</WRAP>

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 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.

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.

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

—

Module 6 - Development of The IEMT Identity Pattern

This module develops the trainee’s understanding of the IEMT Identity Pattern, moving beyond the basic procedure into the rationale, calibration, linguistic structure and practical application of identity work.

The Identity Pattern should not be taught merely as a technique to be applied mechanically to every client. It is better understood as a set of principles for working with the relationship between language, self-reference, relational position, emotional response and identity organisation.

Trainers should emphasise that the exercises in this module are primarily designed to teach trainees how identity is structured and referenced. The fact that the process can be used with clients does not mean it should be used indiscriminately. As with all IEMT work, the practitioner should ask:

* What is the client actually presenting? * What structure is evident in the client’s language? * Is identity work relevant here? * Is there a strong kinaesthetic driver that should be addressed first? * Am I choosing this because it fits the client, or because I am personally invested in the technique?

Feedback from the previous Identity Pattern exercise

Trainers should begin this section by gathering feedback from the previous Identity Pattern exercise.

Common reports include:

* a subtle change in feeling * a sense of blankness relative to the previous problem * difficulty holding the old problem structure in place * an unexpected feeling of neutrality * a more positive or lighter feeling * a sense of having “grown up” in relation to the issue * increased distance from the problem * reduced identification with the old identity position * confusion about why the old response is no longer available in the same way

Some trainees may report that the change does not feel dramatic but that their relationship to the problem is different. This is important. Identity changes are not always experienced as a sudden emotional release. They may appear as a shift in perspective, a change in self-relation, or the inability to reconstruct the previous problem in quite the same form.

For many people, changes from the Identity Pattern begin to show in everyday behaviour. They may notice themselves responding differently, feeling less captured by an old role, or observing their own behaviour from a more adult and dissociated perspective.

The trainer should encourage trainees to report what they actually noticed rather than what they think they should have noticed.

Why identity work needs careful framing

Identity is not a single simple thing. People measure and experience identity in many different ways.

Some people measure identity by what they believe they would do in a situation. This may be a form of projective fantasy:

* “I know exactly what I would do.” * “I would never behave like that.” * “If I had been there, I would have acted.”

Other people measure identity by what they have actually done when tested by life. Their sense of self comes from real events, decisions and behaviours.

Some people measure identity through social markers:

* clothing * fashion * cars * watches * accent * class markers * job title * professional status * qualifications * spiritual affiliation * group membership * lineage * family name * social role

Some people buy identity through brands, groups, ideologies or corporate-created lifestyles. Others inherit identity from family, culture, religion, class, school, profession or community.

Trainers should help trainees recognise that clients may not experience identity in the same way as the practitioner does. A practitioner who assumes that everyone measures identity in the same way will miss important information.

Identity and context

Identity shifts according to context.

A person may be different with:

* a parent * a spouse * a client * a child * a colleague * an authority figure * a stranger * a social group * a professional audience * a person they fear * a person they wish to impress

Identity is not merely an internal self-concept. It is also relational, contextual and responsive.

The person who is confident at work may become childlike with a parent. The person who is articulate with clients may become silent with a partner. The person who is calm with strangers may become reactive with family. These differences matter because identity is often organised within relationship.

Pronouns as interfaces between identity and relationship

In IEMT, the Identity Pattern focuses significantly on pronouns.

Pronouns are not treated merely as grammatical conveniences. They are linguistic reference points between identity and relationship.

The core pronouns usually explored in the basic Identity Pattern are:

* I * me * self * you

These terms are ordinary, but they are not psychologically neutral. They organise different aspects of identity, agency, receptivity, expression and relationship.

Language and culture caution

Trainers should be clear that the standard IEMT Identity Pattern has been developed primarily through English-language structures.

Other languages may organise pronouns, reflexive forms, relationship markers and identity references differently. Trainers working with multilingual groups should not pretend to have certainty about every language structure.

The training principle is:

* understand the function of the identity marker * listen to how the client actually speaks * work with the language structure that is present * do not assume that English pronoun distinctions map perfectly into every language

Where trainees work in other languages, they should be encouraged to explore carefully how equivalent identity markers function in that language and culture.

The four core identity markers

I

“I” is commonly associated with agency, subjectivity and the speaking position.

Examples:

* “I want.” * “I feel.” * “I hate.” * “I know.” * “I cannot.” * “I should.” * “I am.”

In many people, “I” is experienced internally, often around the head or central body. However, this should not be assumed. Some people locate “I” outside the body, above the body, behind themselves, or in some other extrinsic location.

An externalised “I” may indicate dissociation, meta-positioning, detachment, spiritualised self-reference, or some other identity organisation. The practitioner should not panic if the answer does not match what was expected in training.

Me

“Me” is often a receptacle or receiving position. It is the identity marker that receives the impact of “you” and the world.

Examples:

* “You upset me.” * “You drain me.” * “You make me nervous.” * “You fill me with hope.” * “You leave me empty.” * “He talks to me like I am stupid.” * “She makes me feel small.”

“Me” is commonly associated with social and emotional reception. It may be located where the person most strongly experiences the emotional impact of others.

This is important because people are affected by one another. The practitioner should not adopt simplistic claims such as “no one can make you feel anything.” In real human interaction, people do affect one another, sometimes profoundly.

A look from a parent, a tone from a partner, or a phrase from an authority figure may be received into “me” and organised kinaesthetically in the body.

Self

“Self” often has an expressive quality. It is the self that is shown, expressed, performed, inhibited, revealed or hidden.

Examples:

* “I express myself.” * “I cannot be myself.” * “I hate myself.” * “I lost myself.” * “I need to be true to myself.” * “I do not recognise myself.” * “I cannot show my true self.”

Trainers should distinguish between:

* self-expression * sense of self * self-concept * self-image * self-performance

These are not always the same.

Self-expression is filtered according to context. A person expresses a different self to a client, parent, spouse, friend, stranger or authority figure. Highly socially skilled people often adjust self-expression according to the needs of the situation. Poorly filtered self-expression may create social difficulties. Over-controlled self-expression may make a person appear rigid, false or emotionally unavailable.

Self can therefore be both expressive and performative.

You

“You” is usually extrinsic. It refers to the other person, the person addressed, the person imagined, or a generalised other.

Examples:

* “You hurt me.” * “You never listen.” * “You make me feel small.” * “You cannot trust people.” * “You have to be careful.” * “When you grow up in that house, you learn to keep quiet.”

Sometimes “you” refers to a specific person. Sometimes it refers to a generalised social other. Sometimes it is a disguised “I”. Sometimes it is internalised.

Where “you” is located inside the person, the practitioner should consider emotional entanglement, enmeshment, introjection or unresolved relational material.

Emotional entanglement and enmeshment

Identity work often reveals the internalisation of other people.

Emotional entanglement occurs when a person is strongly emotionally attached to another being, person, animal, role, relationship or situation. This is not always pathological. Love involves forms of entanglement. Grief often reveals the depth of entanglement.

Enmeshment is more problematic. It is commonly seen in over-controlling, over-involved, over-parenting or emotionally invasive family systems. A person may experience a parent, partner or significant other as if that person is inside them.

Signs of enmeshment may include:

* knowing what the other person feels without contact * feeling responsible for the other person’s emotional state * difficulty separating one’s own feelings from theirs * guilt when acting independently * fear of disappointing the other person * internalised parental judgement * a parent or partner being located inside the body during elicitation

Trainers should teach that an internalised “you”, “mother”, “father”, “him” or “her” is not necessarily something to be forcibly “removed”. It is information about the structure of the relationship.

Introjects and internalised others

An introject is an internalised representation of another person.

A client may have an internalised:

* mother * father * teacher * partner * abuser * critic * authority figure * religious figure * former self * child self * idealised other

When the practitioner asks where a person is located and the client places them inside the body, this may indicate that the relationship is not being experienced as separate. The practitioner should not treat this as strange or wrong. It is a clinically useful signal.

The practitioner may work with the identity marker as presented, but should avoid imposing an outcome such as “getting them out.” The question is not where the practitioner thinks the other person should be. The question is what effect the current organisation has on the client.

The three core elicitation questions

For each identity marker, trainees should learn the three core questions:

* “When you think of I, whereabouts is I?” * “When you think of I, how old is I?” * “When you think of I, what is happening around I?”

The same structure can then be applied to:

* me * self * you * mother * father * him * her * child * husband * wife * boss * doctor * victim * survivor * professional role * nickname * any other relevant identity marker

Trainers should emphasise that the practitioner is not asking ordinary factual questions. The practitioner is asking the client to reference the internal representation of the identity marker.

Precision in the question

Small variations in wording may produce different responses.

Examples:

* “When you think of I, whereabouts is I?” * “When you think about I, whereabouts is that I?” * “When you think I, where is I?” * “When you think of this I, whereabouts is it?”

The differences may be subtle, but trainers should encourage precision. Trainees should not use vague or sloppy language simply because the question appears simple.

As with the Kinaesthetic Pattern, the practitioner should know what they are asking and why they are asking it.

Whereabouts?

The question of location usually reveals whether the identity marker is experienced intrinsically or extrinsically.

The identity marker may be:

* inside the head * in the chest * in the stomach * in the throat * behind the person * in front of the person * above the person * outside the room * at a distance * in another person * nowhere * everywhere * split across locations

Trainers should not present a rigid map of “correct” answers. It is useful to know common patterns, but the client’s answer is the client’s answer.

The practitioner should notice whether the response suggests:

* association * dissociation * externalisation * internalisation * enmeshment * emotional receptivity * performative self-expression * social fear * unresolved relational material * confusion in identity reference

How old?

The question of age may reveal developmental information.

When a client says, “me is five,” this does not necessarily mean one simple thing. It may indicate:

* an immature aspect of identity * the age at which a particular relational pattern developed * a developmental arrest * a state-dependent identity reference * an age associated with family dynamics * an age associated with school, trauma or social experience * an identity marker that has not updated * a symbolic rather than literal age

Sometimes the person feels much older than their chronological age. This may occur in people who had high responsibility early in life, cared for a parent, worked in a family business, became “the responsible one”, or had little opportunity for ordinary childhood self-development.

Examples:

* a child who had to become a carer * a child expected to work in the family shop * a child trained into adult responsibility too early * a person who has always felt old * a person who becomes adolescent when with their parents * a person whose professional identity feels older than their emotional identity

Trainers should teach trainees to use the age response as information, not as an automatic invitation to regress the client.

What is happening around it?

The question:

* “What is happening around I?”

or

* “What is happening around this self?”

is used to identify context.

The response may be external:

* a birthday party * school * family conflict * a parent shouting * a workplace * an accident * a hospital scene * a social event * a relationship scene

The response may be internal:

* chaos * pressure * sadness * anger * blankness * fear * thoughts rushing * heaviness * numbness * confusion

Both are useful. The practitioner should not force the answer into a preferred category.

Some people will begin answering one question with information that belongs to another. For example, when asked where “I” is, they may immediately describe what is happening around it. This may simply mean the client is unfamiliar with the task. It may also reveal a Pattern of Chronicity if they habitually fail to answer the question asked.

When the client answers a different question

If the client answers a different question, the practitioner should first consider whether the client is simply confused.

A useful response is:

* “That is useful. What I am asking for first is the location. When you think of I, whereabouts is I?”

If the client repeatedly fails to answer the question asked, the practitioner should consider whether this is a broader pattern.

Possibilities include:

* avoidance * confusion * compliance without engagement * Maybe Man * answering the question they wish had been asked * chronic non-specificity * fear of precision * relational resistance * a pattern of not being able to attend to what is being asked

Where this happens repeatedly, the practitioner may need to pause the Identity Pattern and address the broader interaction pattern.

Axis deviation in the Identity Pattern

The Complex Form of the Identity Pattern involves observation of axis deviation while directing the eye movements.

Axis deviation refers to the point at which the client’s eyes deviate, wobble, hesitate, jump, resist, lose smoothness or otherwise depart from smooth tracking through the movement.

The trainer should demonstrate how to observe this carefully. It requires attention and practice. Trainees should not be expected to calibrate perfectly at first, but they should begin learning what to look for.

Observable signs may include:

* a flicker * a jump * a hesitation * a catch in the movement * uneven tracking * a blink at the same point * loss of smooth pursuit * a small head movement * eye strain * a repeated deviation in one part of the movement

Two approaches to axis deviation

There are two practical approaches that may be taught.

Continuing until no further deviation

The practitioner continues the eye movements through the axis where deviation is observed until there is no further deviation in that direction. Once the deviation has resolved, the practitioner reverses to the opposite direction.

Changing direction upon each deviation

The practitioner changes the direction of movement each time an axis deviation is observed.

There is no evidence that one of these approaches is more beneficial than the other. Trainers may teach either or both, but should be clear that trainees are learning calibration and responsiveness rather than a rigid superstition.

Constants in eye movement delivery

As with the Kinaesthetic Pattern, two constants should be emphasised.

Do not continue too long without rest

The practitioner should not continue eye movements for more than approximately 20 to 40 seconds in a single sequence without resting the client’s eyes.

In most cases, around 20 seconds is sufficient.

If the practitioner continues too long, the client may become tired, strained, dizzy, uncomfortable or disengaged.

Do not persist on an axis with no deviation

Eye movements through an axis with no observable deviation may yield little or no useful result.

If no axis deviation is observed, the practitioner should change axis and may return to the original axis later.

The practitioner should not mechanically continue simply because the sequence has begun.

Figure-eight movements in identity work

Trainees should be taught that, in IEMT, kinaesthetic work commonly uses straight-line eye movements, whereas identity work commonly uses figure-eight movements.

The trainer should be honest that the exact reason for this distinction is not proven. The figure-eight pattern emerged from practical experimentation and observation. It appeared that when identity material was worked with using the figure-eight, abreactional responses reduced and the work became more stable.

This should not be overstated as scientific certainty. It should be presented as a working convention within IEMT.

The Identity Pattern exercise

The paired exercise should be set up carefully.

Trainees should work with manageable identity statements, not severe trauma or highly charged identity crises.

A simple structure:

* Person A selects a simple identity statement. * Person B identifies the relevant identity marker. * Person B asks the three elicitation questions. * Person B notes location, age and what is happening around the marker. * Person B conducts figure-eight eye movements while observing axis deviation. * Person B rests the eyes after an appropriate sequence. * Person B asks what the subject noticed. * Person B repeats or changes axis as appropriate. * Swap roles.

Suitable practice sentences may include:

* “I feel awkward.” * “I am not confident.” * “I cannot be myself.” * “People see me as quiet.” * “I feel like a child.” * “I hate that part of myself.” * “You make me nervous.” * “I do not recognise myself.”

Trainers should discourage trainees from choosing sentences that are too intense for a training exercise.

Combining Kinaesthetic and Identity Patterns

The module should include exploration of simple sentences involving pronouns and feelings.

Examples:

* “I hate myself.” * “I feel ashamed of myself.” * “You make me feel small.” * “I feel like a child when I see my father.” * “My mother makes me feel useless.” * “I cannot show my real self.” * “He talks to me like I am stupid.” * “I do not feel like myself.”

These sentences contain both kinaesthetic and identity material.

The training principle is:

* work with strong feelings first * then work with the identity markers

If the feeling is intense, the practitioner should depotentiate the kinaesthetic charge before proceeding into identity work.

For example, in the statement:

* “I hate myself.”

The practitioner may first work with the hate:

* “This hate, on a score out of 10, how strong is it?” * “And how familiar is this hate?” * “And when is the first time you can remember feeling this hate now? It may not be the first time you ever felt it, but it is the first time you can remember now.” * “And how vivid is this memory?”

After the kinaesthetic material has been addressed, the practitioner may work with:

* the I that hates * the self that is hated

Actives and passives

Trainees should learn to identify actives and passives in a client’s sentence.

In the sentence:

* “I hate myself.”

“I” is active. “Self” is passive. The self is the thing being hated.

In the sentence:

* “My father talks to me like I am a child.”

“Father” is active. “Me” is receiving. “I” is being positioned as child.

In the sentence:

* “I feel like a child when I see my father.”

“I” is active in feeling and seeing. “Child” is the identity comparison. “Father” is the relational trigger or marker.

These sentences may appear superficially similar but structurally they are different. The practitioner should work with the structure the client actually gives, not a paraphrase invented by the practitioner.

Proactives and reactives

In addition to actives and passives, trainees should consider proactive and reactive positions.

Some clients are organised around action:

* “I decide.” * “I choose.” * “I refuse.” * “I confront.” * “I leave.”

Others are organised around reaction:

* “He makes me.” * “They upset me.” * “It happens to me.” * “I cannot help it.” * “I react before I can think.”

This distinction matters. Some conditions and states are self-defeating against intervention. For example, a highly depressed client may lack motivation, so attempting to motivate them may fail. A more useful route may be to find a point of reactivity, something they respond to, resist, object to or care about.

The practitioner should listen for where the person has agency and where agency is absent.

Core statements

Trainers should teach trainees to recognise core statements.

A core statement is a sentence that appears to encapsulate the structure of the client’s problem.

Examples:

* “I hate myself.” * “My father talks to me like I am a child.” * “I feel like a child when I see my father.” * “I cannot be myself around them.” * “Everyone sees me as weak.” * “I am not the person I used to be.” * “She makes me feel invisible.” * “I became the responsible one.” * “I am always the one who has to cope.”

A single core statement may contain enough material for an entire session. The practitioner should not rush past it.

The practitioner may need to:

* identify the kinaesthetic charge * work with the active identity marker * work with the passive identity marker * work with the relational marker * work with the implied role * return to the original sentence and test what has changed

Do not work every pronoun automatically

A common trainee misunderstanding is that every case requires the practitioner to work through I, me, self and you automatically.

This is not necessary.

If a client says:

* “I hate myself.”

The relevant identity markers are “I” and “self”. “Me” and “you” do not feature in that sentence.

The practitioner may later explore “me” or “you” if clinically useful, but should not automatically do so merely because the training exercise used four identity markers.

Other Identity Markers

In addition to I, me, self and you, clients will use many other identity markers.

These may include:

* he * she * him * her * his * hers * they * them * us * we * mother * father * child * son * daughter * husband * wife * partner * boss * doctor * patient * victim * survivor * therapist * trainer * teacher * failure * idiot * carer * professional * addict * leader * outsider * nickname * job title * family role * diagnosis label

These markers may carry significant identity structure. They may be more important than the standard pronouns in a given case.

Roles, titles and nicknames

Trainers should spend time on roles, titles and nicknames.

A person may be organised around being:

* the clever one * the difficult one * the responsible one * the black sheep * the good girl * the naughty boy * the carer * the patient * the survivor * the victim * the boss * the doctor * the trainer * the failure * the strong one * the funny one * the useless one

These identity markers may have been assigned by family, school, workplace, culture, religion, peers, medical systems or the person themselves.

Some are inherited. Some are designed. Some are adopted. Some are imposed. Some are performed for so long that the person forgets they are performing them.

Default and designed identity

Some aspects of identity are default. They arise from family, culture, biology, early experience, social class, language, physicality and circumstance.

Other aspects are designed or cultivated. A person may deliberately become:

* professional * spiritual * successful * educated * rebellious * respectable * dangerous * caring * disciplined * eccentric * impressive

Dissonance can arise when a designed identity conflicts with a default identity, or when an inherited role conflicts with the person’s lived experience.

Examples:

* a person expected to inherit a family business but wanting another life * a person from a working-class background entering a middle-class profession * a person raised to be obedient becoming an authority figure * a person expected to be strong but feeling fragile * a person treated as a child while functioning as an adult * a person with wealth and status but poor competence * a person who has a professional role that conflicts with family identity

Trainers should teach trainees to look for these conflicts.

Family identity and assigned roles

Families often assign identity.

A person may have been told, explicitly or implicitly:

* who they are * what they will become * what role they must play * what behaviour is acceptable * what emotions are allowed * what level of success is expected * what class or profession they belong to * what they must never reveal * how they must conduct themselves

A client may later discover that their chosen adult identity conflicts with the identity assigned by family.

This can create:

* guilt * shame * anger * alienation * loyalty conflict * fear of success * fear of standing out * fear of being ordinary * resentment * chronic self-monitoring

The Identity Pattern may help the person examine components of identity that have previously been accepted as simply “who I am.”

Identity and social perception

People often get us wrong. Sometimes this does not matter. At other times, it matters greatly.

A client may be troubled because another person does not recognise who they are, treats them according to an old role, or insists on an identity that no longer fits.

Examples:

* “My father talks to me like I am a child.” * “They still treat me like the stupid one.” * “Everyone sees me as fragile.” * “My family do not take me seriously.” * “At work, they see me as difficult.” * “My partner thinks I am selfish.” * “They only see the diagnosis.”

The practitioner should not assume that the problem is merely that another person is wrong. The useful question is why this particular misrecognition matters to the client and how it is organised internally.

Projective “you”

The client’s “you” may include projection.

The person they describe may not be the person others experience. Two people can be in the same relationship and have quite different versions of that relationship.

The practitioner should be careful. It is not useful to reduce this to simplistic claims such as “perception is projection” or “you only see in others what is in yourself.” Those claims are crude and often inaccurate.

A more useful position is:

* people perceive others through filters * people project meanings onto others * people also respond to real behaviours * relationships contain more than one subjective version * the practitioner should not assume one version is the whole truth * the practitioner works with the client’s internal organisation of the relationship

Sentence deconstruction exercise

Trainees should practise deconstructing sentences with multiple identity markers.

Example:

* “My father talks to me like I am a child.”

Possible markers:

* father * me * I * child

Possible work sequence:

* Identify whether there is a strong feeling. * If so, work with the kinaesthetic charge first. * Identify the active marker: father talks. * Identify the receiving marker: me. * Identify the positioned marker: I as child. * Elicit each relevant marker as needed:

• whereabouts is father?
• how old is father?
• what is happening around father?
• whereabouts is me?
• how old is me?
• what is happening around me?
• whereabouts is this child?
• how old is this child?
• what is happening around this child?

* Apply figure-eight eye movements with calibration to axis deviation. * Test what changes in the original sentence.

Comparison sentence:

* “I feel like a child when I see my father.”

This sentence is structurally different.

Possible markers:

* I that feels * I that sees * child * father

Here the speaker has more ownership of the feeling. The practitioner should not treat it as identical to the previous sentence.

Exercise in pairs: Other Identity Markers

In pairs, trainees should select a sentence containing multiple identity markers.

Example sentences:

* “My mother makes me feel useless.” * “He treats me like I am nothing.” * “I cannot be myself around her.” * “They see me as weak.” * “My boss talks to me like I am a child.” * “I feel like the responsible one.” * “Everyone expects me to be strong.” * “She makes me feel like my old self.” * “I hate the person I become around him.”

The practitioner should:

* Identify the relevant identity markers. * Identify actives and passives. * Identify any strong kinaesthetic charge. * Work with the feeling first if necessary. * Elicit location, age and context for the relevant identity markers. * Apply figure-eight eye movements. * Calibrate to axis deviation. * Ask what changed. * Return to the original sentence and test whether it still has the same structure or charge.

The trainer should observe and correct trainees where they:

* work every pronoun mechanically * miss the active/passive structure * ignore the feeling * fail to notice axis deviation * continue too long without resting the eyes * fail to return to the original sentence * begin giving advice rather than working with the structure

Remedial and generative change

Trainees should be introduced to the distinction between remedial and generative change.

Remedial change addresses a problem, symptom, unwanted feeling, dysfunctional identity marker or limiting relational structure.

Examples:

* reducing shame * changing a painful identity position * reducing the charge around “I hate myself” * loosening an internalised parental voice * changing the effect of a humiliating nickname

Generative change develops new possibilities, identity flexibility, future orientation, improved expression, confidence and broader behavioural choice.

Examples:

* developing a more adult self-position * increasing capacity for self-expression * updating an old role * becoming able to act from a new identity position * loosening over-identification with a previous label * creating space for future roles

Trainers should teach that IEMT work may be remedial or generative, but the practitioner must know which frame they are working in.

The practitioner’s role

The practitioner does not need to be the all-knowing expert. Identity work often benefits from a collaborative stance.

If the practitioner genuinely does not know what to do next, it can be appropriate to say:

* “I am not sure what the next useful step is. What do you notice? Where do you think we should look next?”

This is not incompetence. It is often better than forcing a technique because the practitioner feels they must appear certain.

Identity work can become complex quickly. The practitioner should remain curious, precise and responsive rather than technique-driven.

When not to use the Identity Pattern

The Identity Pattern may be inappropriate or unnecessary where:

* the client has not presented identity material * the client has a clear kinaesthetic target that should be addressed first * the problem is practical rather than identity-based * the client is highly unstable * the practitioner is using it only because they like the technique * the client cannot engage with the elicitation * the work would overcomplicate a simple issue * the client needs care, stabilisation or referral rather than identity exploration

The practitioner should not use the Identity Pattern as a universal tool.

Common trainee errors

Trainers should watch for:

* treating the Identity Pattern as a mandatory technique * eliciting I, me, self and you in every case regardless of relevance * ignoring the client’s actual language * changing the client’s sentence before working with it * missing actives and passives * failing to work with strong feelings first * confusing self-expression with sense of self * assuming “I” must always be in the head * assuming “you” must always be outside the body * panicking when the answer is unusual * trying to force internalised others out of the body * ignoring enmeshment and entanglement * failing to notice axis deviation * continuing eye movements too long * using straight-line movements for identity work without good reason * using vague language in the elicitation * assuming all identity work is remedial * ignoring the role of family, culture, class, profession and social expectation

Trainer demonstration standards

When demonstrating this module, trainers should model:

* careful listening to the client’s exact language * distinction between feeling and identity marker * working with feelings first where appropriate * precise elicitation questions * calm handling of unusual responses * clear explanation of I, me, self and you * recognition of other identity markers * identification of actives and passives * figure-eight eye movements * calibration to axis deviation * appropriate resting of the eyes * returning to the original sentence to test change * not overusing the pattern where it is not needed

Competency benchmark for this module

By the end of this module, trainees should be able to:

* explain the purpose of the Identity Pattern * describe the difference between I, me, self and you * understand pronouns as interfaces between identity and relationship * use the three elicitation questions accurately * recognise intrinsic and extrinsic identity locations * understand the significance of age responses * interpret “what is happening around” as context rather than content alone * identify actives and passives in a sentence * identify proactive and reactive structures * work with strong kinaesthetic charge before identity markers * deconstruct sentences with multiple identity markers * work with other identity markers such as mother, father, him, her, child, role or title * recognise emotional entanglement and enmeshment * conduct figure-eight eye movements * observe and respond to axis deviation * avoid mechanical use of the full pronoun sequence * recognise when identity work is not appropriate * distinguish remedial from generative change

A trainee should not be considered competent merely because they can recite the I, me, self and you questions. They should be able to hear identity structure in ordinary client language, select relevant markers, work with the appropriate sequence, and avoid imposing unnecessary technique.

—

—

1-1.5 hour break

—