise with the client. This usually involves asking the client to identify a memory from some time ago that they do not like, applying eye movements, and discovering whether the client reports any change.
This is an essential first step. It establishes whether eye movements are likely to be of use to this person before the practitioner begins a more structured intervention.
Trainers should emphasise that it is poor practice to take a client through the full Kinaesthetic Pattern without first establishing that the basic eye-movement process appears to produce some useful change. Otherwise, the practitioner risks adding another experience of therapeutic failure to the client's history.
Many clients who seek help have already had multiple experiences of therapy, coaching, counselling, medical treatment or self-help approaches that have not resolved the issue. They may already believe that their problem is too deep, too entrenched or too unusual to be helped. The practitioner should not add to that list of failures through poor procedure.
What is meant by kinaesthetic?
In IEMT, the term kinaesthetic is used broadly to refer to feelings. These may be:
* emotional feelings * somatic feelings * body sensations * part-body states * affective responses * unwanted internal states that the client can identify and reference
The term does not always neatly distinguish between emotion and bodily sensation. Many clients do not make this distinction clearly either. They may say, for example:
* “I get a tightness in my chest.” * “I feel sick when I think about it.” * “I get this heavy feeling.” * “I just feel panic.” * “I feel ashamed.” * “I feel it in my stomach.”
Trainers should make clear that the practitioner is not looking for a technically perfect emotional label. The practitioner is looking for a workable point of reference.
Feelings, states and moods
Trainees should understand the difference between a feeling, a state and a mood, even though these categories may overlap.
A feeling is often experienced as a part-body phenomenon. The client can usually identify it as something they “have” or “notice”. For example:
* “I have this panic in my chest.” * “I get a sinking feeling.” * “I feel guilt in my stomach.” * “There is a pressure in my throat.”
In this sense, the client has some separation from the feeling. They can refer to it, observe it and describe it.
A state is more global. It tends to involve the whole person. The person may be “in” the state rather than merely noticing it. For example, a person who is visibly angry may insist, “I'm not angry,” whilst their whole body, voice and behaviour communicate otherwise.
A mood may be broader and more enduring. Moods can involve conflicts between how the person feels and how they believe they are supposed to feel. In some families, relationships or social systems, a person may be provoked into one mood whilst simultaneously being expected to display another.
Trainers do not need to turn this into an abstract psychology lecture. The important point is that trainees learn to recognise whether the client has a sufficiently clear kinaesthetic reference to work with.
Different kinds of emotional material
Not all feelings are organised in the same way. Trainees should be introduced to the idea that emotional responses differ in structure, origin and context.
Old emotions rooted in the past
These are often the most suitable emotional responses for the Kinaesthetic Pattern. They are feelings that appear to have been carried forward from earlier life and no longer serve the adult client.
Examples include:
* old school-related shame, dread or humiliation * emotional residues from childhood family dynamics * hangover feelings from past relationships * long-standing feelings attached to old social or personal experiences * emotional responses that clearly belong to an earlier stage of life
These feelings may once have made sense in the original context, but they may no longer be relevant to the client's current adult life.
Trainers should teach trainees that IEMT often works well with feelings that are rooted in the past and are still being carried in the present.
Emotions triggered by the past
These are not quite the same as emotions rooted in the past. Some emotions arise when the person refers back to an event or period of life. For example:
* guilt * nostalgia * regret * sadness * anger about a remembered event
These feelings may be responsive to a memory rather than carried as an ongoing state. The practitioner should be aware that the structure may differ.
Emotions responsive to current circumstances
Some emotions are generated in the present. A client may be stressed because of a current workplace problem, a difficult colleague, an ongoing legal situation, a family conflict or some other present-day circumstance.
Some of these responses may have historical roots. Others may not. Trainers should caution trainees against automatically pursuing every present-day emotion back into childhood.
If a feeling is clearly contextual, current and proportionate to an ongoing real-world situation, the practitioner should not assume that it must be treated as a childhood-derived emotional pattern.
Social emotions
Some emotions are strongly social. These are often learned, culturally shaped and relationally reinforced.
Examples include:
* shame * jealousy * fear of being excluded * social anxiety * embarrassment * humiliation * status-related anger * feelings of being judged, rejected or exposed
Social emotions may be strongly influenced by culture, family system, peer group, workplace environment or social role. Trainers should emphasise that the practitioner is only one influence in the client's life. The client's culture, society, family, daily relationships and social world may exert a much greater influence than the practitioner ever can.
This should encourage realism and discourage grandiose claims.
Anticipatory emotions
Anticipatory emotions are future-based. They include feelings such as:
* anxiety about tomorrow * dread about a future meeting * fear of an expected confrontation * worry about an upcoming event * panic about something that has not yet happened
These are not memories in the usual sense. They are responses to imagined or anticipated futures. The Kinaesthetic Pattern is especially relevant here because the pattern allows the practitioner to locate where a feeling first appears in memory, when that is possible.
However, trainers should make clear that not every anticipatory emotion is necessarily rooted in memory. Some future-based anxiety may be generated by current circumstances, practical uncertainty or realistic risk.
Identifying the feeling
The practitioner should identify the feeling simply and directly. This does not need to become an elaborate induction, ritual or technique.
Suitable questions include:
* “Have you got a feeling you don't like?” * “Is there a feeling that is a particular issue for you?” * “Is there a feeling that has brought you here today?” * “What is the feeling you want to work with?”
The practitioner should avoid over-elaborate therapeutic language such as:
* “Take a deep breath and neutralise yourself.” * “Go inside and access the feeling.” * “Allow yourself to connect with the state.” * “Step into the feeling.” * “Amplify it.” * “Make it stronger.” * “See what you saw, hear what you heard and feel what you felt.”
Trainers should explicitly discourage trainees from importing NLP, hypnotherapy or other therapeutic procedures into the Kinaesthetic Pattern. In particular, practitioners should not ask the client to close their eyes, step into state, amplify the feeling or relive the experience.
The practitioner is not trying to create a dramatic emotional experience. The practitioner is trying to identify a feeling that is already part of the client's problem structure.
Getting the feeling present in the system
Once the feeling has been identified, it needs to be sufficiently present for the practitioner to work with it. If the feeling is not present at all, the practitioner may only be working with the idea of the problem rather than the experience of the problem.
The simplest way to bring the feeling into the client's present experience is to ask:
* “On a score out of 10, how strong is this feeling?”
To answer the question, the client has to reference the feeling. This is usually sufficient.
Trainers should make clear that the practitioner does not need to amplify the feeling or deepen the client's association into it. The score out of 10 is enough to establish that the feeling is active in the client's system.
Handling the either/or response
A common response at this point is for the client to ask:
* “Do you mean now or when I think about it?” * “Do you mean how strong it is now, or how strong it was then?” * “Do you mean when it happens, or here?” * “Do you mean in the memory, or in the present?”
The practitioner should not answer this either/or question.
This is an important training point. The either/or question can be a way for the client to keep the feeling at bay. It may be part of how the client manages, distances from or controls the experience.
The practitioner should remain calm and wait. The client will usually answer with a number.
Trainees often find this difficult at first because the silence creates tension. They may feel an urge to explain, reassure, smile, soften the moment or answer the client's question. Trainers should prepare trainees for this moment and teach them to hold the frame.
Timing and delivery
Once the feeling is active, the practitioner should proceed promptly.
A common error is that the practitioner asks for the score, the client reports a strong number, and the practitioner then allows the session to be hijacked by explanation, discussion, reassurance, theory or unnecessary commentary.
This is poor practice because the feeling may no longer be active by the time the practitioner continues.
Trainers should teach trainees to avoid filling silence with unnecessary words. Much of this filler language arises because the practitioner is uncomfortable, inexperienced or attempting to reduce their own tension.
The practitioner should maintain the frame and continue.
The familiarity question
The next key question is:
* “And how familiar is this feeling?”
This is not the same as asking:
* “Is this familiar?”
The question “Is this familiar?” invites a yes/no answer. It does not require much internal searching.
The question “How familiar is this feeling?” requires the client to compare the feeling across time. It begins to link the present feeling with memory and previous experience.
This question helps set up the next stage of the pattern.
Trainers should emphasise that this is a small question with a large function. It is easy for trainees to miss, but it is an important part of the sequence.
The first remembered occurrence
The next question should be delivered carefully:
* “And when is the first time you can remember feeling this feeling now? It may not be the first time you ever felt it, but it is the first time you can remember now.”
This wording matters.
The practitioner is not asking:
* “Can you remember the first time you felt it?” * “What was the first time this ever happened?” * “Is there a first time you can remember?” * “What is the earliest memory you can go back to?” * “When did this start?” * “Where did it come from?”
These are different questions and may create different problems.
The phrase “the first time you can remember” does not require the client to identify the objectively first occurrence. It asks for the first occurrence currently available to memory.
This distinction matters because the client may not know when the feeling originally began. If the practitioner asks, “Can you remember the first time?”, the client can answer, “No.” The process may then stall.
The wording should therefore preserve the possibility that the remembered occasion may not be the first time it ever happened.
Preventing unnecessary storytelling
When the client locates a memory, they may begin to tell the story. This is especially likely if they have previous experience of talk therapy, counselling or psychotherapy where discussing the problem history is expected.
In the Kinaesthetic Pattern, extended storytelling is usually unnecessary and may derail the process.
The practitioner needs to interrupt the verbal discourse without interrupting the internal process. This is done by asking:
* “And how vivid is this memory?”
This question keeps the client attending to the memory while interrupting the move into narrative explanation.
The timing is important. The practitioner should often ask this as soon as there is a look of recognition or the client appears about to begin telling the story.
The practitioner is not being rude. They are maintaining the process.
Vividness of memory
There is often a relationship between the intensity of the feeling and the vividness of the memory. Stronger feelings often correspond with more vivid memory representations.
The practitioner should ask:
* “And how vivid is this memory?”
The answer may be verbal or non-verbal. The exact number or descriptor is less important than the fact that the client is now referencing the memory representation.
The practitioner can then proceed to the eye movements.
Applying the eye movements
Once the feeling is active, the familiarity has been established, the first remembered occurrence has been identified and the vividness has been referenced, the practitioner should direct the client through the appropriate eye movements.
The practitioner should keep the instruction clean and simple.
For example:
* “Hold that memory there and follow my fingers.”
The trainer should ensure that trainees practise giving clear, simple, confident instructions without unnecessary therapeutic embellishment.
Core sequence for trainees
Kinaesthetic Pattern core question sequence
* Identify the feeling: “Have you got a feeling you don't like?” * Establish intensity: “On a score out of 10, how strong is this feeling?” * Establish familiarity: “And how familiar is this feeling?” * Locate the first remembered occurrence: “And when is the first time you can remember feeling this feeling now? It may not be the first time you ever felt it, but it is the first time you can remember now.” * Interrupt storytelling and focus the memory: “And how vivid is this memory?” * Apply eye movements: “Hold that memory there and follow my fingers.”
</WRAP>
Common trainee errors
Trainers should watch carefully for the following errors during demonstrations and practice sessions.
Proceeding without testing eye movements first
The practitioner should not begin the Kinaesthetic Pattern unless they have first established that the client appears to respond usefully to the basic eye-movement exercise.
Turning elicitation into a technique
The practitioner should not make the identification of the feeling into an elaborate process. The question should be simple and direct.
Asking the client to close their eyes
The practitioner should not ask the client to close their eyes when preparing the Kinaesthetic Pattern. This is a common carry-over from hypnosis, guided imagery or NLP-style work and is not required here.
Asking the client to step into state
The practitioner should not ask the client to step into the memory or amplify the state. The intensity question is sufficient.
Answering either/or questions
When the client asks whether the score refers to now, then, here or there, the practitioner should not answer the either/or question. The practitioner should hold the frame and allow the client to give the number.
Allowing discourse to hijack the process
Once the feeling is active, the practitioner should proceed. Long explanations, reassurance, commentary or theoretical discussion can dissipate the state and derail the process.
Asking the wrong first-time question
The practitioner should not ask, “Can you remember the first time?” This makes it too easy for the client to answer no. The correct question concerns the first time the client can remember now.
Allowing the client to narrate the memory
The practitioner should not invite lengthy storytelling at the point where the client identifies the memory. The question “And how vivid is this memory?” keeps the client in the process and prevents unnecessary discourse.
Changing key words too readily
Some clients may object to words such as “memory” or may say that they do not remember things in that way. The practitioner should be cautious about immediately changing the structure of the process to accommodate every objection.
There are clients who have poor recall, low emotional access or unusual cognitive styles. There are also clients whose objections are part of the problem structure or part of the relational dynamic they bring to the session.
Trainers should teach trainees to distinguish between appropriate flexibility and losing control of the process.
Trying to force the client into the practitioner's model
Not every client is suitable for this process. Some people cannot identify feelings clearly. Some have very limited emotional range. Some do not readily access memory in a way that supports this kind of work.
The practitioner should not try to force the client into IEMT simply because the practitioner has learned IEMT. This is an important ethical issue.
Working with clients who intellectualise
Some clients approach everything from a detached, analytical or problem-solving position. They may not easily enter emotional states and may resist the implied surrender involved in some therapeutic contexts.
These clients are sometimes described in NLP-influenced language as “auditory digital” or as being dissociated from experience. However, the important clinical point is simpler: they are not going to respond well to being pushed into an emotional process they do not want or cannot access.
With these clients, the practitioner may need to work more collaboratively and educationally. Rather than trying to make them submit to the process, the practitioner may teach them what to do, explain the structure, diagram the process or invite them to test the procedure in a more observational way.
Trainers should make clear that this is not a failure. It is a matter of matching the intervention to the person.
Clients with poor emotional access
Some clients cannot easily identify, recognise or verbalise feelings. This may be part of their normal emotional range, or it may be an adaptation to difficult history.
The practitioner should not automatically attempt to make the client more emotional in order to fit the method.
Important considerations include:
* Does the client actually have a feeling they can identify? * Is the client able to reference that feeling sufficiently? * Is the practitioner trying to make the client fit the method? * Would another approach be more suitable? * Is the client's low emotional access adaptive, protective or simply normal for them?
Trainers should discourage trainees from pathologising the client merely because the client does not fit the practitioner's preferred model.
Clients with poor memory or claimed absence of imagery
Some clients report poor memory, lack of imagery or inability to make pictures. Occasionally this may be a genuine and significant limitation. Sometimes it may be a belief about the self. Sometimes it may be part of a wider identity or diagnostic narrative.
The practitioner should not become drawn into a struggle about whether the client really has imagery, memories or feelings. Nor should the practitioner attempt to prove the client wrong.
The relevant question is whether the client has enough of a memory reference or emotional reference for this pattern to be useful. If not, the practitioner should use a different approach.
Crying, abreaction and emotional expression
During work with emotionally charged material, some clients may cry or become visibly distressed. Trainers should teach trainees to distinguish between different kinds of crying:
* crying with relief * crying as social communication * crying as part of an emotional release * crying without relief * crying that is part of depressive experience * crying that is part of an acute recent trauma response
There is no single rule that covers every situation.
The practitioner should remain outside the client's emotion rather than being pulled into rapport with the negative state. At the same time, the practitioner should maintain empathy, respect and positive intention.
The practitioner should not become flippant or dismissive. Equally, the practitioner should not collapse into care-taking when the agreed frame is intervention and change.
Where the person requires care, support, stabilisation or specialist intervention, this should be recognised.
Care, support and change work
Trainers should teach the distinction between:
* care * support * containment * stabilisation * intervention * change work
IEMT practitioners should not confuse these categories.
A person who has recently been assaulted, bereaved, destabilised, traumatised or placed at risk may require care and support before any change work is appropriate. Some clients should be referred to specialist services.
The practitioner must not assume that every expression of distress is an invitation to apply a pattern.
Grief and bereavement
Grief should be approached cautiously. It is important not to pathologise normal grief.
Many grief responses honour the relationship, love, connection and significance of the person who has died. The practitioner should not automatically attempt to remove or alter these feelings.
However, grief may be mixed with other emotional material, such as:
* guilt * self-blame * anger * traumatic imagery * helplessness * regret * shock * unresolved conflict * distressing circumstances around the death
The practitioner may be able to work with these specific components where appropriate. For example, a person may present with grief, but the workable issue may actually be self-blame about not being present at the moment of death, anger at another family member, or traumatic memory of events surrounding the death.
Trainers should teach trainees to separate grief itself from the additional emotional structures that may be attached to it.
Ethical boundaries and scope
The practitioner should work within the client's presenting issue and within the limits of consent.
A client may come for help with a specific problem, such as a phobia. During the session, the practitioner may notice other issues. This does not automatically give the practitioner permission to work on them.
Trainers should emphasise that therapeutic curiosity is not the same as consent.
The practitioner should not go “wading in” to additional areas of the client's life simply because they believe they can help. Consent, relevance and scope must be maintained.
The practitioner should not perform psychological surgery on any part of the client's experience simply because they have noticed it. The agreed purpose of the session matters.
Avoiding model-imposition
Every therapeutic model has a tendency to interpret the client according to its own assumptions. A regression therapist may look for regression material. A hypnotherapist may look for trance phenomena. An NLP practitioner may look for faulty programming. A somatic practitioner may look for body-based material.
IEMT practitioners must guard against the same error.
The question is not, “How can I fit this person into the Kinaesthetic Pattern?”
The better question is, “Is the Kinaesthetic Pattern appropriate for this person, this problem and this moment?”
Trainers should repeatedly return trainees to this distinction.
Professional realism
Trainers should discourage exaggerated claims. IEMT practitioners should not be trained to think in terms of miracle cures, grandiose change claims or universal applicability.
The practitioner is one influence in the client's life. The client's family system, culture, workplace, society, history, biology and daily environment may all be powerful influences.
The practitioner should aim to do precise, ethical and useful work without inflating the claims.
Trainer demonstration standards
When demonstrating the Kinaesthetic Pattern, trainers should model:
* simple and direct elicitation * clear question structure * minimal unnecessary language * steady pacing * confident use of silence * no closing of the client's eyes * no amplification of the state * no unnecessary storytelling * no rescuing the client from ordinary tension * no drifting into unrelated therapy * no forcing the client into the model
The demonstration should show trainees that effective work is often cleaner, simpler and more precise than they expect.
Trainee practice standards
During practice, trainees should be assessed on whether they can:
* identify a suitable feeling * establish intensity without over-inducing the state * handle either/or questions without surrendering the frame * ask “How familiar is this feeling?” rather than “Is it familiar?” * ask for the first remembered occurrence using the correct structure * prevent storytelling without shutting down the client's internal processing * proceed to eye movements without unnecessary delay * remain calm when the client becomes emotional * avoid importing unrelated techniques * recognise when the pattern is not appropriate
Minimum competency benchmark
By the end of this section, a competent trainee should understand that the Kinaesthetic Pattern is not a script to be performed mechanically. It is a structured intervention with a rationale behind each question.
The trainee should be able to explain:
* why the introductory eye-movement test comes first * why the feeling is elicited simply * why the feeling is scored out of 10 * why either/or questions should not be answered * why timing matters after the feeling is active * why familiarity is asked before the first remembered occurrence * why the first remembered occurrence is not necessarily the first occurrence ever * why the practitioner should prevent unnecessary storytelling * why eye movements are applied only once the correct material is active * why not every client or problem is suitable for this pattern
A trainer should not pass trainees as competent merely because they can recite the questions. They should demonstrate that they understand the structure, purpose and limits of the pattern.
—
Module 3 - Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
This module introduces the structure of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder as it is approached within IEMT, with particular emphasis on the distinction between traumatic memory, traumatic consequence, and the identification of the linchpin.
The purpose of this section is not to train practitioners to diagnose PTSD. Nor is it to encourage practitioners to claim that all trauma can be resolved through a single intervention. The purpose is to give trainees a practical framework for understanding how traumatic experience may be organised and how IEMT may be used with selected components of that organisation.
Trainers should emphasise that PTSD is a serious clinical condition. The term should not be used loosely, casually, or as a fashionable label for ordinary distress, difficult life history, or unpleasant emotional experience.
The existence and seriousness of PTSD
Trainers should begin by establishing that PTSD exists as a genuine and serious condition. It is not simply a dramatic way of saying that a person has had a difficult time, nor is it merely a general label for distress.
Trainees should be encouraged to distinguish between:
* a client saying, “I have PTSD” * a client using trauma language acquired from social media or peer groups * a person having had stressful or distressing life experiences * a person meeting formal diagnostic criteria for PTSD * a person having a clinical diagnosis given by an appropriately qualified professional * a person presenting with severe trauma-related impairment
It is helpful for trainers to give some historical context. PTSD entered common usage in relation to soldiers, war veterans, refugees, torture victims, survivors of extreme violence, and those exposed to events that placed life, bodily integrity, or psychological survival under extreme threat. Earlier terms such as shell shock and combat stress reaction can be used to show that the clinical phenomenon long predates the modern diagnostic label.
The trainer should make clear that IEMT practitioners must avoid trivialising trauma. A client who has been exposed to extreme violence, military combat, torture, sexual assault, catastrophic accident, repeated abuse, or severe medical trauma should not be treated as though their problem is merely a picture in the mind that needs a quick technique.
The difference between trauma recall and trauma consequence
A central distinction in this module is between:
* the recollection of trauma * the consequences of trauma
These are not the same thing.
A person may recall a traumatic event in images, sounds, sensations, emotions, fragmented sequences, body responses, startle reactions, dreams, intrusive thoughts, or flashbacks. These are aspects of recall.
The consequences of trauma may extend much further. They may include:
* changes in identity * changes in personality expression * shame * guilt * regret * avoidance * alcohol or substance use * social withdrawal * loss of confidence * loss of trust * changes in sexuality * changes in family relationships * occupational impairment * emotional numbing * hypervigilance * irritability * sleep disruption * changes in worldview * dependence on a diagnosis or patient role * a new identity organised around what happened
Trainers should be clear that changing the sensory representation of a traumatic memory does not automatically remove all consequences of the trauma. Suffering often goes deeper than the pictures a person makes, and the consequences of trauma often go deeper than how the person feels in a moment.
A useful teaching distinction:
* Trauma recall concerns how the event is remembered. * Trauma consequence concerns what the event has done to the person's life, identity, relationships, body, behaviour and future orientation.
</WRAP>
Avoiding the reduction of trauma to a simple memory
Many therapeutic approaches reduce trauma to a memory or representation. The practitioner may be tempted to think that if the picture is changed, the trauma is resolved.
Trainers should challenge this simplification.
Even a single event, such as a car crash, assault, medical emergency, or battlefield incident, may contain many separate components:
* what the person was doing before the event * what the person expected to happen * what other people were doing * what the person saw * what the person heard * what the person did * what the person failed to do * what the person felt in the body * what happened immediately afterwards * what other people said afterwards * what the person concluded about themselves * what the person concluded about other people * what changed in the person's life afterwards
The trainer should emphasise that the practitioner is not working with “the trauma” as a single lump. They are working with a human being whose experience may need to be separated into workable components.
Fractionation of traumatic experience
The term fractionation can be used to describe the process of separating a complex traumatic experience into its component parts.
This does not mean forcing the client to describe everything that happened. It means helping the practitioner and client identify which part of the experience is actually available for intervention.
A useful training structure is:
* What was happening before the event? * What was the client doing before the event? * What other factors were present? * What happened during the event? * What did other people do? * What did the client do or not do? * What happened afterwards? * What adaptations did the client make? * What reinforcers developed afterwards? * What quality of the client became implicated?
This framework helps prevent the practitioner from becoming lost in narrative and helps trainees see that trauma is often an organised structure rather than a single memory.
Intrinsic and extrinsic factors
Trainers should distinguish between intrinsic and extrinsic factors.
Extrinsic factors are outside the client. These may include:
* what another person did * what another person failed to do * the accident itself * the actions of institutions * the behaviour of perpetrators * the environment * the circumstances * the public response * the legal or medical aftermath * the behaviour of family, colleagues or witnesses
Intrinsic factors are within the client's experience. These may include:
* what the client remembers * how the client feels * what the client concluded * what the client believes about themselves * what the client now avoids * what the client now expects * what quality of self became implicated * how the client has adapted
IEMT can only work with the client who is present. The practitioner cannot change what other people did, what happened in the world, or what the wider system failed to provide.
The practitioner works with the experience of the client in front of them. They do not work directly with the other people, events, institutions or external forces that contributed to the trauma.
The problem with excessive retelling
Trainers should warn trainees against assuming that trauma work requires repeated retelling of the traumatic event.
Some clients will have already told the story many times. Some will have been required to recount it formally, medically, legally, therapeutically or socially. Repeated retelling may become part of the problem, especially where it reinforces the identity of being damaged, helpless, traumatised or permanently altered.
Talking about what happened may have a place, but the IEMT practitioner should not assume that narrative disclosure is inherently therapeutic.
Trainers should teach trainees to ask:
* What is the client actually doing by retelling this? * Is this clarification, processing, evidence-giving, reassurance-seeking, identity rehearsal, or something else? * Is the retelling helping the client or reinforcing the trauma identity? * Is the practitioner becoming absorbed in the story rather than identifying the workable structure?
Being at Effect rather than at Cause
The Pattern of Chronicity known as Being at Effect rather than at Cause should be reintroduced in this module.
A traumatised client may understandably organise themselves around what happened to them. They may experience themselves as permanently altered by an event, person or system. In many cases, this is not unreasonable. However, the practitioner needs to recognise when the client has become entirely organised around being acted upon.
Common expressions include:
* “I want my life back.” * “I just want to be the person I was before.” * “No one understands what happened to me.” * “People need to know what this is like.” * “They ruined my life.” * “I will never be the same again.” * “Everything goes back to that moment.”
The trainer should not present this pattern in a blaming way. The client may genuinely have been victimised. The point is that therapeutic work needs to identify what can be worked with now, rather than staying entirely at the level of what other people did then.
The need for others to understand
Some people with trauma develop a powerful need for other people to understand exactly what they experienced. This may appear as:
* repeated explanation * campaigns * books * awareness projects * social media posting * insistence that others must “get it” * attempts to make the therapist understand the full horror * frustration when people fail to respond correctly
There is nothing inherently wrong with testimony, education, campaigning or advocacy. However, the practitioner should recognise when the need to be understood has become part of the maintenance of the trauma pattern.
The trainer should teach that other people may care without fully understanding. It is not always possible for others to understand the lived reality of the event. A therapeutic strategy based on getting everyone else to understand is likely to fail.
The attempt to go back in time
Another common trauma pattern is the attempt to return psychologically to the event in order to make it come out differently.
This may appear as:
* repeated mental replay * “If only I had…” * “I should have…” * “Why didn't I…?” * “I keep going over it.” * “I keep trying to work out what I could have done.” * “I can see the moment where it all went wrong.”
The person may be trying to re-enter the past in imagination and correct the event. This cannot succeed, because the past cannot be changed.
Trainers should explain that this often locks the client into a past-negative orientation while also creating a future-negative loop. The person repeatedly returns to the past, fails to change it, and re-enters the future with the same unresolved distress.
A useful practitioner frame is:
* the past cannot be altered * the representation of the past may be altered * the emotional and identity consequences may be worked with * the future can be organised differently * the strategy of replaying the event cannot succeed
Introducing the linchpin
The linchpin is a central concept in this module.
The linchpin is not the worst moment of the trauma. It is not the most vivid image, the loudest sound, the most dramatic detail, or the external event itself.
The linchpin is a normal characteristic, quality or trait of the individual that was previously unremarkable, acceptable or even positive, but which the traumatic event has since reframed as causative.
For example:
* The issue is not simply that a person failed to press a button.
* The issue may be that the person now experiences themselves as careless, inattentive, casual or mindless.
* The issue is not simply that a person said “please” while being attacked.
* The issue may be that the person now experiences themselves as compliant, polite, weak, well-trained, too nice or unable to protect themselves.
* The issue is not simply that a person froze.
* The issue may be that the person now experiences themselves as passive, useless, cowardly, helpless or defective.
* The issue is not simply that a person went along with something.
* The issue may be that the person now experiences themselves as too agreeable, too trusting, unable to say no, or too concerned with pleasing others.
The linchpin is the quality that the traumatic experience has made significant.
Behaviour versus characteristic
Trainers should spend time distinguishing behaviour from characteristic.
A behaviour is what the person did or did not do.
A characteristic is the quality of personhood that the behaviour appears to reveal or implicate.
Examples:
* Behaviour: “I did nothing.”
* Characteristic: “I am the kind of person who freezes.”
* Behaviour: “I said yes.”
* Characteristic: “I am too compliant.”
* Behaviour: “I did not notice.”
* Characteristic: “I am careless.”
* Behaviour: “I hesitated.”
* Characteristic: “I am weak.”
* Behaviour: “I trusted them.”
* Characteristic: “I am naive.”
The linchpin is usually located at the level of characteristic rather than behaviour.
How the linchpin becomes causative
Before the trauma, the characteristic may have been ordinary, acceptable or even valued.
For example:
* politeness * trust * patience * tolerance * calmness * being laid-back * being agreeable * being dutiful * being brave * being careful * being a good son or daughter * being a good colleague * being professional
After the trauma, the same quality may be reinterpreted as the reason the trauma happened.
The person may conclude:
* “Because I was polite, I did not say no.” * “Because I was trusting, I was exploited.” * “Because I hesitated, someone died.” * “Because I was calm, I failed to act.” * “Because I was obedient, I stayed.” * “Because I was professional, I ignored my own fear.”
This creates a serious problem because the quality is not limited to the traumatic memory. It is part of the person's ordinary life and identity. Wherever that quality appears again, the trauma may be reactivated.
How the linchpin affects relationships
The linchpin may also affect relationships.
If the implicated quality originated in, or was reinforced by, a significant relationship, then that relationship may become contaminated by the trauma.
For example, if the traumatised person identifies the linchpin as “being a good boy”, “being polite”, “being obedient” or “being well-mannered”, and those qualities are associated with parental training, then the relationship with the parent may become affected.
The client may experience the parent, teacher, institution or culture that shaped the quality as partly responsible for what happened. This can create anger, avoidance, blame or relational rupture.
Trainers should make clear that this may not be verbally explicit. The client may simply find themselves avoiding a parent, partner, authority figure, workplace or social context without understanding why.
Emotions commonly attached to the linchpin
The linchpin often carries strong emotional material, especially:
* shame * regret * guilt * remorse * self-blame * humiliation * anger at self * disgust * fear of being judged * fear of being exposed
These emotions may be intensified by what others say afterwards. Reassurance such as “anyone would have done that” may not help if the person has privately identified a quality in themselves that they believe caused or enabled the event.
Trainers should emphasise that the linchpin may be hidden precisely because the client expects it to be dismissed, normalised or judged.
Do not confuse the linchpin with the worst part
A common trainee error is to identify the linchpin as the worst part of the event.
This is incorrect.
The linchpin is not:
* the most horrifying image * the loudest sound * the moment of impact * the sight of blood * the perpetrator's face * the point of injury * the most dramatic detail * the most obvious external cause
Those may be important traumatic components, but they are not necessarily the linchpin.
The linchpin concerns the client's own implicated quality.
The linchpin is not what happened. It is the quality of the person that the event has reframed as causative.
Why direct linchpin elicitation is risky
Trainers should warn trainees that directly eliciting the linchpin can easily sound accusatory.
Questions such as the following should be avoided:
* “What did you do to cause this?” * “What was it about you that made this happen?” * “What quality in you caused the trauma?” * “What part of you was responsible?” * “Why did this happen to you?”
Even if the practitioner intends no blame, the client may hear blame. In trauma work, especially where shame and self-blame are already active, this can be damaging.
The practitioner should not interrogate the client for the linchpin.
Teaching the linchpin through examples
The recommended method is to teach the linchpin indirectly through examples.
The practitioner explains the idea using several stories or examples of other people. The client is allowed to recognise their own linchpin internally.
The practitioner does not need the client to disclose it.
A useful teaching frame is:
* explain that some people discover that the trauma has reframed an ordinary quality of themselves * give several examples * distinguish behaviour from characteristic * watch for recognition * when recognition appears, ask the client to keep that in mind * apply eye movements
The practitioner may say:
* “You do not need to tell me what it is. If you have identified one of those, just keep that in mind and follow my fingers.”
This protects the client from unnecessary disclosure and avoids a blaming frame.
The linchpin exercise
In training pairs, the exercise should be kept simple.
The trainer should instruct trainees to identify a linchpin from their own experience, but not to use severe trauma material. The exercise is for learning the structure, not for opening up highly charged personal history in the training room.
A simple format:
* The subject identifies a personal linchpin privately. * The practitioner asks: “Have you identified your linchpin?” * The subject answers yes or indicates recognition. * The practitioner says: “Keep that in mind and follow my fingers.” * The practitioner conducts the eye movements professionally. * The practitioner asks: “What did you notice?” * The practitioner asks: “What did you experience?” * Swap roles.
The subject does not need to explain the content.
Feedback from the linchpin exercise
Typical feedback may include:
* blankness * neutrality * lightness * emotional reduction * confusion about where the old feeling went * a more positive feeling * a shift in perspective * age progression * the sense that the old issue is further away * reduced self-blame * reduced emotional charge around the quality
Trainers should help trainees notice the range of possible changes without forcing a particular expected result.
Where to begin: linchpin, Three Pillars or memory
When working with trauma, the practitioner may need to decide where to begin.
Possible starting points include:
* the vivid memory representation * the kinaesthetic response * shame, guilt, regret or remorse * the linchpin * a specific flashback * a specific intrusive image * a specific bodily response * a specific avoidance pattern
The practitioner should listen carefully to the client's language and observe the client's presentation.
A client who is highly somatic may show:
* flushing * fidgeting * leg tapping * repeated sipping of water * chewing gum * restless movement * constant attempts to regulate bodily state * frequent reference to sensations
This may suggest beginning with kinaesthetic material.
A client who is visually dominated may say:
* “I can't get it out of my head.” * “I keep seeing it.” * “The picture is right there.” * “I see it when I close my eyes.” * “I look out of the window and it is there.” * “It keeps replaying.”
This may suggest beginning with the visual representation.
A client who speaks repeatedly in terms of shame, guilt, remorse or self-condemnation may require work around the Three Pillars or the linchpin before other work can move effectively.
Psychoeducation as part of trauma work
Trainers should not underestimate the role of psychoeducation.
Sometimes the client benefits from being helped to divide their experience into smaller and more understandable units. The explanation itself may reduce confusion and give the client a more workable map.
Psychoeducation is not a substitute for intervention, but it can prepare the ground for intervention.
The trainer should model clear, human explanation rather than jargon-heavy therapeutic language.
PTSD and cPTSD
Trainees will often ask about the difference between PTSD and complex PTSD.
Trainers should avoid getting trapped in diagnostic debate. The practitioner is not there to win arguments about labels. However, a useful working distinction can be made.
PTSD is often discussed in relation to a specific event, incident or context. For example:
* a car crash * an assault * a battlefield incident * a medical emergency * a single catastrophic event
Complex PTSD is often associated with relational trauma over time, particularly where the person was repeatedly harmed, controlled, shamed, frightened or trapped within a relationship or system.
Examples may include:
* childhood abuse * prolonged domestic abuse * coercive control * repeated sexual abuse * captivity * repeated institutional trauma * long-term caregiver abuse * repeated humiliation or degradation
Where single-event trauma may implicate a limited number of qualities or memories, complex relational trauma may affect identity, attachment, trust, intimacy, self-worth, social behaviour and the person's basic sense of being a self among others.
Trainers should make clear that the diagnostic label is less important than the structure of the person's experience and the scope of what is being worked with.
When the client does not have a trauma
Trainees may ask, “What if I don't have a trauma?”
For the purposes of training, the linchpin exercise does not require the trainee to work with severe trauma. Most people can identify an ordinary experience where some personal quality became reframed negatively.
Examples may include:
* being too trusting * being too polite * being too slow to respond * being too eager to please * being too detached * being too careless * being too serious * being too naive * being too passive * being too emotional
The trainer should keep the exercise safe and proportionate. The aim is to learn the structure, not to expose trainees to unnecessary distress.
Repeated trauma and social context
Some clients have repeated traumatic experiences. These may involve:
* the same perpetrator * multiple perpetrators * repeated violence * repeated mugging or assault * repeated family abuse * repeated institutional failure * repeated medical trauma * repeated exposure to dangerous environments
Trainers should emphasise that repeated victimisation may involve social and systemic factors that cannot be resolved by eye movements alone.
Relevant factors may include:
* poverty * unsafe housing * unsafe relationships * low social support * lack of family resources * lack of access to services * dangerous work * community violence * ongoing contact with perpetrators * geographical immobility * social isolation
The practitioner should consider whether the client needs additional agencies, advocacy, safeguarding, housing support, medical care, addiction services, social support or specialist services.
Some problems are bigger than therapy. The practitioner should be able to recognise when therapeutic intervention is only one part of what the client needs.
Medical trauma
Medical trauma should be treated as a significant area in its own right.
Clients may present with trauma connected to:
* diagnosis * surgery * cancer treatment * sexual function * fertility concerns * invasive procedures * hospitalisation * pain * bodily exposure * loss of privacy * helplessness * witnessing death or emergency treatment * complications * long-term symptoms * fear of recurrence * loss of bodily confidence
The practitioner should not assume that the linchpin is always the best starting point. If the client has a specific vivid memory that they do not like, it may be simplest to work with that representation.
For example:
* “Keep thinking of that image and follow my fingers.”
Trainers should teach trainees not to overcomplicate simple material. If the client has a clear, vivid, unwanted memory, begin with what is clearly present.
However, medical trauma may also have identity-level consequences. For example, illness or treatment may affect sexual identity, sexual confidence, fertility, bodily integrity, future performance, self-image, independence or trust in the body. In such cases, the practitioner should proceed carefully and not reduce the issue to a single memory.
Trauma through one's own actions
Trainers should also note that people may be traumatised by things they did, not only by things done to them.
This may involve:
* accidental harm * professional error * failure to act * acting too quickly * causing injury * causing death * being responsible for consequences * later moral reflection on past behaviour * shame emerging with maturity
This does not mean every guilty person is traumatised. Nor does it mean the practitioner excuses harmful behaviour. It means that trauma work may sometimes involve responsibility, guilt, remorse, punishment, public judgement and self-condemnation.
Trainers should prepare trainees for the possibility that the client may be both harmed and implicated, victim and agent, injured and responsible, or morally conflicted.
Hero fantasy and retrospective certainty
The module should include discussion of the common human tendency to imagine that one would have behaved heroically in an emergency.
Many people believe that if they had been present, they would have acted decisively, rescued others, fought back, said the right thing, or prevented the event. In reality, people often freeze, hesitate, look around for information, misunderstand what is happening, or try to orient themselves before acting.
This matters because traumatised clients may compare their actual behaviour under pressure with an imagined heroic ideal. They may also be judged by others who were not there and who imagine they would have acted better.
Trainers should teach that the linchpin may form around entirely normal emergency responses such as:
* freezing * hesitating * waiting for more information * trying to understand what is happening * complying * becoming confused * following instructions * escaping rather than intervening
The practitioner should not collude with retrospective moral certainty.
Time predication in memory
The second major teaching component in this module concerns time predication in memory.
Trainers should explain that episodic memories have edit points. A memory begins somewhere and ends somewhere. Even when it feels like a complete event, the mind has selected a starting point and stopping point.
A traumatic memory may therefore operate like a loop:
* it begins at a particular point * it runs through a sequence * it stops at a particular point * it loops back or reactivates * the person experiences the emotional charge again
The client may not have consciously chosen these edit points, but they are present in the structure of the memory.
The beginning and end of episodic memory
Trainers can invite trainees to discover this for themselves by recalling an ordinary memory.
Ask them to notice:
* Where does the memory begin? * What is the first frame? * What is already happening when the memory begins? * Where does the memory end? * What is the final frame? * What happens if the memory starts a few seconds earlier? * What happens if it starts later? * What happens if the ending is extended?
This should be experiential rather than merely theoretical. Trainees should notice that memories are not neutral recordings. They are edited sequences.
Still pictures and snapshots
Some memories are experienced not as movies but as still pictures.
Trainers should explain that a still picture is also time-predicated. It is a snapshot from a precise moment. It is not the moment three seconds before or ten seconds after.
A still image therefore has an implied time location.
Questions for trainees:
* Why this frame? * Why not the frame immediately before? * Why not the frame immediately after? * What happens if time is added before the still image? * What happens if time is added after the still image?
This helps trainees understand that even apparently static memories have temporal structure.
Changing the edit points
The trainer should guide the group through a simple exercise in changing memory edit points.
The exercise should be conducted with safe, manageable memories rather than severe trauma.
A basic structure:
* Select a memory with some emotional charge but not overwhelming intensity. * Notice where the memory begins. * Notice where the memory ends. * Allow the memory to begin earlier. * Notice what changes. * Allow the memory to end later. * Notice what changes. * Add more time after the old endpoint. * Notice whether the emotional charge changes. * Return to the original memory and compare.
The purpose is for trainees to discover that changing the temporal boundaries of a memory can alter the emotional impact of that memory.
Adding time to the memory
Adding time to a traumatic or emotionally charged memory may change its meaning.
For example:
* the event may no longer end at the worst moment * the person may see that they survived * the person may see what happened next * the person may reconnect with later life * the memory may become part of a longer sequence * the frozen frame may begin to move * the event may lose some of its isolated intensity
Trainers should not present this as a magic trick. It is a structural change in how the memory is organised.
Feedback from edit-point exercises
Common feedback may include:
* the memory becomes less intense * the memory feels further away * the event seems more complete * the person feels more adult * the memory is less frozen * the emotional charge reduces * the image loses vividness * the person gains perspective * the event becomes part of a larger life sequence
The trainer should invite trainees to report what they noticed without forcing expected responses.
The living dead metaphor
Trainers should introduce the living dead metaphor as a common structure in trauma.
This occurs when the person is biologically alive after the traumatic event, but psychologically, emotionally or metaphorically experiences part of themselves as having died at the event.
Common expressions may include:
* “I died that day.” * “Part of me never came back.” * “I have not been alive since.” * “My life ended there.” * “I am just existing.” * “The person I was died.” * “Everything after that is just survival.” * “I want my life back.”
The trainer should connect this with the desire to return to the person they were before the trauma. The person may not simply be distressed by what happened. They may be organised around a metaphoric death point in their timeline.
Exploring the timeline
The trainer should demonstrate, carefully and respectfully, how the living dead metaphor may be explored through the person's timeline.
The practitioner may ask the person to notice:
* the time before the event * the event itself * the time immediately after the event * the life that has occurred since * whether the person experiences themselves as continuing past the event * whether a part of them appears to remain at the event * whether their timeline stops, fragments or loops * whether they can perceive a future beyond the trauma
This work should not be rushed. For some clients, it may need to be repeated several times. The trainer should make clear that this may be difficult for the client.
Taking the subject through the timeline
A broad training structure may include:
* Establish a safe present orientation. * Ask the client to notice the timeline before the event. * Identify where the traumatic event sits in the timeline. * Notice whether the timeline continues after the event. * Invite the client to add time after the old endpoint. * Invite the client to recognise that life continued beyond the event. * Repeat the process as needed. * Test whether the emotional charge or metaphoric death point has changed.
The practitioner should not force the client into positive reframing. The work is not to say, “You survived, therefore everything is fine.” The work is to alter the structure in which the event remains an endpoint of life.
When the client wants their old life back
The statement “I want my life back” should be treated as clinically significant.
It may indicate:
* the person believes life stopped at the trauma * the person is attempting to return to a pre-trauma identity * the person has not integrated the event into a continuing life narrative * the person is living in comparison with a lost self * the person is rejecting the present self * the person cannot yet imagine a future self
The practitioner should not argue with the statement. Instead, the trainer should teach practitioners to understand its structure.
The question is not merely, “How do we remove the bad memory?”
The question is:
* How is the person organising time? * Where does their life appear to stop? * What self are they trying to return to? * What future is unavailable to them? * What part of the trauma is being treated as the end of life?
Cautions around diagnosis and social identity
Trainers should address the modern tendency for diagnostic labels to become social identities.
Some clients may arrive already organised around labels such as PTSD, complex PTSD, trauma survivor, neurodivergent, dysregulated, or other identity markers. Some of these labels may be clinically meaningful. Others may be acquired through social media, peer groups, online communities or self-diagnosis.
The practitioner should neither mock nor automatically accept these labels as accurate. The trainer should teach trainees to return to the client's actual experience.
Useful questions include:
* What is the client experiencing? * What is the client unable to do? * What is the client avoiding? * What images, feelings or states are present? * What is being reinforced by the label? * What does the client believe the practitioner should do because of the label? * Is the label helping treatment or maintaining identity?
The practitioner should avoid becoming a reinforcer of unhelpful identity structures.
Client expectations of therapy
Some clients arrive with strong ideas about what therapy should look like. They may expect the practitioner to behave in a particular way, use certain language, validate certain labels, or adopt a specific trauma frame.
Trainers should teach trainees to recognise these expectations without automatically submitting to them.
The practitioner may ask:
* “What do you want?” * “Why have you come to me?” * “What do you think I am going to do?” * “What would tell you this has been useful?” * “What have you already tried?” * “What happened when you tried that?”
These questions help establish the client's frame, expectations and degree of buy-in.
When not to use IEMT
Trainers should be explicit that IEMT is not always the appropriate intervention.
It may be inappropriate or insufficient where:
* the client is currently unsafe * safeguarding concerns are active * the client needs emergency care * the client is in an acute psychotic state * the client is intoxicated * the client is medically unstable * the client cannot identify workable material * the client is seeking a behavioural outcome rather than work on a memory or feeling * the problem is primarily systemic, legal, social or practical * the practitioner is outside their competence * specialist trauma services are required
This should be framed as professional competence, not failure.
Future behaviour is not the same as a trauma memory
A client may say they want to respond differently to a family member, workplace situation or legal dispute. This may be an important goal, but it is not automatically a target for IEMT.
For example:
* “I want to respond differently to my sister.” * “I want to be more assertive.” * “I want to stop reacting.” * “I want to handle the situation better.”
These may be future-based behavioural goals rather than memory-based trauma targets. The practitioner should not automatically ask for the first time the client felt that way unless a clear, specific feeling has been identified.
Trainers should teach trainees to avoid forcing IEMT onto problems that need another form of work.
The role of social support and agencies
Where the client's problem is embedded in poverty, unsafe housing, coercive relationships, addiction, disability, unsafe community, legal vulnerability or social deprivation, the practitioner should consider wider support.
Practitioners should know local and national sources of support, such as:
* safeguarding services * domestic abuse services * housing agencies * pastoral counselling services * addiction services * medical services * veterans' services * crisis services * community organisations * specialist trauma services
Trainers should encourage practitioners to develop professional networks so that they are not attempting to solve social problems with eye movements.
Professional realism
Trainers should repeatedly return to professional realism.
The practitioner should avoid claims such as:
* “PTSD can be fixed in one session.” * “Trauma is just a memory.” * “Eye movements resolve all trauma.” * “If the memory changes, the whole life problem is solved.” * “Complex trauma is no different from a phobia.” * “Everyone with PTSD can be treated the same way.”
A more accurate frame is:
* IEMT may be useful with particular components of traumatic experience. * Some traumatic memories respond well to eye movements. * Some linchpin material may shift significantly. * Some consequences of trauma require wider intervention. * Some clients require specialist care. * Some problems are systemic rather than purely psychological. * The practitioner should work precisely and within scope.
Trainer demonstration standards
When teaching this module, the trainer should model:
* respect for the seriousness of PTSD * clear distinction between diagnosis and self-description * clear distinction between recall and consequence * explanation of fractionation * careful explanation of the linchpin * multiple examples of linchpin structure * avoidance of blaming language * indirect linchpin elicitation * professional eye-movement delivery * careful handling of feedback * clear explanation of edit points * safe demonstration of changing memory boundaries * clear discussion of the living dead metaphor * professional realism about limitations
Common trainee errors
Trainers should watch for the following:
* using PTSD language too loosely * assuming all distress is trauma * assuming all trauma is PTSD * treating self-diagnosis as formal diagnosis * reducing trauma to a single picture * assuming changing a memory changes all consequences * confusing the linchpin with the worst moment * asking accusatory linchpin questions * forcing clients to disclose the linchpin * overcomplicating simple vivid memories * ignoring social and systemic factors * trying to treat ongoing danger as a memory problem * treating complex relational trauma as if it were a single event * assuming that “I want my life back” is a simple outcome * ignoring time structure in memory * failing to recognise metaphoric death points * making exaggerated claims about trauma resolution
Competency benchmark for this module
By the end of this module, trainees should be able to explain:
* why PTSD should be treated as a serious clinical condition * the difference between trauma recall and trauma consequence * why trauma should not be reduced to a simple memory * the purpose of fractionating traumatic experience * the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic factors * the Pattern of Chronicity of Being at Effect rather than at Cause * why some traumatised clients try to make others understand * why some traumatised clients repeatedly try to return to the past * what the linchpin is * what the linchpin is not * the difference between behaviour and characteristic * why direct linchpin elicitation may sound accusatory * how to use examples to allow linchpin recognition * how to conduct the linchpin exercise * when to begin with memory, kinaesthetic material, Three Pillars or linchpin work * how edit points organise episodic memory * how changing edit points may reduce emotional charge * what the living dead metaphor indicates * why complex trauma may require wider thinking * when IEMT may be inappropriate or insufficient
A trainee should not be considered competent in this module simply because they can describe PTSD or repeat the word linchpin. They should be able to identify the structural difference between what happened, how it is remembered, what it has done to the person's life, and which component is actually available for IEMT intervention.
—
15-20 minute break with refreshment
—
- Last modified: 2026/06/02 10:58
- by andrewtaustin