Podcast appearances and mentions of richard stephens

What's your first reaction when someone cuts you off in traffic or you stub your toe? Do you let out a choice word or two? Richard Stephens, PhD, talks about the psychology of swearing, including his research on why swearing can increase people's pain tolerance and strength during stressful or painful moments; how swearing is processed in the brain; and the increasing acceptance of swearing in daily life. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode of So I Married a Relationship Expert, Zach and Laura sit down with renowned sex educator and author Dr. Emily Nagoski and her husband, Richard Stephens, to discuss how Emily's expertise in sexuality and relationships intersects with their personal lives. Emily, known for her groundbreaking books Come As You Are and Burnout, introduces her latest work, Come Together, which focuses on sustaining sexual connection in long-term relationships. The conversation explores Emily and Richard's journey as a couple, from their serendipitous meeting on OKCupid to navigating challenges such as perimenopause, long COVID, and the demands of collaborative intimacy. Emily shares insights into her “emotional floor plan” model, which maps how emotions like care, play, and lust interact in relationships, offering couples a practical framework for enhancing connection and pleasure. Richard provides a refreshingly candid and humorous perspective on life with a relationship expert, highlighting the importance of playfulness, empathy, and teamwork. Together, they normalize the struggles that even the most informed couples face, underscoring that expertise does not eliminate life's challenges—it simply offers tools to address them. Whether you're looking to deepen intimacy or better understand the dynamics of long-term relationships, this episode is packed with valuable lessons, heartfelt stories, and laughter. Episode Highlights: Emily and Richard's Love Story: From meeting on OKCupid to their early days as a couple, they reflect on how their shared values and collaborative mindset laid the foundation for their relationship. The Emotional Floor Plan: Emily explains her innovative model for understanding how emotional states influence sexual connection and how couples can use this framework to foster intimacy. Navigating Life's Challenges: The couple discusses the impact of perimenopause, chronic illness, and other life events on their relationship, sharing how teamwork and humor helped them persevere. Insights from Come Together: Emily introduces key concepts from her new book, emphasizing the importance of pleasure over desire and the role of collaboration in overcoming relational obstacles. Empathy and Playfulness in Relationships: Richard shares how his lighthearted approach complements Emily's intensity, creating a dynamic that fosters connection and resilience. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Mark interviews author Jody Swannell about her writing and the book ajacent activities and strategies she has employed. Prior to the interview, Mark shares a personal update and word from this episode's sponsor. This episode is sponsored by Superstars Writing Seminars: Teaching you the business of being a writer which takes place Feb 6 through 9, 2025 in Colorado Springs, CO. Use code: MARK1592 to get $100 off your registration. In the interview Mark and Jody talk about: How Jody got started in writing about 20/30 years ago Spending at least an hour a week at Chapters big box bookstores back in the day, with dreams of wanting to write a book The way that the recent pandemic inspired a lot of people to actually take a shot at some of the things they'd wanted to do for a long time The two novels and one novella that Jody has released in the past 3 years Jody's interest and writing about Tarot card reading Selling books in person at the local markets and how Jody was inspired by seeing local author Richard Stephens there Jody's role as a host of a local community radio program (Readers Delight) on CKMS 102.7 FM - Radio Waterloo The software and equipment that Jody had to learn how to use in order to host the show as well as the license that needed to be purchased The additional work and stress that hosting this show took on Jody Some of the things that guests did which made life so challenging for Jody as the host The way this show helped Jody connect with so many other local writers What creative/writing projects Jody is working on lately The success that Jody saw at a recent event (Frightmare in the Falls) by having book-adjacent products. Pivoting from Jody Swannell Author/Books to Jody Swannell Bookery And more... After the interview Mark reflects on a few of the ingenius strategies Jody has used to connect with other writers, to learn more, and to grow her author brand, the importance of giving something up when it's not working/causing too much stress, and things NOT to do when you're a guest on a podcast or radio program. Links of Interest: Jody's LinkTree Swannell Bookery Instagram Mark's YouTube channel Mark's Stark Reflections on Writing & Publishing Newsletter (Signup) Buy Mark a Coffee Patreon for Stark Reflections How to Access Patreon RSS Feeds Apollo Cinema Christmas Vacation Event (Kitchener, ON - Dec 12, 2024) Sudbury Indie Cinema / Northern Lights Festival Boreal Christmas Vacation Event (Sudbury, ON - Dec 21, 2024) An Author's Guide to Working With Bookstores and Libraries The Relaxed Author Buy eBook Direct Buy Audiobook Direct Publishing Pitfalls for Authors An Author's Guide to Working with Libraries & Bookstores Wide for the Win Mark's Canadian Werewolf Books This Time Around (Short Story) A Canadian Werewolf in New York Stowe Away (Novella) Fear and Longing in Los Angeles Fright Nights, Big City Lover's Moon Hex and the City Only Monsters in the Building The Canadian Mounted: A Trivia Guide to Planes, Trains and Automobiles Yippee Ki-Yay Motherf*cker: A Trivia Guide to Die Hard Merry Christmas! Shitter Was Full!: A Trivia Guide to National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation   Jody Swannell is an author from the beautiful Region of Waterloo. Her love of adventure has taken her on incredible trips, such as visiting castles in Scotland, shopping in the West Edmonton Mall, snorkelling in Jamaica, and photographing glaciers during an Alaskan cruise. Her goal is to keep readers eagerly turning pages while trying to guess what happens next—occasionally adding a splash of romance here and there to spice things up a bit. She loves writing contemporary fiction in thriller, mystery occult, sci-fi and horror genres.   The introductory, end, and bumper music for this podcast (“Laser Groove”) was composed and produced by Kevin MacLeod of www.incompetech.com and is Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0  

Bio  A technology lawyer of some 40 years' experience, Richard has seen the IT industry from all sides - as an in-house lawyer with two substantial UK based systems houses, a lawyer in City of London practice and now as the head of his own practice offering legal services to IT companies large and small as well as acting as mediator and arbitrator in IT disputes.  Over the course of his career, Richard has been involved in some of the largest IT litigation and transactions and now gets involved in particular with Cloud contracting. When Richard set up his own private practice, the Chambers Guide to the Legal Profession described him as a “leader in his field” and as “good news on the most complex of matters”. Richard is a well known IT lawyer, having served two years as Chair of the Society for Computers & Law and is currently serving as Chair of the Legal Affairs Group at techUK. He has been a regular speaker at conferences both in the UK and internationally and has been providing training for over ten years: his annual lecture on Contract Law Developments attracts hundreds of attendees every year. More recently, he has ventured into writing with the publication of “Stephens on Contractual Indemnities” published by Law Brief Publishing.     Social media/ website(s): ·         LinkedIn: Richard Stephens on LinkedIn  ·         Richard's Website:  https://www.the-lors.co.uk   Books/References ·         ‘Stephens on Contractual Indemnities' by Richard Stephens – Law Brief Publishing   Interview Highlights 07:20 Don't leave any slippery bananas 09:15 Kicking the can down the street 15:20 Peppercorn rent 16:55 Blue v Ashley case 21:31 DSDM 22:40 Agile contracts 32:20 Atos Origin v De Beers 37:15 Hogjaard v EON    Episode Transcript  Ula Ojiaku Hello and welcome to the Agile Innovation Leaders podcast. I'm Ula Ojiaku. On this podcast I speak with world-class leaders and doers about themselves and a variety of topics spanning Agile, Lean Innovation, Business, Leadership and much more – with actionable takeaways for you the listener. So, Richard, thank you so much for joining us on the Agile Innovation Leaders' podcast.    Richard Stephens Pleasure to be here.     Ula Ojiaku Fantastic. Now, as I start with all my guests, we want to know who Richard Stephens is. So, can you tell us about yourself?    Richard Stephens Well, it depends what you want to know Ula. I'm a solicitor, and it's not terribly exciting as professions go. So, I spend a lot of time reading long documents, commenting on them, marking them up, doing contracts. It's probably everyone's worst nightmare when it comes to a profession really, I suppose, I don't know.    Ula Ojiaku Well, I like the way you've just summarised your profession as reading long documents and making comments. I'm wondering if you ever had long debates over phrases and words in a document?    Richard Stephens Yes, that's what the job consists of. And when you get into negotiating big contracts, and over my career, I've done, I've been involved in huge global outsourcing of huge cloud contracts, huge this, huge that, huge development implementation contracts. The job consists of arguing about words and trying to get it right for your client to be honest, you don't want to leave any slippery bananas in there which are going to trip them up later on.    Ula Ojiaku So that phrase slippery bananas, we'll get back to it. But in the meantime, how did you end up in a career in law, because you said, the way you've described it, you said it's not the most exciting thing. So, there must have been something that still drew you to this, “non-exciting path”?    Richard Stephens Well, I don't know, really, you just, I don't know, why do you do anything when you're young, and you decide to become, you know, typically, young little boys will say, well, I want to be a train driver or whatever. And you just, as you grow up, you just become gravitated to do something, and there are a lot of us in our school who said they wanted to be lawyers, others said they wanted to be consultants or some wanted to be accountants, but you have to understand that I worked in a time when IT didn't really exist. So, I don't think there was anybody who wanted to go into technology, for example, because I was, you know, at school in the 70s. So that was very much an arcane shut away job where people would wear white coats and go into air conditioned, filtered air rooms to feed mainframe monsters. But of course, that sort of thing, we knew nothing about. I don't know, I don't know why I went into being a lawyer. I mean, I could have run away to the circus, I suppose, but I lacked the courage to do it, I suppose - too boring and unadventurous is typical lawyer you see.    Ula Ojiaku Okay, okay. Well, that's an interesting, will I say, narrative of your career to date. So, do you have any thing you would have done differently, knowing what you now know?    Richard Stephens I think I would have run away to the circus, Ula.    Ula Ojiaku Okay, well, that's an interesting response, Richard. Well, thanks for sharing your career story to date. And so, for someone who is, for example, listening, and that's considering a career in law that you know, no matter what stage in life they're at, what would be your advice?    Richard Stephens Don't put your daughter on the stage, Mrs. Robinson, I think is probably what I would say. You know, they're all different types of lawyers. And you can go through lawyers who do criminal work, for example, and I think some lawyers get a good deal of pleasure out of doing that sort of thing. I don't think the criminal lawyers make a huge amount of money out of it. Or a lot of people do very harrowing areas of law like family domestic law and they're dealing with battered people of, frankly, these days, both sexes and horrible emotional scars and, you know, battles over, but I, you know, I went to, did some of my CPD and I went to a talk given by a probate mediator. Now you think that probate was a nice sedate area of the law, but that's the most, he said, is the most vicious, dispute ridden thing, because he said all families will have secrets and they will harbour them. And he said, what will happen is that, you know, Aunt Maud dies, and she has some valuable art collection or something like that, and then all these little, all these little disputes and resentments that you had against your elder brother for 30 years suddenly all bubble to the surface. And he said, it all comes out as a horrible, vicious fight. People are going into Aunt Maud's house and stealing her property while she's dead. And they're arguing over who gets the fine china and who gets this and who gets that. He said, one of the horrible things is that you, know, when he does the settlement between the brothers or whoever it may be, and one of the clauses he's very often asked to put in is that such and such brother, should not ever again seek to contact him by phone, email, writing, or anything. So, you get that sort of thing as well. So, but you know why it is I would become a commercial lawyer, I say it's not that boring and actually, when you get in a deal, you get the excitement of trying to work the deal together, put it all together, bring it all together for the day of signature, I say there is a pressure, a dynamic, and every team has its own dynamic, and you're working towards getting something done. A bit like looking at your agile principles as well, I suppose. You know, you're trying to get it done. Although it's not done in incremental delivery, it's all done in one big drop at the end on the day of signature, of course.    Ula Ojiaku Now, that's an interesting story about, you know, different kinds of law, probate and going kindly back to commercial law, which you practice, if I'm correct in the understanding.    Richard Stephens That's right. I mean, I work for myself, when I say I do the big contracts, and I certainly do that, I work for SMEs as well, one of the things I also do is, I work as a mediator and an arbitrator in the IT sector. So, I'm there either helping people resolve disputes, or as an arbitrator, I'm actually resolving disputes, issuing binding awards. But I also provide some coaching in commercial law subjects as well. So, I do a variety of different things that helps keep my sanity.    Ula Ojiaku Now, the phrase slippery bananas because you said, you know, when you were, you know, you when you're drafting contracts, you make sure you're avoiding those slippery bananas. So, what's the perspective? Could you give us a glimpse into what goes on, you know, behind the scenes or in your mind, at the back of your mind when you're, you know, drafting, you're involved in drafting, and reviewing contracts on behalf of a client. What's the perspective you're doing this from?   Richard Stephens The first line is, and the first principle I start from is that projects, as has been said before, projects don't go wrong for terms of conditions. And I have a friend in the industry, who says that, and he, like me, works for himself. And he says that when he's doing a big contract or for a major client, he's up against a really big city of London law firm. He's there, he'll be negotiating the front end, as we call it, the terms and conditions, the legal bit, that goes at the front, the core of the contract, he'll spend days talking about liabilities and warranties and indemnities. He says, I'm talking with a partner of the law firm on that, he said, but when it comes to talking about the scope, the SLA, the charging schedule, all these things, he said, I end up negotiating with the trainee. He said, well, why does a contract go wrong? It won't be for anything to do with the indemnities or the liabilities or the warranties. They're there for after it has gone wrong. Why does it go wrong? It goes wrong for the things that are in the schedule, the operational things, that's the thing that you get wrong. And the second principle I move on to is this, that in my lifetime, I think drafting has simply got worse and worse and worse, and contracts have got longer and longer and longer. And so, having talked about slippery banana skins, then we now get on to another metaphor. And we talk about kicking the can down the street, as lawyers find it harder and harder to come to agreement on important issues, you know, when will such and such a sum be paid? You know, what you have to do to get acceptance of milestone three such that payment can be released. And so, they then insert modern drafting, like the parties will reasonably agree the amount to be released, and it's called kicking the can down the street, it's not actually legally binding. And it's not actually, it's nothing, it's a thing, it gets rid of the immediate problem. And all you're saying is that, you know, the judge or the arbitrator later on can make the decision for you, or you hope they can, they may just throw it out and say, well, it's not really an agreement at all. So that, I think, those are the things that I have noticed in my career, and those I think are the banana skins, the slippery bananas I try to avoid for my client wherever possible.    Ula Ojiaku Well, that's interesting, and how successful is it? Would you say that a good contract then, this is me stating my view and as a non-expert in this area, I would stand to be corrected by yourself. So, would a good contract be drafted in a way that enforces both parties to act in the best interests of the other, does it always result in a win-win situation?    Richard Stephens No, because I'm an English lawyer, I deal with the English common law. And the common law has typically, traditionally taken the line, and still, to a very large extent does, that each party looks after its own interests. I'm not here, when I represent a party, I'm not looking after the other party's interests at all. And my instructions, so to speak, or my implicit instructions, are to do the best deal for my clients, to do the worst deal for my opponent. Now, of course, that means I'm not actually trying to hamper them or hinder them or throw banana skins under their feet, because of course, if I hamper them or hinder them in the contract it could come back on me or come back on my client, I should say later on, if it's a long project, or outsourcing where the parties have to cooperate, so you do have to get a sort of balance. But the common laws approach, the English common law's approach is typically that each party is expected to enter into a contract, looking after its own interests, it's actually highly topical. I don't want to, you probably don't want to get into the riveting and fascinating details of English contract law, and it's sort of moving in practice and theoretically to adopting a, what you might call a more continental civil law approach by trying to import concepts of good faith (Note: Whilst correct at time of recording, the English Court of Appeal has since limited the use of the term 'good faith'), reasonableness, which are concepts I have to say, which are still by and large alien to my system of law, to the system of law, the country in which we live.    Ula Ojiaku Okay, wow. So, how then because, we've kind of dug into, you know, speaking about contracts for the, in the interest of the listener, who probably is just jumping in and wondering, okay, what are they talking about? What would you define a contract as?    Richard Stephens It's just a binding agreement for someone to do something for someone else and for the other to do something to the other party, which is normally payment, that's all it is. But contracts are all around us. And so, I mean, obviously, you know, it looks like you're sitting at home at the moment and you're not in an office. But if you, on the days or hopefully in the days to come when you go back into an office or you go to a physical meeting, and you might stop in a little shop somewhere and buy yourself a cup of coffee. Well, that's a contract. It's actually quite a complex contract as well, because it's a sale of goods and to some extent services, if they're making the coffee for you, in front of you. It imports therefore goods to the law to do with the sale of goods and services. It imports a whole lot of law to do with consumer law because you're a consumer buying a coffee, it's got a lot of law in there to do with health and safety because you know, you want your coffee shop to be a safe place from which to buy your beverage. So, if you actually look at that, and you took all the law and regulations relating to that very simple, I'll have a cappuccino, please, that you could probably fill a shelf with just the law and the cases dealing sales of goods and services, health and safety, consumer law, and all the rest of it. But you don't need to worry about that Ula, because all you want is your cappuccino at the end of the day. So, that is a contract and the contracts are all around us.    Ula Ojiaku And the seller I would dare say wants to be paid for the cup of cappuccino they made for me.    Richard Stephens That's the consideration, of course, that's traditionally the consideration, which has been a key feature, of course of English contract law, and not necessarily other systems of contract law, the Scots, for example, don't require consideration in their system of contract law. So, they don't require one party to do something for the other in exchange for something else, it can be a one-sided thing. But don't ask me how they get by, but they do. But the idea of consideration if you drew up, just to show, just to sort of mark out as it were, a casual deal, which you didn't really think was a contract from a proper contract. But a consideration can be anything, it can be a promise to do anything. It can be a promise to go for a walk around the park afterwards. So, I mean, it can be a thing of commercial, it can be commercially valueous. And that's why we have the concept of the peppercorn rent, if you've heard of a peppercorn rent?    Ula Ojiaku I'm not sure what that means. Could you explain please?    Richard Stephens Its where you rent a property, in exchange for the promise to pay a peppercorn, where the peppercorn has no commercial value at all. But it's a promise to hand over a peppercorn and the promise, and it's that promise that makes the contract a binding thing. You don't even have to hand it over. But if you promise to pay the peppercorn, that's the consideration. I'd like to see anyone suing someone else for a peppercorn but maybe the law reporters have got examples of that. I think not. But we need some levels of detail there.    Ula Ojiaku Oh, well, you might find me weird but I do find the concept of contracts interesting. And the fact that someone is promising a peppercorn, is it to show that there has been some sort of fair exchange between the two parties?    Richard Stephens It simply marks out a contract from what would otherwise be a gift. And it simply marks out what a contract is, so the law simply said, we want just these early signs, it only has to be basic, that the parties were actually serious about entering into a contract. And so, they required consideration, as a consideration can be commercially valueless. But it's just that the parties have thought to do something for each other. We won't even get into an intention to create legal relations, which is another requirement. And you still get some fantastic cases on that. And the case of Blue and Ashley recently,  which is where Mr. Blue worked for Mike Ashley of Sports Direct and they were all drinking heavily in the pub. And the evidence was at the end of the evening, that they consumed about 14,15 pints of beer by the end of the evening, although Mr. Blue wasn't present at that stage, but the evidence was that Mike Ashley said that if you can get my share price over eight pounds, then I will give you, you know, a huge bonus of several million pounds, I forget exactly how much it was. Well, is that a contract? And it went to the High Court and the High Court had to, well, what do you think, is that a contract or not? It was said the share price did go a bit over eight pounds and Mr. Blue carried on working there trying to make sure that the share price was maximized. He did actually get an ex gratia bonus of 1 million pounds from Sports Direct. So, did that make a contract?    Ula Ojiaku That's a question. Yes, because I audited a course in contract law being taught by a Harvard professor, so of course the focus is on the US laws and all that, so not necessarily here, but there's like intent of the person you know if it's a phrase that, or a statement that has been made jokingly, you know, how outrageous it is or whether the other party is being seen to get something in fair exchange, or whether it's a promise for a gift you know, so in those, in those situations, the three situations I've mentioned, it probably wouldn't hold water in a court of law if someone promised you a gift, because it's not contractually binding. But that's…    Richard Stephens You're learning legal skills already, because you know what you've done, don't you, you've actually used the word probably, you haven't committed yourself.    Ula Ojiaku No.    Richard Stephens And you've actually used the word probably because you're not willing to bet the farm on one decision, or the other, one resulting in the other, you know the old joke don't you about the client who goes into the solicitor's office and speaks to the receptionist and says, I want a meeting with the one-armed lawyer, please. The receptionist says we haven't got a one-armed lawyer here, why do you want to meet a one-armed lawyer and he said, well I'm fed up of meeting lawyers who say, well on the one hand this, and on the one hand that, but you've done it immediately, you've used that little word probably and it just came tumbling out in your speech, and you probably didn't even notice it. But I can recognise that you have legal skills already.    Ula Ojiaku Very kind of you Richard, that means a lot coming from you. But I do fancy myself going, you know, to go and do some sort of studies in law at some point in time. Wish me luck. But this brings us to the concept of agile. Have you had any experience with agile, and what does that mean to you, that term?    Richard Stephens Agile, I first got used to agile, when I was doing a lot of big scale litigation, when I was working in the city as a partner in a law firm there, and I did a lot of very large IT disputes, and it introduced me to some very odd concepts. And we had to get used to reading up about methods. And so, on some government projects, they mandated in those days, I don't know if they still do, but in those days, they were mandating the use of SSADM, and Prince overlaid on that as a management methodology. And we looked at this, and it was very odd, and I found it very strange, because what the SSADM and Prince would be doing would be mandating behaviours and actions that were flatly contradictory of the contract that had been written for the parties. And so, moving on from there, as agile became the big thing. We had, first of all, things like extreme programming, and that was getting everything going. And then other more formalised methods of Agile working, or Agile development came out, and I got involved with looking through DSDM as it then was, and thinking and the thing, the word that struck me was that everything will be fit for business purpose. And, of course, fit for purpose is very much a legal expression that's used in sales of goods contracts. And I thought, well, what does it mean to have an agile contract where you're promising the client that something is meant to be fit for business purpose, what is the business purpose? Did you know what it was before you started? What if it changes? I'm a lawyer, and I ask all of these questions. What if, what if, what if? And so I got very interested in writing DSDM, and I put together an industry committee of in-house lawyers working for tech companies and others, and we were just looking through Agile and we had a very senior person from the DSDM Consortium come and speak to us and train us on DSDM, and give us examples of how DSDM could deliver in a way that was better than the old waterfall method of delivery, especially when they were allied with the cumbersome approach of Prince 2 and so we got very interested in this, we tried thinking, well, what would an Agile contract, a contract for Agile development, actually look like? You know, how would it be different from what lawyers have been drafting up until that point and we had a go at it and we sort of let it sort of slip and slide and, you know, we all moved on to different things. And so, we never got there, but it's never gone away as a problem. And I think it is a problem. And I've given various ways I was a proponent of contracting for Agile development, Agile implementation at the time I was doing this, I find myself now cast in the role of villain. And Stewart, a chap called Stewart James has been taking the role of proponent of Agile contracts and I sort of, I the Devil's advocate, and I proposed a different way of working, and I just try and rubbish the view and so we had a go at each other there, we've had a go at each other at techUK if you know techUK, which is the industry body representing IT suppliers in the UK and we recently had another little go at each other in the BCS as a follow up to that talk we both attended over zoom. But interestingly, they had a poll at the end, and it garnered a huge amount of attention. We had a poll at the end of that having speakers do you have any confidence in the ability to contract for Agile and over 70% said they either had little confidence or no confidence in being able to contract for Agile. So…    Ula Ojiaku And why do you think there is that low confidence? What could be some of the root causes for this?    Richard Stephens  Oh, because I took them through the points I've made before, and I just pointed out that the Agile working doesn't fit in with English law, and we've already covered that up in a sense, because and I said to you that each party expects the English law, sorry, I should say English law expects each party to look after its own interests, and this idea of collaborative working, where you're working together to do the best you can with the resources available, and tried to come up with incremental deliveries, lots of short, sharp deliveries that give meaningful functionality to the customer, agreeing things on the fly, these things just don't sit very happily with the legal system that expects each party to look after its own interests. A legal system, which requires solid agreements, and which doesn't really regard reasonable endeavors, all these things and good faith doesn't regard these things as binding principles in law.    Ula Ojiaku Right, okay. Now, but in a case where, on one hand, you know, the two parties are more involved in the contract setting, as in, all right, we'll act in good faith, but at the same time, we would have our lawyers, our legal people, you know, put together an iron clad contract. Do you think that hypothetical situation is possible, in your experience?    Richard Stephens No, it's not, it's not possible at all, and that's the real problem. And I can take you through some of the cases that show this, if you like, referring to one of them, just got out the slide deck now, might be very interesting to you. It goes back to your first question, what's the point of a contract? Why have it? Because at the last outing I had, we had Andrew Craddock from the Agile Foundation, and he was proposing, you know, the benefits and the efficacy of agile, agile development, agile implementation. But of course, he was saying it's wonderful it, you know, beats waterfall hands down, it delivers all these great things and I said well, if it's that good, you probably don't need a contract anyway then, do you because it's never going to go into a dispute, then you don't need a contract. On the other hand, if you're a responsible business, you should be asking yourself as the directors of a responsible business, well what if the project doesn't go very well, what if it doesn't? What if it fails? What if I don't get what I expect at the end of the day, and on that point, I propose two reasons. And there are two reasons and both two sides of the same coin, for why an agile contract simply doesn't work. And the first reason is a legal reason. The other reason is a commercial reason. The second reason is what I call the FD principle, or the Financial Director principle. And the legal reason, to put it shortly is that the law, as I say, doesn't recognise a contract for good faith. And in any case, even if it did, you'd just be kicking the can down the street, because if you had a contract to do what you did in good faith, if it all went horribly wrong, which it inevitably will, how would you know whether someone had performed in good faith anyway? You just end up in another dispute, working out what the dispute was all about. So, and the second reason as I say is the FD principle, because while I was doing this DSDM thing, and I was chatting to a Financial Director of a good sized, medium sized company that was moving very much into IT and technology, it was mostly in the manufacturing sector, but very much absorbing IT, or what tech could do for it. And he said, look, I have the final sign off for any major expenditures, and I get a contract for 5 million pounds. He said, I want to know that at the end of the day, I've got something, when it's over that I that I can touch, I can feel with my fingers, hold with my hands. And I want to know that that's worth 5 million pounds, at least 5 million pounds to my business. And he said if I just get a contract that's agile, but people are simply saying well we'll work in good faith with each other, and we don't know what we'll deliver, but it'll be small, little bits incrementally and your you may or may not, to use the language of DSDM in the old days, you know, they have this concept of the minimum usable subset. And he said, well, is that worth 5 million pounds, because if that's only 60, 70%, of the full 5 million pounds, then I've been robbed, haven't I, and I've lost 30% of what I contracted for. And that's what I call therefore, the FD principle. And I remember when we were trying to draw up an agile contract, we were pulling teeth, trying to satisfy that FD, or his ilk that the contract would have some sort of effects, something that could be used to beat the supplier over the head. But I don't think we succeeded. And the problem is that every agile contract since, just drifts into this language, as you've said already, of good faith and reasonable endeavours and reasonable agreements on this. And these are all things that English law simply doesn't recognise.    Ula Ojiaku: Now, that's an interesting story. And you've just brought to light another perspective, that's not usually, explicitly considered in drafting contracts, which is that of the finances, the people who hold the purse strings, the people who sign off, you know, the projects or the programs of work. Sometimes, you know, people have the notion that, you know, agile is the be all and end all, it's not, there is still a place for waterfall. But waterfall is good for where you have straightforward issues, you have a problem, you know the solution, and there's a straight line from A to B, there's no need to go agile. But if it's a complex, adaptive problem where it's complex, and as things change, you know, the environmental change the nature of the problem, you know, keeps changing, you have to, well I say, adopt that agile approach to that now that's why the concept of a minimum viable product comes into play. And part of it is that, you know, you identify the minimum viable product, you state your assumptions, and then you, you know, create those, experiments based on the hypothesis of the assumptions you've made. And if you're validating, if your assumptions are validated, then you can go forward with, you know, the initiative. But if, at the very, you know, early instance, you're having negative results, you know, that negates your assumptions, then there's no need to go forward. Although from the Financial Director's perspective, you know, you say, okay, I've wasted it, I've been getting millions worth of money, but the learning has shown that it's a dead end we're moving towards, and it's better that we stop at a million than spending 10 million or even some other humongous amount on something that's probably not going to give any return.    Richard Stephens:  I think it's time to test your legal skills, again then.    Ula Ojiaku: I'm not a lawyer. I'm not a legal professional.    Richard Stephens:  I think you are a very modest lady indeed. I think you're probably going to go on and say you studied at the New York bar as well. But let me test your legal skills again, okay? And De Beers is the big diamond sorting diamond company in the world, as you may have heard of them, and Atos Origin are another company, you will doubtless have heard of, and they came to blows back in 2010, because they put out of ITT, for their diamond sorting and aggregating process, which, of course, is dealing with very high value things, namely diamonds. And so, it's all got to be it's a very difficult system to replicate and had all sorts of security and things built into it. So at first, they started doing the requirements analysis. And they did a mini survey, and they got their own view of what it was, and what was involved in doing this complex system. But they started work and found it was a hell of a lot more complex than they thought, and because De Beers and their operatives started asking for more and more and more, it got much more expensive. So, the original price was 2.9 million and Atos said well actually, it's going to cost nearly 5 million more than that to deliver everything you actually want. But it's interesting looking at what they said because, their Atos internal report said that this project was originally intended to be developed agile style, the team was organised into BAs who could refine the requirements and a pool of devs would be organised into teams to build elements of the solution incrementally, with a project beyond the requirements definition, set up Scrum star, this must be music to your ears, I would have thought Ula, all supported by an architect and a few key designer devs all very DSDM and can work fine in the right context. And of course, with the right customer. But what happened was, Atos said we need this extra 5 million odd to complete the project. De Beers said, I would have thought if anyone had, you know, 5 million pounds sitting around, it was like De Beers with all their diamonds, just sell a couple of those, I would have thought it was fine but they say get off site. And it all fell apart and they ended up in court. But which way did it go? So, you've got Atos, who's done the requirements analysis, they've done their best, they've tried to work out what was involved, they underbid. You've got De Beers that asked for more and more and more during the requirements analysis. Who wins at the end of the day? This is the time to put that Harvard training to use and no use of the word probably who won, someone won and someone lost.    Ula Ojiaku:  Before I answer your question, I'm just saying that I'm taking it in good faith you're not being sarcastic about my auditing the Harvard course online, but my answer to your question is going to be it depends, because all I know right now are the details you've given me and I know that there's usually more to a situation than meets the eye. So, it depends, again, I can see Atos's point of view, in the sense that if they did some sort of initial discovery work, and had given a quote, based on De Beers' requirements, now, and over time, you know, De Beers is asking for more, definitely that's called, you know, scope creep, and there might be some things, it inevitably would result in more costs. Now, on De Beers' hand, if they had been promised a pipe dream that agile is equal to cheaper, or fixed costs. So, they had also been working on a misinformed basis in the fact that if they thought, okay, yeah, agile solves everything, and it's going to be cheaper and faster. That's not true.    Richard Stephens:  So, we've got so far on the one hand this, and on the other hand that, so I'm looking for the one-armed lawyer now. I can see both your hands, Ula. You've got to decide, who wins?    Ula Ojiaku:  I think I wouldn't qualify for a one-armed lawyer. And the key thing is to know that I think it's the beginning of wisdom is to know that there is a limit to what I know. And in this case, it is definitely a good example. I don't know all the details behind it to make a firm judgment in favour or against one or the other.    Richard Stephens:  I think you know enough actually, come to have a go. Shall I tell you what the judge said?    Ula Ojiaku:  I'd like to know what the judge said please.    Richard Stephens:  In my judgment, he said, Atos went into this contract with its eyes at least half open, in the sense that it knew or should have known that it had not acquired a good grasp of the detail of De Beers diamond sorting and aggregating process. So, Atos lost is the important thing on that one. And because the general work, well, let me test your legal skills again, in case of Hojgaard and EON, okay.  This is all about constructing offshore wind turbines. Okay. You get a lot of those around, we don't see them because they're offshore, but you've seen wind turbines on land, and the employer, so the customer, in construction contracts they're known as the employer, mandated the use of an international standard called J101 for the construction of these wind turbines, okay. So Hojgaard had to use J101, or the methodologies for constructing wind turbines, as set out in that contract, in that international standard, I should say. Okay, so it started using J101. And what nobody knew was that J101, was fundamentally flawed. It had a design defect in it, and it underestimated the strength of the foundations needed to be built. So, as soon as they built these wind turbines, they started collapsing, and it cost 26 million pounds to put them right, 26 million euros, I think in those days. Okay. So, the question was, who was responsible? Well, Hojgaard said, well, you told me to use J101, so we only did what you said. And EON said, well, it doesn't matter, you're the provider, your supply, you should jolly well know, and you take the responsibility, so straightforwardly question. So no on the one hand..    Ula Ojiaku:  …on the other hand, straightforwardly answer. Again, based on the details you've set out I would say that EON is liable.    Richard Stephens:  EON is the employer. So, they've made the use of this standard.    Ula Ojiaku:  Yeah. So, my view is that EON is liable because they mandated the use of the standard. Now, that would be my view. Yeah, if that's the contract, and you know, you told someone build this for me and use this standard, because that's what we want. Now, as a responsible supplier, though, I would want to go to offer advice on what I think are the pros and cons of their decision. But finally, the client's decisions is theirs, so EON.    Richard Stephens:  So EON as the employer takes a rap, they have to cough up 26 million euros, went all the way to the Supreme Court, and they said it was the builders' responsibility. So even where the user has mandated that particular method, then it's the developer. The courts, they said are generally inclined to give full effect to the requirement that the item, as produced, complies with the prescribed criteria. Even if, even if the customer or employer has specified or approved the design, it's the contractor who can be expected to take the risk if he agreed to work to a design which would render the item incapable of meeting the criteria to which he has agreed. And it's not an inflexible rule of law, it's an approach of the courts. And this is one of the things that's highly relevant to agile because the parties are working cooperatively. And it may well be the customer that's mandating the use of, to get this result, or to use this method to get it and both parties are working in good faith. But when it all goes horribly wrong, which it inevitably will, the court's approach is generally, it's not mandated, you could put something different in your contract, the approach of the court is going to be well, it's the developer, it's the provider, it's the supplier, who's going to take the rap at the end of the day. And this is when you come back to the FD problem, because as soon as you then put something in your contract saying, nothing to do with us gov, it's all your responsibility, and we're not, you know, we'll just, we're just, you know, humble operatives doing as we're told, the FD's not going to sign off. He's gonna say, well, I'm paying my 5 million pounds, I want you to take some responsibility, I want you to take the responsibility at the end of the day. And as I say, these are the, these the interesting reasons why, in fact, trying to contract for agile is not so easy as you might think.    Ula Ojiaku:  So, what would be your recommendation then to, for example, leaders of organisations who want to continue with, you know, agile delivery, and agile ways of delivery and ways of working and wish to engage with their vendors. Because, on one hand, there are benefits to working in this manner, in the sense that you're working together, you're learning and then you are adapting your plan based on the new learnings. But on the other hand, it seems like there is a way to go in bringing up you know, bringing along legal colleagues and colleagues in finance, alongside this journey to have the same perspective, what would be your advice?    Richard Stephens:  One of the things is I fully accept all the good things that agile has done and all the good things it promises to do, but what I'm saying is contracting for that is very difficult, and if you end up with a contract that simply proceeds in talking about, you know, good faith, and many lawyers, many modern lawyers these days just lapse into this language of you know, we'll talk in good faith and reasonably agree this and reasonably agree that, and it doesn't really work, you end up with a contract that's just kicked the can down the street numerous times. And so, you need to come up with something that does actually have some teeth, and with agile, that's going to be difficult. I mean, there are ways of drafting around it, but it's, in some ways they're quite cumbersome. So, for example, you can have agreements to agree which are meaningless in English law, English law simply doesn't recognise an agreement to agree and you can add as many good faiths and reasonables around it as you like, but what you can do is you can then say, well, one of the drafting techniques you can use is to say, well, if we don't agree after a period of one week, three months, six months, whatever it is, that a third party, adjudicator will make the decision or the arbitrator or whatever it may be, will make the decision effectively for us, and we'll provide some criteria for that person to make a decision for us. Now in the construction industry, they introduced what's known as an adjudication scheme, which is a fix first and fight later, effectively. So, it's simply that if the parties get a dispute rather than just simply falling out with each other and having a huge arbitration, leaving the building unfinished, you get an adjudicator and it's now compulsory by law for domestic construction contracts, and the adjudicator comes in and just makes a quick decision, and it doesn't really matter that it's not ultimately binding, for the present purposes it is, I think it's been called temporary finality. And one of the things that the Society for Computers and Law has done is introduce a similar adjudication scheme for IT projects. Now, that's maybe one way to go, but of course there are two risks immediately with that, which you'd have to advise anybody on and that is, obviously it introduces a certain amount of delay and cost because the party is going to get into lots of little micro-spats trying to get up to come if they have lots of little adjudications in a major project. And the other problem, of course, is this problem of temporary finality. Once the adjudicator has issued his decision, then you've got to comply with it, even if you think it's wrong, or even if you think it's monstrously unfair, or very expensive for you. It's temporarily final, and then you'd have to wait till the very end of the project before you could then relitigate the matter. So, I mean, there are ways of getting around it. But as I say they're not necessarily risk free or problem free. Let's say one of the problems I find, and for the purposes of my talks on agile, taking devil's advocate, one of the things you can do is do a word search of any English contract, English law contract, and just count up the number of reasonables or reasonablys in good faith. Actually one agile contract I looked at, which is available from an online supplier, provider of legal services, over 36 pages, it had a staggering total of 29 reasonables,s 26 reasonablys and 4 good faiths. I mean, that is a very high batting average for using these rather horrible terms that in many cases don't really mean anything. So, you have been warned.    Ula Ojiaku:  Well, thank you, Richard, for that. I would take it then that these are your guidelines for anyone who is considering drafting agile contracts, be careful about how you go about it. It's not risk free, and there are pitfalls to be aware of, and I guess it also depends on the jurisdiction, you know, the legal jurisdiction where the contract would be.    Richard Stephens:  You're never going to get away from that, because as soon as you start using words like a reasonable endeavours, good faith, even if the legal system you're working under actually recognises them, you then have a dispute trying to work out what on earth it means in practice, and you want a really good example of that, what's a contract under Belgian law that we all know about at the moment, and everyone's been talking about it, have a guess? It's the AstraZeneca contract with the EU Commission, and what's a horrible phrase it uses, best reasonable efforts, a monstrosity. So not just reasonable efforts, but best reasonable efforts. Belgian law recognises that as a concept and English law does as well. But what on earth does it mean? What does it mean in practice? What behaviour does it mandate? What result does it mandate? And so, the parties then just lumber into the dispute, a dispute a dispute about the dispute because nobody really knows what they're supposed to be doing anyway. So, you can do it, but you have been warned.    Ula Ojiaku:  Now, to wrap up, based on our conversation, are there any books that you could, that you would recommend to the listeners, if they want to learn more about contracting, agile?    Richard Stephens:  That's the book, Ula, Stephens on Contractual Indemnities. I mean, what a right riveting read. Thrilling from beginning to end, and it will tell you everything you've ever wanted to know.    Ula Ojiaku:  Fantastic, thanks for sharing. We will put the link to your book in the show notes alongside with everything else about this episode.    Richard Stephens:  It's for lawyers only. Otherwise, don't open its covers, you will be horrified. Well, actually, I mean, as a lawyer, as you proved yourself to be, maybe you would find it interesting.    Ula Ojiaku:  Now, do you have any, anything you'd like to ask of the audience, or let them know about your practice?    Richard Stephens:  Yeah, I mean, as I say, I do three things which may be of interest to your audience out there. One is, I'm a commercial solicitor, who is very well experienced in these areas in terms of putting together contracts for developments implementations, agile, or otherwise. And I provide training not only to lawyers, I do this one-day course introducing people to the principles of contract law, insofar as it would affect professionals working in the IT industry. And I've had people come on that, who were Project Managers all the way up through to Board Directors of SMEs or even quite large companies. I had one major American international company send its commercial management team on that course, for example. And as I say, the other thing I do is I work as a mediator if you're in a dispute, and you want someone to try and facilitate a resolution to that dispute, then again, I can help you with that. I could even, if he's got an arbitration clause, you want to have an arbitrator appointed someone who understands a little bit about these things and can come to a legal decision on your dispute, I can do that too.    Ula Ojiaku:  Fantastic. Thanks for sharing those. And with respect to for example, your trainings and you know, the other services you offer, how can the audience reach you?    Richard Stephens: As usual these days, they can Google for me, and if you look up for Richard Stephens there are various academics and I think, artists who are masquerading as Richard Stephens, just put Richard Stephens Solicitor, you will find me and you will find my website, and you can find me or you can search for me on LinkedIn, all sorts of possibilities. So that's very easily done.    Ula Ojiaku:  Okay. Well, I have to say, from my experience, but maybe I'm not good at googling, but the last time I tried finding you on LinkedIn, even though I'd put solicitor against your name, I still had a lot of what's it called, results for Richard Stephens solicitor. So, what I'm going to do to make it easier for the audience is I'm going to put a direct link to your LinkedIn profile in the show notes, if that's okay with.    Richard Stephens:  Yes, you can do that, link into, connect to my LinkedIn profile, or link to my website. It's very easy, no objection to that.    Ula Ojiaku:  Okay. Fantastic. So, any final words for the audience before we close this out? It's been a great conversation so far.    Richard Stephens:  It's been it's been nice, I mean it's funny how this is a problem, which I first got involved in 25, 30 years ago. And it rumbles along as an issue for IT lawyers. It's never lost its interest. But in 25 or 30 years, equally, I haven't seen a particularly good resolution to the problem, either. And so, you've got the industry doing one thing, and the lawyers trying to play, not so much catch up, but trying to work out still after 25, 30 years of lawyers thinking about it, what an agile contract or a contract for an agile project would look like such that it was both legally effective and would satisfy that avaricious Financial Director. But it hasn't been resolved yet.    Ula Ojiaku:  And the question is, will it? You don't have to answer, well…    Richard Stephens:  There is a sort of, there are all sorts of resolutions out there. As I mentioned, the adjudication one, but that, then is the sort of thing you don't want in an agile project because it's, whilst it's legally effective, the idea of Agile as you're working cooperatively together, and then having little micro adjudications where you're at war with each other, trying to get the best out of the adjudicator in terms of decision. It then actually tends to drive the parties further away, which is, goes against what you did an agile project for in the first place. So, I mean, you can do but, you know, I just don't know how it would work in practice.    Ula Ojiaku:  It's been great speaking with you, Richard, thank you for sharing your wealth of knowledge and experience with the audience and myself.    Richard Stephens:  Pleasure.    Ula Ojiaku:  That's all we have for now. Thanks for listening. If you liked this show, do subscribe at www.agileinnovationleaders.com or your favourite podcast provider. Also share with friends and do leave a review on iTunes. This would help others find this show. I'd also love to hear from you, so please drop me an email at ula@agileinnovationleaders.com Take care and God bless!  

Last episode, we talked about a military aviation film. It had some pretty great aerial scenes, the best Cessna vs motorcycle race we have ever seen, and a fun soundtrack! But not nearly as good as the one for the film we are covering today (although apparently some in the audience will debate this point). This movie was released the same year as Iron Eagle, was WAY more successful, and ironically spawned fewer sequels. We are of course talking about Top Gun, and this time around we have a special guest; you have probably heard something that we learned from him on the show, our regular researcher Richard Stephens! Released in the spring of 1986, Top Gun had a slump for the month after release but went on to be the box office champ for the year and gave Tom Cruise the boost he needed to become a bona fide star. The story follows a group of exceptional Naval aviators focusing on hotshot Maverick and his quest to be the best. Given the chance to train at the United States Navy Fighter Weapons School, a.k.a. Top Gun, Maverick and his radar intercept officer Goose (Anthony Edwards) do their best to beat out the competition under the command of Viper (Tom Skerritt). But when tragedy strikes, Maverick is shaken to his core and must find a way to overcome his doubts. This episode has lots of nostalgia, some hot takes, and, well, you will just have to listen to see how we all feel about this classic 80s action film! Next Episode: Veteran Interview

V sodelovanju z oddajo Možgani na dlani raziskujemo zakaj in kako kletvice nastanejo, kaj se dogaja v možganih, kakšna je moč preklinjanja, zakaj je lahko tudi koristno, pa tudi kdaj so kletvice posledica bolezenskega stanja. Sogovorniki: - psiholog dr. Richard Stephens; - nevrolog prof. dr. Zvezdan Pirtošek; - jezikoslovka dr. Alenka Jelovšek.  

Host Tamara Cherry discusses health care talks breaking down between the province's and the feds and the current state of health care across the country, including a shortage in children's medications. On today's show:  Texts and Calls on our health care system Adrian Morrow, Washington Correspondent with The Globe and Mail, discusses the U.S. Mid term elections and the wait to see who will control The Senate. The War Room Panel dives into the hot political issues of the day, including Canada's Health Care system and the U.S. Mid Term elections. Dr. Richard Stephens, psychologist and lecturer at Keele University in England discusses his new research that shows swearing may be good for us.

Przekleństwa kojarzą się z negatywnymi emocjami, ale skąd się bierze w nas potrzeba przeklinania i jak nabywamy tę umiejętność? Klniemy czasem na porozrzucane w miastach elektryczne hulajnogi, co stało się w mieście, które ograniczyło ich używanie? W dzisiejszym odcinku opowiem także o zwierzętach, które dźwięki wydają, choć uważane były za nieme. Zapraszam serdecznie!A jeśli odcinek Ci się spodoba udostępnij go, proszę, dalej i subskrybuj podkast gdziekolwiek go słuchasz, możesz też prosto i szybko postawić mi dobrą kawę - buycoffee.to/naukowo - z góry dziękuję :)Jeśli uznasz, że warto regularnie wspierać ten projekt to zapraszam do serwisu Patronite.pl/naukowo, każda dobrowolna wpłata od słuchaczy pozwoli mi na utrzymanie, rozwój i doskonalenie tego podkastu, bardzo dziękuję za każde wsparcie!Zapraszam również na Facebooka, Twittera i Instagrama, każdy lajk i udostępnienie bardzo pomaga mi w docieraniu z naukowymi doniesieniami do nowych słuchaczy.Na stronie Naukowo.net znajdziesz więcej interesujących artykułów naukowych, zachęcam również do dyskusji na tematy naukowe, dzieleniu się wiedzą i nowościami z naukowego świata na naszym serwerze Discord.Źródła użyte przy tworzeniu odcinka:Jorgewich-Cohen, G., Townsend, S.W., Padovese, L.R. et al. Common evolutionary origin of acoustic communication in choanate vertebrates. Nat Commun 13, 6089 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-33741-8Asensio, O.I., Apablaza, C.Z., Lawson, M.C. et al. Impacts of micromobility on car displacement with evidence from a natural experiment and geofencing policy. Nat Energy (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-022-01135-1Karyn Stapleton, Kristy Beers Fägersten, Richard Stephens, Catherine Loveday. "The power of swearing: What we know and what we don't". https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2022.103406

Prison ministry isn't easy. So, is it worth it? Are there any encouraging outcomes from sharing the gospel in a prison? Can people convicted of crimes find freedom in Christ? Richard Stephens, UK Chairman of Kairos Prison Ministry International, is our guest for this edition. Richard tells us of how he's seen God work in incredible and life-changing ways within the prison system, through the volunteer work he does with Kairos; shares how he has personally seen men have their lives turned around by the supernatural power of Jesus; and talks about the great need for the Gospel within prison walls and how it must partner with the academic to lead people into whole-life healing, encouraging new ways of thinking and living. As we talk, it becomes clear it's the love of Jesus that draws the broken towards spiritual freedom: Richard helps us understand the many ways we can show that love. We also learn about surprising ways to serve in the Kairos ministry that don't require us to go to the prison at all! The Bible is clear that Christians ought to reach out to those in prison with the truth of the absolute freedom found in Jesus. Richard's passion on this subject will motivate you to respond. Presented by Sharon Tedford. Produced by Gary Dell. Find out more about us at www.anchor.fm/god-in-the-ordinary and www.61-things.com/gito

Plenty of us enjoy blasting out a few swear words – but what makes it feel so good? Richard Stephens, a senior lecturer in psychology at Keele University and author of Black Sheep: The Hidden Benefits of Being Bad, tells Jacob Jarvis how swearing can stop pain, make us stronger and help us form closer friendships.  “Swearing does appear to make you stronger.” “People are more disinhibited after swearing.”  “Swearing can be a social bonding tool.” “You can enjoy a well placed swear word, can't you? You can think, ‘That was skillful.'”  Support us on Patreon: www.patreon.com/bunkercast  Written and presented by Jacob Jarvis. Producers: Jacob Archbold, Jelena Sofronijevic and Alex Rees. Assistant producer: Kasia Tomasiewicz. Audio production by Jade Bailey. Music: Kenny Dickinson. Group editor: Andrew Harrison. THE BUNKER is a Podmasters Production.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

David M. Kelly writes fast-paced, near-future sci-fi thrillers with engaging characters, cynical humor, and plausible science. He is the author of the Joe Ballen series, Logan's World series, and the Hyperia Jones series, and has been published in Canadian SF magazine Neo-opsis.David's interest in science and technology began early. At the age of six his parents allowed him to stay up late into the night to watch the television broadcast of Neil Armstrong stepping on to the surface of the moon. From that day he was hooked on everything related to science and space.An avid reader, he worked his way through the contents of the mobile library that visited his street, progressing through YA titles (or ‘juveniles' as they were known back then) on to the classics of Robert Heinlein, Isaac Asimov, Arthur C. Clarke, and Harry Harrison.David worked for many years in project management and software development. Along the way his interests have included IPSC combat (target) pistol shooting, crew chief on a drag racing team, and several years as bass player/vocalist in a heavy rock band. He also managed to fit in some real work in manual jobs from digging ditches and assembly lines jobs to loading trucks in a haulage company.http://davidmkelly.comBorn in Simcoe, Ontario, in 1965, I was raised and still reside in Cambridge, Ontario. I began writing circa 1974, a bored child looking for something to while away the long, summertime days. My penchant for reading, 'The Hardy Boys,' led to an inspiration one sweltering summer afternoon, when my best friend and I thought, ‘We could write one of those.' And so, I did.As my reading horizons broadened, so did my writing. 'Star Wars' inspired me to write a 600-page novel about outer space that caught the attention of a special teacher, Mr. Woodley, who encouraged me to keep on writing.A trip to a local book store saw the proprietor introduce me to Stephen R. Donaldson and Terry Brooks. My writing life was forever changed.At 17, I left high school to join the working world to support my first son. For the next twenty-two years I worked as a shipper at a local bakery. At the age of 36, I went back to high school to complete my education. After graduating with honors at the age of thirty-nine, I became a member of our local Police Service, and worked for 12 years in the provincial court system.In early 2017, I resigned from the Police Service to pursue my love of writing full-time. With the help and support of my lovely wife Caroline and our 5 children, I have now realized my boyhood dream. http://richardhstephens.comThe Douglas Coleman Show now offers audio and video promotional packages for music artists as well as video promotional packages for authors. We also offer advertising. Please see our website for complete details. http://douglascolemanshow.comIf you have a comment about this episode or any other, please click the link below.https://ratethispodcast.com/douglascolemanshow

Richard Stephens - 'A Gangster's Guide To Sobriety- My Life In 12 Steps' by Frank MacKay

Now Modern Therapists Need to Document Every F*cking Thing in Our Progress Notes?!? Curt and Katie discuss a recent citation from the California Board of Behavioral Sciences (BBS) to a therapist for cursing while in session. We explore: How do we document ruptures during the therapy session? Is the BBS over-reaching by controlling what therapists document? What are the best practices for note taking? All of this and more in the episode. In this podcast episode we talk about appropriate documentation practices for modern therapists As therapists it's important that we take accurate notes. But what is important to include in the notes, and how much should we really be documenting? Wait – Is it alright to use curse words in session? Therapists should be first and foremost aware of the client and their potential reaction. Note the therapeutic relationship with the client, their history, and how the client empowers themself when making language selections. If considering using casual language, consider the client's vernacular. Follow the client's lead when it comes to their language in session, including cursing. The BBS has no specific statute related to cursing or swearing. “If things aren't written down, they did still happen – but now it's open to interpretation.” - Curt Widhalm What should modern therapists document in clinical notes? It is important to document any bold interventions or ruptures in the therapeutic relationship and repair attempts for ruptures. In note taking, it is important to follow the clinical loop: assessment, diagnosis, treatment plan, intervention, use of intervention, and the client's reaction and progress. Your notes will be a balance of covering your liability and creating notes that help you remember the session. Therapists should consider documenting the use of any language that could be deemed not clinically appropriate, even positive statements like “I'm proud of you,” or “Yes, my dear.” “I think any rupture in the treatment relationship is worthy to document because it's potentially clinically rich, but also a point of liability.” – Katie Vernoy Does the California Board of Behavioral Sciences (BBS) outline what we should say in our notes? In the 300-page PDF outlining the statutes for LPCCs, LMFTs, LCSWs, and Educational Psychologists, notes are only mentioned 10 times. There is no mention in the statutes of what can be said and what can't be said in notes. Some agencies and institutions will stress writing very little to ensure protection from liability, but as this citation showcases, this might not be best practice. The BBS wants to ensure the protection of clients and you might need to justify your words, just as you would justify the use of an intervention. This is a reminder that the BBS can and do look at therapist's notes. Our Generous Sponsor for this episode of the Modern Therapist's Survival Guide: Dr. Tequilla Hill The practice of psychotherapy is unique, creative, and multifaceted. However, combining a more demanding schedule and handling our own pandemic related stresses can give rise to experiencing compassion, fatigue, and the dreaded burnout. Unfortunately, many therapists struggle silently with prioritizing their own wellness across their professional journey. If you are tired of going in and out of the burnout cycle and you desire to optimize your wellness, Dr. Tequilla Hill a mindful entrepreneur, yoga, and somatic meditation teacher has curated How to Stay Well While You Work Therapist Wellness Guide to support providers that are struggling to manage your own self-care.  Subscribe to Dr. Hill's Stay Well While You Work! Therapist Wellness Guide and you can find many of the inspiring offerings from Dr. Hill's 17 years as a practice leader, supervisor, mentor, human systems consultant and wellness enthusiast. Support The Modern Therapist's Survival Guide on Patreon! If you love our content and would like to bring the conversations deeper, please support us on our Patreon. For as little as $2 per month we're able to bring you more content, exclusive offerings, and more opportunities to engage in our growing modern therapist community. These contributions help us to expand our offerings for continuing education events and a whole lot more. If you don't think you can make a monthly contribution – no worries – we also have a buy me a coffee profile for one-time donations support us at whatever level you can today it really helps us out. You can find us at patreon.com/mtsgpodcast or buymeacoffee.com/moderntherapist. Thanks everyone. Resources for Modern Therapists mentioned in this Podcast Episode: We've pulled together resources mentioned in this episode and put together some handy-dandy links. Please note that some of the links below may be affiliate links, so if you purchase after clicking below, we may get a little bit of cash in our pockets. We thank you in advance! Statutes and Regulations Relating to the Practices of Professional Clinical Counseling, Marriage and Family Therapy, Educational Psychology, and Clinical Social Work The Case for Cursing Client's Experiences and Perceptions of the Therapist's use of Swear Words and the Resulting Impact on the Therapeutic Alliance in the Context of the Therapeutic Relationship by HollyAnne Giffin Swearing as a Response to Pain: Assessing Hypoalgesic Effects of Novel “Swear” Words by Richard Stephens and Olly Robertson Relevant Episodes of MTSG Podcast: Do Therapists Curse in Session? Make Your Paperwork Meaningful: An Interview with Dr. Maelisa McCaffrey Hall of QA Prep Noteworthy Documentation: An Interview with Dr. Ben Caldwell, PsyD, LMFT CAMFT Ethics Code Updates Bad Business Practices Who we are: Curt Widhalm, LMFT Curt Widhalm is in private practice in the Los Angeles area. He is the cofounder of the Therapy Reimagined conference, an Adjunct Professor at Pepperdine University and CSUN, a former Subject Matter Expert for the California Board of Behavioral Sciences, former CFO of the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists, and a loving husband and father. He is 1/2 great person, 1/2 provocateur, and 1/2 geek, in that order. He dabbles in the dark art of making "dad jokes" and usually has a half-empty cup of coffee somewhere nearby. Learn more at: www.curtwidhalm.com Katie Vernoy, LMFT Katie Vernoy is a Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist, coach, and consultant supporting leaders, visionaries, executives, and helping professionals to create sustainable careers. Katie, with Curt, has developed workshops and a conference, Therapy Reimagined, to support therapists navigating through the modern challenges of this profession. Katie is also a former President of the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists. In her spare time, Katie is secretly siphoning off Curt's youthful energy, so that she can take over the world. Learn more at: www.katievernoy.com A Quick Note: Our opinions are our own. We are only speaking for ourselves – except when we speak for each other, or over each other. We're working on it. Our guests are also only speaking for themselves and have their own opinions. We aren't trying to take their voice, and no one speaks for us either. Mostly because they don't want to, but hey. Stay in Touch with Curt, Katie, and the whole Therapy Reimagined #TherapyMovement: Patreon Buy Me A Coffee Podcast Homepage Therapy Reimagined Homepage Facebook Twitter Instagram YouTube   Consultation services with Curt Widhalm or Katie Vernoy: The Fifty-Minute Hour Connect with the Modern Therapist Community: Our Facebook Group – The Modern Therapists Group   Modern Therapist's Survival Guide Creative Credits: Voice Over by DW McCann https://www.facebook.com/McCannDW/ Music by Crystal Grooms Mangano http://www.crystalmangano.com/ Transcript for this episode of the Modern Therapist's Survival Guide podcast (Autogenerated): Curt Widhalm  00:00 This episode of The Modern Therapist's Survival Guide is brought to you by Dr. Tequilla Hill.   Katie Vernoy  00:05 The practice of psychotherapy is unique, creative and multifaceted. However, combining a more demanding schedule and handling our own pandemic related stresses can give rise to experiencing compassion fatigue, and the dreaded burnout. Unfortunately, many therapists struggle silently with prioritizing their own wellness across their professional journey.   Curt Widhalm  00:26 Dr. Tequilla Hill with mindful entrepreneur, yoga and somatic meditation teacher has curated how to stay well while you work therapist wellness guide to support providers that are struggling to manage your own self care. Stay tuned at the end of the episode to learn more.   Katie Vernoy  00:41 Hey everyone, before we get started with the episode Curt and I wanted to make sure you were aware that we have opportunities for you to support us for as little as $2 a month.   Curt Widhalm  00:50 Whether you want to make that monthly contribution at patreon.com/MTSGpodcast or a one time donation over at buymeacoffee.com/moderntherapist. Every donation helps us out and continues to help us bring great content to you. Listen at the end of the episode for more information.   Announcer  01:12 You're listening to The Modern Therapist's Survival Guide where therapists live, breathe and practice as human beings to support you as a whole person and a therapist. Here are your hosts, Curt Widhalm and Katie Vernoy.   Curt Widhalm  01:30 Welcome back modern therapists. This is The Modern Therapist's Survival Guide. I'm Curt Widhalm with Katie Vernoy. And this is the podcast for therapists about all of the things that therapists should worry about. And this is part two of an episode that we started last week about a citation from the California Board of Behavioral Sciences to a therapist about using a curse word in session. And if you haven't listened to last week's episodes, we talked a little bit about, we talked a lot about using curse words and sessions. And today, we're gonna focus on a different part of the citation. In the citation, it talks about the therapist not documenting about their decision to use a curse word, how it fits within the treatment, what the client's response to it was, and this being a part of why the therapist was being investigated and wanting to do a dive into: what are we actually supposed to put in our notes? We've had a couple of episodes in the past. So one with Dr. Melissa Hall and one with Dr. Ben Caldwell about what you need to put in your notes. We'll link to those in our show notes over at MTSGpodcast.com. We're not talking about SOAP Notes or structure, that kind of stuff. Today we're talking about legitimately, what do you need to put in your notes? And what is this signal by the California BBS really mean for the rest of us here? So, Katie, what needs to go in our notes?   Katie Vernoy  03:11 Well, I think just for folks that want a quick primer, because I when they can go over to both of those episodes and get stuff I'll say something and kind of lead into the rest of this. The documentation for services should follow the clinical loop. Dr. Melissa McCaffrey Hall is someone who talked about it really well and meaningful documentation. But you start with an assessment that leads to a diagnosis that then has a treatment plan, that then on a weekly or a session by session basis, you talk about the interventions that you're putting forward to help the client to meet their treatment goals that's on the treatment plan. And that's a clinical loop, you know, diagnosis, treatment plan, session notes - comes back, and hopefully you're addressing the diagnosis. In this situation. Again, we talked about the cursing before, it seems like there is a discussion around were all of the interventions put into the note. And I don't know if we have to include all interventions. I think there's a lot of mirroring and reflection and active listening and all of those things. But I think potentially you can put some of those things in the notes, but I don't think every single micro intervention needs to go in notes. But I think big interventions probably do, especially ones that are truly impactful to our clients, as well as the responses to those interventions and an even like group notes or SOAP Notes or any of the notes. There is an idea, pretty established, that we must put down the interventions that we're using and the client response.   Curt Widhalm  04:55 So in the very nature of this you're bringing up intervention is there are planned interventions, and then there are also the ones that just kind of slip out. And I think it's important for us to read from this citation. So that way, our audience here has the same knowledge of what's going on here. So I'm going to quote, I'm going to quote from the citation. And once again, we're not releasing the name of the therapists themselves, due to respecting their privacy on this, but I think that this is a key indicator of looking at how our licensing boards are enforcing stuff Yeah, and, and potentially looking at their their overreach here. So jumping into the middle of this, we talked in last week's episode about the therapists use of a curse words towards a minor in session, and quoting from the citation, regarding the record keeping a portion of your notes which you had handwritten are illegible. Additionally, your notes failed to identify which minor you had confronted during the session. Furthermore, your notes do not document either your decision to use a curse word as part of your description of the minor clients behavior. What's your rationale was for doing so what the minor client's response was to your description of his behavior, or that you would apologized to the minor client regarding the wording you had to use to describe his behavior. End quote.   Katie Vernoy  06:25 I think that there are pieces of that that are fair. And I feel like there's still information that we don't know to identify at the word that you used as overreach. I think that the level of policing around our documentation seems surprising to me. But I don't know if I particularly disagree with any of their statements. It sounds like you do, though.   Curt Widhalm  06:49 My reaction on this is, if this is in fact used as an intervention within the the treatment session, which by all accounts seems to be what this therapist and the therapist attorney justified that no other ways of reaching this client really made any sort of emphasis. That doing something big and bold in session in order to try and get through a client does seem to be a maybe very on the spot decision as an intervention to kind of disrupt and shake things up a little bit. That maybe not planned as a intervention strategy. You know, I think last week, you and I both admitted that, yeah, we use curse words in sessions from time to time. I don't think that any of my treatment plans will ever include session seven, use curse word with this client to disrupt what is the therapy in order to help them gain a new perspective. But I think it is something where, with intentional interventions, and that that clinical feedback loops that you were talking about, yeah, we do need to include in our notes, intervention use client reaction. And I think that that's the language that the Board of Behavioral Sciences is using here, that is kind of a catch all for this. Where maybe there's a little bit more nuance in here is in some of the off the cuff interventions that we do, or things that are human relations, sort of impacts that we have on other people that we might not consider in the traditional sense of interventions that it gets into kind of a fuzzy space of are we leaning towards the the cya of covering our asses of needing to transcribe the entirety of our sessions just to prove what has happened? That's kind of where my initial reading of this is. Do we have to document everything that is said, and moving into even some of the direct quotations that we use in session with more frequency?   Katie Vernoy  09:06 That may be what the BBS is describing? I think, for me, I don't take that in in that way. I think in this situation, it is hard to know if this is something that is coming from a parent that is is upset at the therapist or the therapist decision making. I'm not sure if this is a truly harmful therapist who is saying really inappropriate things in session, or some other thing, right. Like I can't speak to this particular situation. And I certainly don't feel like we need to do transcription of our sessions and quotations of our own stuff. So that's, that's my caveat. If I was in a session, and I said something to a client, they said that hurt my feelings, and we talked about it and I apologized and there was a repair or there wasn't a repair, I would document that I think any rupture in the treatment relationship is worthy to document because it's potentially very clinically rich, but it also is a point of liability. And so to me, it feels like if I recognize that a client is upset by an intervention or specific words that I use, I would document that.   Curt Widhalm  10:24 And I think that this is the difficulty in looking at information like this because it gets much more complicated with the more people who are in the room. Having worked on legislative language before and worked on trying to define things before and creating language for statutes that is broad enough that it speaks to what we do in our profession. A lot of times, we just borrow language from where it's already written. And one of the things, especially for couples and family therapy is that there hasn't really been a good definition of how in statute, it looks different than working with individuals. You know, we have 100 plus years of psychologists language to, you know, work with individual people. But sure, the theories around marriage and family therapy, we can borrow some of the language that statutes should suggest that those go in there. But for really being conscious of the steps that we're making towards putting this information into our documentation. What I'm hearing you say is that if you're really calling out one member in this citation saying the same thing, if you're really holding one member accountable, you need to be specific to that up to an including emphatic language. Is that what you're saying here?   Katie Vernoy  12:01 Well, I think you're, we're talking and I feel like we're talking into different areas. I think, in this situation, we have someone who clearly was overwhelmed, or at least that's what we've assumed, has illegible notes, and there's not specifics in it. So to me, the flavor I'm getting is that if this person if this therapist would have put in their notes, something along the lines of confronted X member of the family or use disruption by confronting X member and had some bold language and discuss the use of that language, and provided a repair within the session, without saying, I cursed at this kid, the family got upset, and I whatever, but like actually using clinical language to describe what happened, the confrontation, the disruption within the family system, as well as repair and planning for the future. To me, I don't know that we would, that this would have been part of the citation. We're assuming because they said you did not you say you used a curse word and your rationale for using the curse word that we're like, oh, we have to transcribe. I don't know that. I don't know that. I agree with that. And I do share your concern that should this become statute? Yeah. I don't think we need to transcribe our sessions, or put forward really dramatic tales in our progress notes, so that we cover everything. But I think it's, it's a jump in this situation to say, Oh, well, they wanted this. It sounds like they were appalled at what they found. And they put language to how they put it forward. I honestly have no idea. And I don't fault this therapist at all. I can't make a judgment on that. But if we're looking at the notes were illegible and incomplete. Everything was missing. Right?   Curt Widhalm  13:55 Well, the eligibility, part of it, I think, is a curious piece. And I think you and I have both heard from clinicians. And I haven't heard this as much in the last 10 years. And yeah, I do want to give you credit for being the one who brings up this point, before we started recording today. So but you and I both heard for most of our careers, about therapists who've taken the approach of well, if it's illegible, then people have to ask me what was meant there. And that's another way of protecting me in my practice. And this is a very clear indication that that is not true.   Katie Vernoy  14:35 Not true at all. We need to type stuff into an electronic health record. That's pretty clear at this point.   Curt Widhalm  14:43 I think it's really important to be able to have clear notes, do them well. And I think getting into the nuance of just like how descriptive do we need to be in the response to that But I take your point, as far as you know, what may need to be, as far as you know, use this disruption. Is it, you know, needing to put in more and more exact quotes? Is it, you know, just in the more confrontive ones? Or is it also going to be in any sort of situation where a different perspective is going to need that nuance reflected in the notes as well?   Katie Vernoy  15:27 What do you mean by that?   Curt Widhalm  15:28 So, you know, there's the clients that therapists use curse words to disrupt them. Yeah. There's also the other end of the spectrum where therapists may use more affectionate language to help to emphasize a point to that maybe seen as a boundary crossing of, you know, expressing some affection in a way that has some context sway, you know, hey, I really care for you. And I really want to see you be successful in this, do we need to then document that same nuance in that direction?   Katie Vernoy  16:06 From the description that you're providing there, I think the answer is the therapist, it depends. To me, when I express something that I think that therapists typically don't, you know, I tell my clients, I'm proud of them, I tell them, I care that care about them, or I care about what's going on with them, or whatever it is, I do show genuine human connection. I think that with one client, it may be completely documenting it out, not necessarily for the cya purposes, but for reminding myself what I'm doing. And, and and having that as part of the clinical record, because I think it's important. For other clients, if I slip up and say, hey, yeah, you and me both buddy, or Yes, my dear, or have a wonderful weekend, my dear, or something where I slip into a phrase that I might use with friends versus with my clients. And it is a client who may have a response to that that would be not clinically appropriate, or their, their response is clinically appropriate, but it would not be conducive, and it would need to have a conversation about it. I may document, you know, used informal language of care, we'll address it the next session, you know, to close out the session, I will address that at the next session and talk about the conversation of like, Hey, I was pretty casual at the end, I feel connected to you. But I wanted to make sure that we talk about our relationship. Like I think if there's a clinical reason, that or a personality reason why the client may take in something in a way that it was not intended or feel that it may be harmful. Yeah, I'm gonna document what I said and how I addressed it. And so I think it's, it's something where, depending on your relationship with the client, that context and what context may be needed, should a complaint or a concern or a clinical conversation comes down the pipe, and you need to remember kind of what was going on there? I think, yeah, I would document that for myself.   Curt Widhalm  18:06 As many of our listeners know, I sit on the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists ethics committee, and not speaking for them, but a discussion that has come up at one of our meetings with one of the staff attorneys who also is on the ethics committee, talking about the way that opposing counsels would approach therapists and depositions specifically around their notes. And hearing you say, you know, use informal language of affection. I'm thinking of the way that that could be interpreted by somebody who's looking at your notes, who's not involved, and the kinds of questions that would come up. But what do you mean, why, why didn't you write with that exact language is? That, you know, this could be anything. My client remembered this as being something completely different than what you're saying now, that may lends towards needing to go even a step further than what you're talking about here.   Katie Vernoy  19:10 Sure. And I think that's part of the 'it depends,' I think, if it's a client that potentially is going to have that as a complaint, yeah, I'd write the exact phrase.   Curt Widhalm  19:19 How do you make a decision that about which clients are likely to make complaints versus those that are not?   Katie Vernoy  19:25 I think that's a good point. I think there are times when it comes from past history of whether it's kind of being litigious or other things. I think, for me, it's more my feeling in the moment, you know, and so this is more intuitive or instinctive. Do I need to be more descriptive in my notes or not, is a client that I, I think, may want to see their notes may or may have other things that they're doing with these notes, or if they would be potentially more confrontational or litigious, but you're right, I don't I don't think that there's a great way to make that assessment and maybe the the informal words have affection is not a good phrase to use. To me, I think it's something where if there is a concern that comes up in session that you feel like you want to document, you have to decide do you document it with euphemisms, clinical language? Or do you quote yourself? I don't know. I think there's, there's arguments both ways.   Curt Widhalm  20:21 Yeah, as you're talking, I'm thinking about the number of times that we may start down a path with clients that clients just kind of give indication that it's not the appropriate way of of going. That, you know, we may bring up an idea of, let's say, for, I don't know, working with anxiety or something where, you know, you might ask a question of, like, you know, have you ever, you know, considered doing this and the clients like, No, I'm not going to do that. Do you document every single one of those like, rejections that clients do? And in your notes?   Katie Vernoy  20:59 The 'No, I'm not gonna do this.' I think that's different than I tried it. And I felt like it was harmful. I think that was a bad idea. Why did you tell me to do that? I mean, there's different flavors to it. I think if it's a conversation of like, okay, what kind of coping strategies are you going to use? Or what kind of interventions feel right to you? To me, that's, that can be a higher level documentation. But if somebody says, "Hey, I was thinking about this thing all week, I didn't do it, because I think it's wrong. And this is, this is the thing, the mismatch I'm feeling in this relationship right now." Yeah, I would document that.   Curt Widhalm  21:34 Because I think that there is a way that as you point out, my practice being more with kids, that there's probably a lot more casual ways of bringing things up with kids and relating them, there might be even with some of the adult clients that I work with, you're making me think within this conversation of kind of the being able to describe in documents, why I might do things differently from case to case where a lot of these statutes are written for kind of the here's the standard for everybody. Yeah, I think if statutes had their way it would be everybody must do these things all the time here is very clearly what is okay. And very clearly what is not. Before the episode, Katie and I had looked at the California BBS's statutes and regulations relating to the practices of professional clinical counseling, marriage and family therapy, educational psychology, and clinical social work. This is a 300 page PDF that's available on the BBS website, we'll include a link to that in the show notes as well. Now through the magic of computers, we control F, and put in the words and put in the word notes, out over 300 pages in four different disciplines, notes came up 10 times in this document. Wow. And most of them were about the requirements of education, what needs to be in graduate programs, as far as areas to cover, students need to be taught how to take notes. And most of the remaining other ones where supervisors need to check the notes. So this clinical feedback loop piece of this is something that is left to just kind of the undefined standards of the profession. That seems to be what is being grasped at. And Katie had also made the recommendation of can you control F documentation in the same documents, and we ended up with about 70 hits, and most of them were, these are documents that need to be provided to the board for proof of your hours and this kind of stuff. So getting back to this citation. Yes, I can agree, handwritten illegible notes. Not gonna fly.   Katie Vernoy  24:05 Not gonna fly.   Curt Widhalm  24:07 The guidance in what the state has said as far as what needs to be in the notes. I'm, I'm still kind of wrestling with, did this therapist do something wrong in their documentation? If it comes down to needing to specifically look at what is the threshold of things that need to be documented? As I'm hearing you talk about it in this episode, you're saying it's kind of things outside of the norm, things that if we wouldn't do this with all of our clients, if there's something specific to an individual client, we should probably make note of that. So that way, anybody else who's reading it can understand our process of why this fits with this particular client or situation? Yes. Were you ever taught that?   Katie Vernoy  25:05 Was I ever taught that? I think I was. I don't know that I was taught that as a clinician, when we were looking at this and how I was thinking about an even wrote this in my notes in preparation is when I was working as a child care worker, aka, a residence counselor in a group home, anything that happened that was out of the norm, especially if there was an injury, or some sort of horrible thing that happened to a kid, we did a serious incident report, or an SIR. And so for me, that was always the case that I would write stuff up, if it happened. And the the client, that kid was having some sort of reaction to it, or they got hurt, I would write that up, and just the facts and what happened and how you resolved it. And so for me, when I moved up the ranks in being a clinician, there's always that in the back of my mind that if something goes down, that is different, that is potentially harmful, and/or could be perceived as harmful, because it was a mismatch or whatever. Write that stuff down and make sure that you talk about your rationale, what happened and how the client responded and any repairs. So to me, I don't know that that was specific to clinical training, certainly, as I was working as a supervisor, the clinical loop was present. But there's also all these liability issues. And I think especially working with kids and families that are very chaotic, or there's a lot of factors that are making things very challenging for the family, I would encourage my clinicians to document those things because of how chaotic it was. So their supervisors would know so that the clinicians would remember what happened. I think there's all of those pieces that that made it so I'm potentially a little bit more conservative in my note writing, meaning that I write more than other folks may because I feel like there is a need to understand, remember, and cya.   Curt Widhalm  27:11 From hearing from a lot of our listeners, past students, people who've consulted with me and other just general conversations. I think they your training might be more specific than what a lot of other people working in other agencies, maybe maybe not community mental health agencies, like I will group what you said in and assume that that is a largely kind of standard rule for a lot of community mental health. But for a lot of nonprofit agencies. I don't hear this kind of emphasis, I hear a lot more of the document as minimally as possible that this audience right here, listen to this. This citation is proof that that is bad direction from shows agencies that way, keep Katie is talking about is really covering your ass, not the agency's ass that this is the proof that boards can and do look at your notes. Yeah, they're going to find faults, if notes are not up to standards. And this goes back to your law and ethics professors of if things aren't written down, they did still happen. But now it's open to interpretation. Yeah. And yeah, your justification, days, months, years later is not necessarily going to be protection, because what is written in the note at the time, is what is going to be first and foremost evaluated.   Katie Vernoy  28:50 And I think the the big difference from what you're talking about with other kind of nonprofit agencies and agencies that have Medicaid billing, is I was also taught that my my progress notes the clinical documentation that I put together is a bill. And so there needs to be sufficient intervention to justify the minutes that I'm billing for. So the reverse was actually what I was taught all the way coming up, is your notes need to be longer for longer sessions, and you need to have sufficient documentation to prove that your time was worth what we're billing for it. So the other piece and you brought this up before we begin was this kind of what do we remember? Yes. And I think when I am on top of my game, and I get my notes write down right away, I find that I have some details, some richness, and it does help me to remember from week to week, what's happened when I'm not on my game and I start getting behind on my notes. I struggle with that. And I think that folks who are chronically overwhelmed, and I'm going to include a lot of the folks in community mental health but even practices that are very full Do get behind on their notes. And then how do we do this detail? And you talked about another issue with, potentially when you write the note and what's in it. So let's move to that part because I think that's important too, before we close up.   Curt Widhalm  30:14 Well, and I will forever credit Dr. Melissa McCaffrey Hall for this advice, that the number one reason that most people seem to be behind on their notes is that they don't end sessions on time. And this is phenomenal advice that I pass along to everybody, in that the reason that we do a 50 minute session or a 45 minute session is to leave yourself time to document this stuff correctly. Yeah. And I'm going back to talking about how attorneys might approach you in a deposition, they will ask you, when did you write this note? When? Why didn't you write it earlier? What do you remember the next day about anything? Like, can you remember what you had for lunch yesterday? And who served it to you? And what was the interaction process? And this is all showing proof of just how much your memory can and does have errors to it? And if that's the case, then you having errors in your notes from being written a day or a week or months later? Is very, not good practice. It is inviting liability.   Katie Vernoy  31:35 Yes, I think and I've been on the right, the note right after session and write the note a little bit later. I'm not gonna get myself too much more liability than saying that. But I do think that writing your notes from a state of fear doesn't feel good, either. So going back to the citation to finish up because I know we're getting short on time. I can see why they said what they said I can imagine a situation where it's appropriate. If it becomes statute that every time we use a word that doesn't seem quote unquote, professional, IE see the session from last week. I worry if that's in statute, because I think there are different ways we speak with different clients, there are different things that we do. And so to me, I don't I don't want this to become a statute where we have to do these things. I do worry that this is some overreach. And I also feel like there are some things that we can do to protect ourselves which is sufficiently document what has happened, do it as close to finishing the session as you can and recognize that part of your documentation is your clinical reminder of what's going on, as well as cya if somebody comes looking at those notes later.   Curt Widhalm  32:53 You can check out our show notes at MTSGpodcast.com. Follow our social media and take a moment and drop us a note your thoughts of what we're covering here, stories that you've heard, and anything else that you would like to have us cover and until next time, I'm Curt Widhalm with Katie Vernoy.   Katie Vernoy  33:15 Thanks again to our sponsor, Dr. Tequilla Hill.   Curt Widhalm  33:18 Therapists, if you are tired of going in and out of the burnout cycle and you desire to optimize your wellness, Dr. Tequilla Hill has created and curated a wellness guide specifically with deep compassion for the dynamic personhood of the psychotherapist. Subscribe to Dr. Hills offerings at bit.ly/StayWellGuide that's bit.ly/StayWellGuide and you can find many of the inspiring offerings from Dr. Hill 17 years as a practice leader, supervisor, mentor, human systems consultant and wellness enthusiast.   Katie Vernoy  33:56 Once again, subscribed to Dr. Tequilla Hill's how to stay well while you work therapist wellness guide at bit.ly/StayWellGuide.   Curt Widhalm  34:06 Hey everyone Curt and Katie here. If you love our content and would like to bring conversations deeper, please support us on our Patreon. For as little as $2 per month we're able to bring you more content, exclusive offerings and more opportunities to engage in our growing modern therapist community. These contributions help us to expand our offerings for continuing education events and a whole lot more.   Katie Vernoy  34:29 If you don't think you can make a monthly contribution no worries we also have a buy me a coffee profile for one time donations support us at whatever level you can today it really helps us out. You can find us at patreon.com/MTSGpodcast or buymeacoffee.com/moderntherapist. Thanks everyone.   Announcer  34:50 Thank you for listening to the modern therapist Survival Guide. Learn more about who we are and what we do at MTSGpodcast.com. You can also join us on Facebook and Twitter and please don't forget to subscribe so you don't miss any of our episodes.

Do Therapists Curse in Session? Curt and Katie discuss a recent citation from the California Board of Behavioral Sciences (BBS) to a therapist for cursing while in session. We explore: Can therapists swear in session? Should they? Are there times when cursing is appropriate in session? Are therapists allowed to make errors without the fear of citation from their board? We explore these and more in this episode.   In this podcast episode we talk about the ethics and responsibilities of cursing in session. After hearing about the citation for a clinician who had cursed in session, we wanted to explore what is acceptable related to using curse words in session. We know as therapists that what we say matters, and now more than ever our choice of language matters. Who is allowed to curse in the therapy room? We tackle this question in depth: Is swearing or cursing ever appropriate in session? Both Curt and Katie swear in session when appropriate Swearing in session can create a more authentic therapeutic rapport with some clients Sometimes clients will ask for permission to swear in session Follow the client's lead when it comes to their language in session, including cursing It is mostly important to reflect the client's language without judgement Clients might be looking for more humanity in their therapists Therapists are people; curses can slip out when therapists feel depleted and without resource Cursing based on your own humanity can cause therapeutic rupture and clinicians should be mindful of the therapeutic alliance and make repair attempts “The concept of professionalism has a fairly biased frame. It's something that's very specific to a specific culture… typically, white culture [suggests] I am professional if I don't curse… Even words that are considered curse words – sometimes there's such a morality around that and morals are culturally-bound” – Katie Vernoy What does the research show us about swearing? Some research suggests that cursing out loud decreases pain “Professional language” is often rooted in whiteness with a goal of excluding people of color When not accurately reflecting a client's language, you run the risk of editing them Swearing speech is primarily meant to convey connotative or emotional meaning with emphasis What do professional organizations say now about cursing in session? The BBS recently cited a therapist for swearing in session as unprofessional language Only one professional organization, The National Association of Social Workers, officially bars cursing in session – specifically derogatory language Swearing speech is primarily meant to convey connotative or emotional meaning with emphasis Therapists have a responsibility to make sure they are emotionally equipped to deal with clients Is there an ideal language for therapists to use? … I caution against blanket rules. – Curt Widhalm Slurs are never acceptable to use during session, especially when there are cultural differences between client and therapist Considerations related to expressing your humanity, using curse words, and the clients you see Ethically, we have guidelines of client beneficence and avoiding maleficence, meaning don't harm the client Technically cursing is allowed, but only with reason and while remembering that some folks are litigious Our Generous Sponsor for this episode of the Modern Therapist's Survival Guide: Dr. Tequilla Hill The practice of psychotherapy is unique, creative, and multifaceted. However, combining a more demanding schedule and handling our own pandemic related stresses can give rise to experiencing compassion, fatigue, and the dreaded burnout. Unfortunately, many therapists struggle silently with prioritizing their own wellness across their professional journey. If you are tired of going in and out of the burnout cycle and you desire to optimize your wellness, Dr. Tequilla Hill a mindful entrepreneur, yoga, and somatic meditation teacher has curated How to Stay Well While you Work Therapist Wellness Guide to support providers that are struggling to manage your own self care.  Subscribe to Dr. Hill's Stay Well While You Work! Therapist Wellness Guide and you can find many of the inspiring offerings from Dr. Hill's 17 years as a practice leader, supervisor, mentor, human systems consultant and wellness enthusiast. Support The Modern Therapist's Survival Guide on Patreon! If you love our content and would like to bring the conversations deeper, please support us on our Patreon. For as little as $2 per month we're able to bring you more content, exclusive offerings, and more opportunities to engage in our growing modern therapist community. These contributions help us to expand our offerings for continuing education events and a whole lot more. If you don't think you can make a monthly contribution – no worries – we also have a buy me a coffee profile for one time donations support us at whatever level you can today it really helps us out. You can find us at patreon.com/mtsgpodcast or buymeacoffee.com/moderntherapist. Thanks everyone. Resources for Modern Therapists mentioned in this Podcast Episode: We've pulled together resources mentioned in this episode and put together some handy-dandy links. Please note that some of the links below may be affiliate links, so if you purchase after clicking below, we may get a little bit of cash in our pockets. We thank you in advance! The Case for Cursing Client's Experiences and Perceptions of the Therapist's use of Swear Words and the Resulting Impact on the Therapeutic Alliance in the Context of the Therapeutic Relationship by HollyAnne Giffin Swearing as a Response to Pain: Assessing Hypoalgesic Effects of Novel “Swear” Words by Richard Stephens and Olly Robertson Relevant Citations in the  MTSG Podcast: Stephens, R., & Clatworthy, A. (2006). Does swearing have an analgesic effect? Poster presentation at the British Psychological Society Psychobiology Section Annual Conference, 18 20 September 2006, Windermere Stephens, R. (2013). Swearing-The language of life and death. The Psychologist, 26(9). Retrieved from https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/volume-26/edition-9/swearing-language-life-and-death Relevant Episodes of MTSG Podcast: CAMFT Ethics Code Updates When Clients Have to Manage Their Therapists The Return of Why Therapists Quit Impaired Therapists Who we are: Curt Widhalm, LMFT Curt Widhalm is in private practice in the Los Angeles area. He is the cofounder of the Therapy Reimagined conference, an Adjunct Professor at Pepperdine University and CSUN, a former Subject Matter Expert for the California Board of Behavioral Sciences, former CFO of the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists, and a loving husband and father. He is 1/2 great person, 1/2 provocateur, and 1/2 geek, in that order. He dabbles in the dark art of making "dad jokes" and usually has a half-empty cup of coffee somewhere nearby. Learn more at: www.curtwidhalm.com Katie Vernoy, LMFT Katie Vernoy is a Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist, coach, and consultant supporting leaders, visionaries, executives, and helping professionals to create sustainable careers. Katie, with Curt, has developed workshops and a conference, Therapy Reimagined, to support therapists navigating through the modern challenges of this profession. Katie is also a former President of the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists. In her spare time, Katie is secretly siphoning off Curt's youthful energy, so that she can take over the world. Learn more at: www.katievernoy.com A Quick Note: Our opinions are our own. We are only speaking for ourselves – except when we speak for each other, or over each other. We're working on it. Our guests are also only speaking for themselves and have their own opinions. We aren't trying to take their voice, and no one speaks for us either. Mostly because they don't want to, but hey. Stay in Touch with Curt, Katie, and the whole Therapy Reimagined #TherapyMovement: Patreon Buy Me A Coffee Podcast Homepage Therapy Reimagined Homepage Facebook Twitter Instagram YouTube   Consultation services with Curt Widhalm or Katie Vernoy: The Fifty-Minute Hour Connect with the Modern Therapist Community: Our Facebook Group – The Modern Therapists Group   Modern Therapist's Survival Guide Creative Credits: Voice Over by DW McCann https://www.facebook.com/McCannDW/ Music by Crystal Grooms Mangano http://www.crystalmangano.com/ Transcript for this episode of the Modern Therapist's Survival Guide podcast (Autogenerated): Curt Widhalm  00:00 This episode of the Modern Therapist Survival Guide is brought to you by Dr. Tequilla Hill.   Katie Vernoy  00:05 The practice of psychotherapy is unique, creative and multifaceted. However, combining a more demanding schedule and handling our own pandemic related stresses can give rise to experiencing compassion, fatigue, and the dreaded burnout. Unfortunately, many therapists struggle silently with prioritizing their own wellness across their professional journey.   Curt Widhalm  00:26 Dr. Tequilla Hill a mindful entrepreneur yoga and somatic meditation teacher has curated how to stay well while you work therapist wellness guide to support providers that are struggling to manage your own self care. Stay tuned at the end of the episode to learn more.   Katie Vernoy  00:42 Hey everyone, before we get started with the episode, Curt and I wanted to make sure you were aware that we have opportunities for you to support us for as little as $2 a month.   Curt Widhalm  00:51 Whether you want to make that a monthly contribution at Patreon.com/mtsgpodcast  or a one time donation over at buymeacoffee.com/moderntherapist. Every donation helps us out and continues to help us bring great content to you. Listen at the end of the episode for more information.    Announcer  01:14 You're listening to the Modern Therapist Survival Guide where therapists live, breathe and practice as human beings. To support you as a whole person and a therapist, here are your hosts, Curt Widhalm and Katie Vernoy.   Curt Widhalm  01:28 Welcome back modern therapists. This is the Modern Therapist Survival Guide. I'm Curt Widhalm, with Katie Vernoy. And this is the podcast for therapists about things that we do things that show up in therapy things that are happening in our profession. And today's episode started with looking at a citation that was issued by the California Board of Behavioral Sciences to a therapist, this is public information, we're not going to name names. But this is part one of a two part episode.   Katie Vernoy  02:05 Oh at least two parts.   Curt Widhalm  02:08 Part, episode one, at least two parts dealing with this particular citation. And if you know us that we can dive deeply into the strangest of things. But this is an important one in looking at the way that licensing boards are evaluating things. And this has some potential ramifications throughout the rest of our profession. If you're not in California, your board may come after you one day too. So listen, listen to these because this does have some ramifications across our profession. Now, very, very broadly, not getting into a ton of details. If you want to peruse, you can probably pull this up, we're not going to link this one for you. But very, very broadly, therapist was doing reunification therapy with a parent and children. And my understanding of reading through the citation is that the therapist used a curse word in session. A little bit of perspective in having done some reunification therapy before. There's a lot of dynamics at play with the parent who's not in the room. But there does not seem to be any disagreement that a curse word was used. The disagreement seems to be how the curse word was used. And this particular case, one of the children in the room felt that the therapist was calling the child the curse word, the parent who was in the room and the therapist will say that the therapist was using the word to describe the child's behavior. The California Board of Behavioral Sciences in their citation said that this is unprofessional conduct. And this among some other things that we will explore in this episode and next week's episode are going to be why we're talking so deeply about this. But Katie, do you curse in session?   Katie Vernoy  04:18 We'll share Yeah, Yeah, fuck yeah. Christian session. I don't always, I don't always, and I don't with every client, but I think there's so many different elements to cursing in session. And obviously this one's going to get one of those explicit marks and so maybe we should have put a warning we already put it on the episode but if you don't like cursing turn it the fuck off.   Curt Widhalm  04:46 Put a little parental advisory label on the show graphic for this episode. But   Katie Vernoy  04:53 I mean, I'm actually cursing more than I would normally for a fact obviously but I think it's something where the elements that we need to look at are, is it unprofessional conduct? Can we be human beings? And is there an reason that it would might be more effective clinically, or times it might be really harmful clinically, like I think there's there's a lot of different elements to this. So.   Curt Widhalm  05:17 So I think anecdotally, a lot of us who work in the fields tend to take an approach of well adopt the kind of language that a client is using, and oftentimes following their leads, and particularly in working with teenagers a lot. In my practice, I'll get the question of, Can I curse them here? Usually, after they've said a curse word, right?   Katie Vernoy  05:40 Yes, same adults, though, in my case.   Curt Widhalm  05:44 And oftentimes I, I will say, this is your space. And if this is something that helps you to be able to express yourself, well, go ahead and do it. And I may, you know, reflect back their language, it may give me a little bit of, you know, more genuine approach and letting down some of my professionalism a little bit in order to help clients feel that I'm connecting with them on their level. And for many of the therapists that I talked about, we tend to take this kind of an approach that, particularly when we're working with communities that have maybe had some issues with the way that therapists come across too professionally, that there's a lot of power in the language of using curse words, that helps to show that alright, as therapists, if we can meet with them on the level and the way that they express themselves, that it helps to build more of a real relationship. And I've seen this back when I was working and agency work working in substance abuse, homeless populations, that it did just kind of help give me a little bit more of a response of clients thinking that I'm authentic. I imagine that you had some similar experiences in DMH yourself?   Katie Vernoy  07:00 Sure. I mean, I think there's there's a few things that you said that kind of struck me and I don't know if it's worth, you know, talking about but I think there's using the client's language and you said, kind of meeting them at their level? And I don't know exactly, if that's saying like, one form of language is better than an other and, and for me, I think I don't think that's what you were trying to say. But I think for me, it's more kind of embodying the space and using the language with them without a judgement there, but   Curt Widhalm  07:33 And it wasn't intended as placing anything as far as being higher or lower level. I mean, if, if I have a three year old in session that we're going to talk on, you know, our hands as phones in order to convey messages, I'm going to meet with them on their level. So this is just kind of being able to match client characteristics.   Katie Vernoy  07:54 Sure. Okay. I think the other element that you're talking about really is authenticity. And for me, I want curse words to be used in session where it feels authentic to do so. And potentially as a connecting mechanism, but I think, just using curse words, because your client does, I don't think it's going to fly. So So I think, a couple of things there. I don't know if they're relevant, but, but to answer your question, I think the more important element of this is, knowing your client well, and really reflecting their language without assumption. I know a mistake that I had made more than once, and I realized it as I was doing it, is that I assumed that the client cursed and I was wrong. And I'd used a curse word I saw their eyebrows kind of go up. And it was something where I felt it was to reflect the gravity of what I've experiencing, like, oh, fuck, you know, or Wow, that was really shitty. You know, like, I've I've used those expressions, because that's how I talk and other arenas. But when I saw the client's eyebrows go up, I was like, Oh, wait, I'm tracking back. And although they're a person who is not a formal person, they seem to be, you know, kind of casual and how they speak. It still wasn't a word that was appropriate for them. And so to me, I feel like I, I have since moved to a place of cursing as little as possible, unless I really know like, meaning zero, unless I know the client very well. And we've had those exchanges and I've definitely heard them curse, which not everybody does, because some people see it as more of a kind of formal environment that we're sitting in. But I especially had to kind of assess this when I was working with the teen boys on probation. I mean, that was a whole different, you know, kind of way to connect with folks around language and perspective. And so I think, a blanket statement of never curse or curse whenever you want. I think obviously, that's not what we're here to say.   Curt Widhalm  10:04 When I first read this citation, I did a little bit of a self study on myself of just keeping track of the number of sessions that I had in the following days, right? Use a curse word, and it came to about 60% of my sessions.   Katie Vernoy  10:22 You definitely work with teens.   Curt Widhalm  10:24 I work with teens, I work with parents, I work with a number of different clients that our relationship has established. And I don't consider myself somebody who curses frequently in my day to day life.   Katie Vernoy  10:40 So you curse more in session than in your day to day life,   Curt Widhalm  10:43 Probably. I mean, I haven't done this kind of data tracking on my personal life, maybe I should just for comparison sake, but in observing myself, I did the follow up question of who? Why am I person care, and it fell into a couple of different categories. One was to really kind of ask clients to expand on things like, you know, if a client says, like, I'm feeling like shit today, where that's gonna make me feel shitty, like, Oh, why do you think that that's going to make you feel shitty, you know, just kind of echoing their language, family sessions are my favorites of when, especially with very young children, I'm talking, you know, those kids under the age of six, maybe preschoolers that are using curse words, and parents are trying to correct it, of, you know, talking about parents using the language in front of their children and how that's reinforcing to them. Yeah, and finding alternatives. And then there are those times where there's just kind of the emphasizing a point with clients that I've already had an established relationship with where this is being used, being able to just kind of help them maybe recognize a particular moment in session, as far as here's an emphasis on this. But in my, you know, data of like, one week of looking at this, these were all clients that had been the first to swear in sessions.   Katie Vernoy  12:16 Mm hmm.   Curt Widhalm  12:17 And I think I kind of follow you and and many others in our field that we don't lead with this, and I don't think clients necessarily, overall want us to lead with this. There's a couple of older articles, I'm talking 10 plus years old now, that kind of look at the role of therapists swearing in session, very, very minutely. And seems to be from time to in our fields when there really was a lot more of this elevated professionalism expected of psychologists, therapists, social workers, etc. But I think you know, really, overall, with the old man shaking, his fist, decaying morals of our society, where cursing seems to be a lot more prevalent. I think in the last 10 years, this has been something where either we're more readily admitting it or our clients are actually looking for more of that humanity out of the professionals who serve in these roles.   Katie Vernoy  13:16 And when you were talking the the concept of professionalism has a fairly biased frame. It's something that's very specific to a specific culture I'm in typically, white culture is more in the like, I am professional if I don't curse, I think even words that are considered curse words. Sometimes there's such a morality around that and, and morals are culturally bound to that. I feel like if we were to never curse, and if we don't curse personally, I don't, you know, like, you don't have to bust out a curse word if you don't if you never curse, but like for those of us who that's part of our communication. I think it is interesting that our profession and a professional body would say, hey, that is unprofessional behavior, when in fact, it may be the most connecting thing we can do. Like I said, I've I've made mistakes and curse when I shouldn't with clients that don't curse and I recognized it in the moment. But to me, there's using it thoughtfully. And then there's also just being who you are and talking how you talk, and having the clients that match with you. I mean, there are folks who just that's how they talk and should they be required as therapists to completely remove all cursing from their vocabulary.   Curt Widhalm  14:48 You bring up the professional organizations, and there's one professional organization who puts it in their ethics codes and This is the National Association of Social Workers, their standard 1.12 or one point 12, derogatory language, social workers should not use derogatory language in their written verbal or electronic communications, to or about clients. Social workers should use accurate and respectful language in all communications to and about clients.   Katie Vernoy  15:24 So it's, it's implying that cursing is de facto disrespectful.   Curt Widhalm  15:30 I think that in any ethics code, there's room for interpretation here, but this one is specifically talking about the language that gets used and says,   Katie Vernoy  15:41 It says derogatory language, I guess. So like that is that's where the interpretation is that you're talking about.   Curt Widhalm  15:46 Right. Which then kind of leads to the question of who gets to decide what words mean, you know, this is a intention versus impact sort of conversation, because I can think of a million ways to not use curse words and still speak derogatorily about somebody? Sure, you know, and I can think of ways where clients may even be offended for not utilizing the kind of language that they incorporate into their world. Whether that includes curse words or not.   Katie Vernoy  16:24 Yeah, I just think if you were to, to when somebody says I'm feeling really shitty today, like, you could come back and say, Well, what do you think is gonna make you feel that way? But if you were like, so what makes you feel like poop today? Like, I think it would just be funny. But secondly, it's, it's, it's editing them?   Curt Widhalm  16:46 Well,   Katie Vernoy  16:46  in the reframe.   Curt Widhalm  16:47 I have, I have worked in environments before where clients readily use this kind of language all the time, but have had co workers who would try and kind of calm things down and be like, Can Can we not use that language here? Can we use something more respectful and those kinds of coworkers didn't last long in those environments? Yeah, some of looking at this is also looking at some of the neurological research that has come out in the last 10 or so years about the effectiveness of using curse words, as a way of relieving pain. Oh, interesting. And we'll put some citations, at least in the show notes. Not necessarily going to find all of the source articles he re for people but,   Katie Vernoy  17:44 But we're gonna say we're gonna have citations never fear, you'll be able to find it.   Curt Widhalm  17:48 We're gonna have some citations here. But the use of curse words has allowed for people being subjected to physical pain to report on a subjective units of distress, less pain being felt when they're allowed to curse. And this was also replicated in a Mythbusters episodes that so I mean, if   Katie Vernoy  18:14 It has to be true, it's very true.   Curt Widhalm  18:19 The question really becomes, is cursing allowed or not. And this is where we get into these weird, like, can we create blanket rules for our profession? I'm not going to be like leading cursing with my clients.   Katie Vernoy  18:36 No,   Curt Widhalm  18:37 Especially, you know, children.   Katie Vernoy  18:42 Yeah, I think probably the parents would not be pleased if you taught your child, your child clients to curse.   Curt Widhalm  18:50 And part of this is going to be based on your theoretical orientation. You know, if part of what your family therapy is is working on creating structure around appropriate language in the household, and kids are going to be cursing or not, or if that's something that parents are trying to move their kids away from, inevitably, you're going to have to at least document that you're working on.   Katie Vernoy  19:14 Yeah, yeah, I agree. I think that there, there are clinical reasons, whether it's part of the joining and the relationship, whether it's authenticity, whether it's specific things you're working on. I think there are reasons to thoughtfully engage in cursing and session. You know, because I think otherwise, it is really just about humanity. I mean, to me in reading that citation, I'm not clear so it could have been that the the clinician was speaking about behavior, reflecting back language from the family. And it could have been thoughtful, thoughtful use, but I'm curious having worked in a lot of these types of situations where there's reunification, or DCFS involvement, or probation involvement, where there's families that are under a lot of stress, they're being mandated to treatment, there are a lot of things going on. And those families righteously can be challenging for a clinician to work with. And it can be very, very overwhelming. And so to me, I'm thinking, was this a clinical choice? I'm reflecting the language, I'm being authentic, or was it a, I am at my last my wit's end and holy fuck I am done for the day. And so it was not thoughtful, it was humanity. And the question I posed to you, dear sir, is if we curse in session, because of our humanity, is that okay?   Curt Widhalm  20:51 So a couple of the articles that are out there, one of the people who has looked into this a little bit more than some others is Timothy J. 2008. Article from J. And Janowitz, says that, in contrast to most other speech, swearing is primarily meant to convey connotative or emotional meaning. In other words, that, you know, a word like shit does not usually necessarily literally mean a pile of feces, it means that there is some sort of emphasis to it based on the context of the language. Yeah, I think that, on that point of, it's about the emphasis of it. Speaking from a position of reality, what you're asking is, is there an ideal language for therapists to use? Hmm. And, again, I cautioned against blanket rules, because there may be polite society that does find it extremely offensive, you know, one of the very weird things about our field is that you may be, you know, talking into your hand as a mock cellular phone with a child in one session. And then your next session, maybe exploring the BDSM desires of somebody who's exploring their sexuality, then rules, even from one session to the next may be impossible to create a absolute value, let alone a strict rule of what ideal language that you can use. It's a very fancy way of saying it depends.   Katie Vernoy  22:36 Well, I'm hearing a whole bunch of it depends. But I think there's that additional element of, if I've, I'm at the end of my resources, I'm exhausted and something is thrown at me in session that I normally could catch, and I don't. And I basically start being a human in the moment, because I have no more resources left is that worthy of a, of a disciplinary action,   Curt Widhalm  23:07 we do have a responsibility to put ourselves in the best position to take care of our clients. And, you know, I can imagine and I've had frustrating sessions over my career that have stirred up emotional reactions in sessions and working through in subsequent sessions or subsequent communications with clients or former clients that there is a ownership of some of that humanity, some people are going to be litigious. Some people are going to file complaints, you know, if I'm going to draw a line on this, you know, not everybody is going to want their therapist to curse. Some people are going to think it's the best fucking thing that's ever happened. But I think that there is probably an absolute line. And even this line is kind of gray in and of itself. But I think that there is a line that is probably the intention of that NASW code, which is where the use of slurs come in. And especially if there's cultural differences between the therapist and the client that, you know, if I have a client who's expressing, hey, I got called the N word down on the streets and is actually using the pejorative language. They're even in all of my trying to connect with a client's me as a very white therapist. I'm staying away from reflecting that word to them. But I think that you know, in any of the expressions that we have, that being very careful about not using slurs is probably a line that we all definitely need to be aware of where that is, and follow that one   Katie Vernoy  24:58 To me taking what you're saying and adding my own thoughts to it is really having common sense and making sure that we have sufficient resources available to either remain appropriate and not become offensive to our clients, if at all possible. I think the other element of it is kind of this common decency and respect. I think if one of my first jobs out of college was working in a group home with kids who had been removed from their parents homes or their caregivers homes, and I was carrying a child, I was working as a childcare worker, not as a therapist, and I was carrying one of the children and hit a pothole in the road, sprained my ankle and went down with the kid. Even in that moment, when I'm in excruciating pain, and the kid is crying because they fell with me, I did not drop the kid, I felt very proud of myself, I was much younger than I would drop them now. I didn't curse. Maybe I would have felt less pain. If I did. It sounds like from the study. But I did it because I was aware, I have a kid with me. And there's enough of a filter for me that I wasn't going to immediately go to "fuck". So in sessions, having that much left that much kind of super ego or that much kind of observer, mindfulness, whatever works for you. But having that much to say, even if I'm in a bad spot, let me first excuse myself, rather than get to a place where I'm cursing without it making much sense, clinically, I think is our responsibility.   Curt Widhalm  26:57 Sure. I think that overall, what we're talking about here is trying to make a case that cursings allowed. And I think that we've at least done a good enough job to say that we shouldn't disallow it. But there's probably got to be some reasons for, hey, here's why you don't. I mean, obviously, this citation that we're referring to, as far as the basis of this episode is necessary that at least in some cases, you shouldn't,   Katie Vernoy  27:28 I think that the know your audience is really important. We've said that throughout. But I think it's also understand the impact of your words. The thing that I grapple with, and I don't know if this is something maybe you grapple with as well is that even when we're feeling especially human, and embodied as a therapist, there is still a power differential. And there still is an expectation that we will show up in a certain way. And I think not showing up in that way, shouldn't be taken lightly. There have been times when my humanity has come through, and I've had ruptures that were not repaired, and clients that left treatment, you know, that frequently, but that has happened, I've had clients who, fortunately have been able to say, hey, and it wasn't necessarily about cursing, but more that kind of humanity piece. But I, I expect it would also happen with cursing. But clients who would come to me and say, You were weird in that session with me what happened there, and then being able to talk about what was happening behind the scenes. But I think there may be clients who have trauma histories around certain ways that people speak, there may be things that you would need to know before you really dig into or become, I think, to free and how you express yourself in your own humanity. I think there's, I think there's times when having curse words in your vocabulary could be a hindrance to you in connecting with clients and keeping the environment safe for them.   Curt Widhalm  29:07 What you're talking about is our ethical guidelines of client beneficence and avoiding maleficence. That what we do is for the benefit of clients, and we don't do the things that harm clients, and the history of, you know, polite society, using proper language has been proven to often been an exclusionary way of keeping diversity out of professional roles. And this has existed and today, and I think that, you know, there's always the default to remaining in this classical professionalism that is the guidance to avoiding that maleficence. When in doubt, be safe.   Katie Vernoy  30:03 Yes.   Curt Widhalm  30:05 But when clients curse first fuck yeah, we're gonna do it.   Katie Vernoy  30:08 Shit.   Curt Widhalm  30:13 We will link to some articles here in the show notes you can find those at mtsgpodcast.com. One piece that we didn't really highlight in the, in the middle of the show that I think is worth pointing out is a master's thesis dissertation from Holly Anne Giffen from 2016. That served as the basis for us finding some of these other articles. We will include a link to that in our show notes to find those at mtsgpodcast.com. And follow us on our social media and join our Facebook group, the modern therapist group and until next time, I'm Curt Wildhalm with Katie Vernoy.   Katie Vernoy  30:56 Thanks again to our sponsor, Dr. Tequilla Hill therapist.   Curt Widhalm  31:00 If you are tired of going in and out of the burnout cycle and you desire to optimize your wellness, Dr. Tequilla Hill has created and curated a wellness guide specifically with deep compassion for the dynamic personhood of the psychotherapist. Subscribe to Dr. Hills offerings at Bitly forward slash stay well guide that's BIT dot L y forward slash StayWell guides and you can find many of the inspiring offerings from Dr. Hill 17 years as a practice leader, supervisor, mentor, human systems consultant and wellness enthusiast.   Katie Vernoy  31:37 Once again subscribe to Dr. Tequila Hills how to stay well while you work therapists wellness guide at Bitly forward slash stay well guide   Curt Widhalm  31:47 Hey everyone, Kurt and Katie here. If you love our content and would like to bring the conversations deeper, please support us on our Patreon. For as little as $2 per month we're able to bring you more content, exclusive offerings and more opportunities to engage in our growing modern therapist community. These contributions help us to expand our offerings for continuing education events and a whole lot more.   Katie Vernoy  32:10 If you don't think you can make a monthly contribution no worries we also have a buy me a coffee profile for one time donations support us at whatever level you can today it really helps us out. You can find us@patreon.com Ford slash MTS G podcast or buy me a coffee.com Ford slash modern therapist. Thanks everyone.   Announcer  32:32 Thank you for listening to the modern therapist Survival Guide. Learn more about who we are and what we do at MTS g podcast.com. You can also join us on Facebook and Twitter. And please don't forget to subscribe so you don't miss any of our episodes.

Nick discusses the influence and impact of Richard Stephens, a man who lived faithfully and led with Christ-centered integrity for 50 years in the automobile industry.

To conclude part two of the series we consider pragmatics, the linguistic field that deals with context and how language is used. We take a look at 'why' we have language and the subtle and not so subtle ways we communicate. We consider different types of dialects, turn taking and the power of language to shape the way we think. We then conclude the episode with a look at one of the superpowers of language, swearing. Show NotesThe Here and Now Podcast Language SeriesThe Social Origins of Language – Dor D, Knight C & Lewis J.Why We Talk – DessallesLanguage and Situation – Gregory M & Carroll SLanguage as a Social Action – Holtgraves THow to do Things with Words – John AustinSpeech Act Theory – John AustinJohn Searle – PhilosopherA Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn Taking for Conversation – Sacks H, Schleghoff E & Jefferson G1984 – George OrwellLanguages don't all have the same number of terms for colorsJocko Podcast #263 on 1984 and NewspeakSwearing is good for you: The amazing science of bad language – Byrne ESwearing as a response to pain – Dr. Richard StephensSwearing is a sign of more intelligence not lessYour cursing cortexThe Here and Now Podcast on FacebookThe Here and Now Podcast on TwitterSend me an emailSupport the show (https://www.patreon.com/thehereandnowpodcast)

Richard Stephens shares his Auburn Roots! Host Kyle Loomis sits down with Richard to discuss his family's history with Auburn and experiences working the football scoreboard. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/e2c-network/support

Richard Stephens shares his Auburn Roots! Host Kyle Loomis sits down with Richard to discuss his family's history with Auburn and experiences working the football scoreboard. ------------------------------------- JOIN THE CONQUER CLUB (Patreon): https://www.patreon.com/e2cnetwork JOIN THE CONQUER CLUB (Youtube Member): https://www.youtube.com/c/e2cnetwork/join SPONSOR OPPORTUNITIES: kyleloomis@e2cnetwork.com DONATE TO THE NETWORK: www.paypal.me/e2cnetwork SHOP E2C NETWORK STORE: https://www.teepublic.com/stores/e2cnetwork ------------------------------------- LISTEN TO ALL PODCASTS: http://bit.ly/E2CNetworkApplePodcasts LISTEN TO AUBURN ROOTS: https://bit.ly/AuburnRootsSubscribe ------------------------------------- YOUTUBE: https://www.youtube.com/c/e2cnetwork TWITTER: twitter.com/E2C_Network FACEBOOK: www.facebook.com/E2CNetworkAU INSTAGRAM: https://www.instagram.com/e2cnetwork TIKTOK: https://www.tiktok.com/@e2cnetwork  

Richard Stephens shares his Auburn Roots! Host Kyle Loomis sits down with Richard to discuss his family's history with Auburn and experiences working the football scoreboard.Listener Feedback: What stuck out to you most about Richard Stephen's story? Show Notes, Links, and Comments: http://e2cnetwork.com/podcastsVisit http://e2cnetwork.com for our Auburn Tigers articles, videos, events and more!-------------------------------------SUPPORT THE E2C NETWORKSponsor Opportunities: kyleloomis@e2cnetwork.comTeepublic Store: https://buff.ly/2GBKM1OPatreon: https://www.patreon.com/e2cnetworkPaypal: PayPal.Me/E2CNetwork-------------------------------------SOCIAL MEDIA: Connect with us!Twitter: twitter.com/E2C_NetworkFacebook: www.facebook.com/E2CNetworkAUFacbook Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/127993787958829/Instagram:  https://www.instagram.com/e2cnetworkYoutube: https://www.youtube.com

In episode 4, Richard Stephens, patient advocate and Chair of the Stakeholder Forum for BBMRI-ERIC, the European research infrastructure for biobanking, talks to us about the value and power of patient and participant involvement in clinical research as well as how patients can benefit from the use of biobanks for advancing clinical research. We also hear the incredible personal story from Linda Tormey, Director of Clinical Programs and Operations at Genuity Science, who talks about the loss of both her parents at a young age and how it motivated her to pursue a career in clinical research so that she could help find solutions for those difficult to treat diseases.

Guest Bio: Rich Stephens is a person who stutters and is the President of SAY: Australia, the first international arm of SAY: The Stuttering Association For The Young founded in 2001 in NYC by Taro Alexander. Rich graduated from Salford University/UK as a Psychiatric Nurse and spent 6 years supporting people of all ages with mental health difficulties in the UK, Ireland, and New Zealand. During his time in New Zealand, Rich worked as a Maori Child Specialist Community Psychiatric Nurse, a role which started his journey to bring him closer and more at peace with his stutter. Rich returned to the UK to pursue a career in Speech Pathology, graduating from the University of Manchester in 2017 with a BSc in Speech and Language Therapy. During this period, Rich first volunteered as a bunk counselor at Camp SAY and has been involved ever since. Rich continued his studies at the University of Manchester and graduated with an MSC in Neuroimaging for Clinical & Cognitive Neuroscience. He was pursuing Ph.D. studies at Vanderbilt and MSU when an opportunity presented itself to launch SAY: Australia and bring a new approach to supporting young people who stutter to Australia. Rich is passionate about providing options for young people who stutter and their families, especially those he never had when he was a child. Rich is a father to his 16-month-old son, passionately follows his boyhood team Manchester United Football Club, is an avid fan of the NFL (Seahawks) and MLB (Bluejays), and has the ULTIMATE Star Wars Film watching-sequence guide for any newcomers to the franchise!   Resources and Links: SAYAUSTRALIA Host Bio: Uri Schneider, M.A. CCC -SLP passionately explores and develops practical ways for us to create our own success story. Delivering personalized experiences of communication care informed by leading professionals and influencers, Uri is re-imagining the next-level of speech-language therapy for people to benefit in real life. Uri Schneider, M.A. CCC -SLP is co-founder and leader at Schneider Speech Pathology and faculty at the University of California, Riverside School of Medicine. For more, visit www.schneiderspeech.com

Our first cast this morning takes us to 90 Mile Beach on the tip of the North Island of New Zealand with Richard Stephens an expert in the fascinating and unique traditional Maori and Islander fishing technique which has been given a high tech twist, torpedo fishing.

Pepper Stewart Show Watch it at Farm and Ranch TV episode 106 - Hosted by Pepper Stewart and guest host Richard Stephens.No Guest, talked cattle, Naked yoga, Record setting dogs, PBR , CBR, Irish Cowboys, and happen to mix in some Cattle News, and randoms stories. Tune in each week for some more Ranch, Rodeo & Randomness. More info on the show visit PepperStewart.com

Pepper Stewart Show Watch it at Farm and Ranch TV episode 104 - Hosted by Pepper Stewart and guest host Richard Stephens. Guest are Jenny Sauer a Farmer who happen to also be an actor, model, and author followed by Actress, business woman, and humanitarian Cassandra Seienfeld. We happen to mix in some Cattle News, and randoms stories. Tune in each week for some more Ranch, Rodeo & Randomness. More info on the show visit PepperStewart.com

Pepper Stewart Show Watch it at Farm and Ranch TV episode 103 - Hosted by Pepper Stewart and guest host Richard Stephens, Studio guest Barry Brown about his book Bionic BullRider his life story. Tune by The Quebe Sisters Band. Talked PRCA, PBR, Cattle News, randoms stories. Tune in each week for some more Ranch, Rodeo & Randomness. More info on the show visit PepperStewart.com

Pepper Stewart Show Watch it at Farm and Ranch TV episode 96- Hosted by Pepper Stewart in studio Tex Travis and Richard Stephens. Talked to Barrel Racer and Cowgirl Fitness Hannah Kaufman. Talked Kids, guns, and phones. As always plenty Cattle news, prices, and stories from around the globe. Tune in each week for some more Ranch, Rodeo & Randomness. More info on the show visit PepperStewart.com

Richard Stephens speaks with ecancertv at NCRI 2016 about the National Cancer Patient Experience survey, and the questions and answers regarding the patient experience of cancer research in roughly 70,000 patients. The results show that there is an inequality of access to research opportunities for cancer patients.

Richard Stephens speaks with ecancertv at NCRI 2016 about the importance of the NCRI consumer forum and the patient and carer involvement in cancer research. The consumer forum carefully looks into design, delivery, dissemination and advising on funding committees in the UK.

On this episode, Nikki Bedi is joined by Elizabeth Varley, the Founder and CEO of TechHub - the global tech startup community with over 1000 members that creates spaces around the world for tech entrepreneurs to meet, work, learn and collaborate - and Richard Stephens, co-founder of Opto VR - a new kind of Virtual Reality Headset that lets anyone who owns a smartphone experience High-quality VR movies, videos and games wherever you are. They discuss the risks of being an innovator, how to position your start up against big corporations and how to recognise when you have an idea that your market want. Plus we hear tips on how to pitch from VOOM competition judges including founder of The Cambridge Satchel Company, Julie Deane, You Tube star, Dina Tokia and Head of Investment at Virgin StartUp, Andy Fishburn after a record breaking 29 hour Pitchathon. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Richard Stephens talks to ecancer.tv about the reasons why patients may choose to participate in clinical trials, and the way that such trials can benefit not just these patients, but many more patients in the future. Mr Stephens explains that all patients have the right to participate in clinical trials if they wish, outlines the advantages of these trials but also warns of the associated extra commitments.