We continue to study the relative pros and cons of different formats of working with psychologists and psychotherapists. This question - which format should I choose is not uncommon in our time. especially when there were such global crises as a pandemic, for example - a creative adaptation came in handy for us! Last time we talked about the first format - this is the format of correspondence / text formats. Today we will talk about the next format, which I called the older brother of the first :) Online video format - can take up from 40% to 70% in different approaches. And of course, it was most relevant at the time of global crises, when the possibility of live meetings was limited. In general, the advantages of this format may be somewhat similar to the previous one: - convenience of place and time (it’s easier to adapt): - safety - the client remains in his comfort zone in terms of physical location; - any sites where video communication is possible; - unlike correspondence in online video format, we see each other (this helps and simplifies our interaction); - there is an option for a 20-minute introductory session without any time or physical costs; - the ability to conduct sessions from anywhere in the world; - albeit not entirely, but the contact is more complete (I see your feelings, reactions, movements, hear intonations); and you hear and see all this; - the ability to conduct experiments and exercises (usually the space around allows this); In general, there are more relative advantages than in the correspondence format. Even from the point of view of the therapist-client meeting itself, it (the meeting) still happens face to face, and we can not fantasize about each other’s experiences, but see them and ask, and we do not need much time to receive an answer. Plus - answers and reactions are more natural (there is no internal censor) and time to think - the answer comes immediately. And even if a person is “stuck”, we will see this in an online video (in correspondence we may not know the reason for a long answer or a stop), and this can also give us a subject for research (it is common, for example, for a person to freeze when it comes to his feelings or processes?). Like any sphere, there are two (or even several!) sides. Here are the approximate and conditional disadvantages of this format: - the format itself - technical failures will interrupt the dynamics at any point (this can extinguish an important impulse, or alarm the client at a vulnerable moment); - many exercises and experiments may remain inaccessible due to the online location - contact or when close participation of the specialist himself is needed; - the meeting still remains in the client’s comfort zone, he does not actually go to the meeting; Of course, this is not scary, but novelty to its full extent (a new place - an office; a new person - right here, nearby, alive, not on the screen; the possibility of closer contact or support) - alas, does not happen to the fullest. - although the specialist’s involvement is higher (not in the sense that he is not involved in correspondence or demos - but simply the formats themselves do not allow us to do this), and in the video format there is more opportunity to respond and show up, this still remains limited to some extent ;In general, this online video format can be considered a full-fledged working option, regardless of whether it is consultations or more or less long-term work; for couples in general, little changes either, although it is important to clarify how they like this format (it can be difficult to see the two of them fully because of the small screen, as an example); but again - as the initial stage of bringing the client closer to the topic of therapy, it is very effective. The choice is yours:)