Vygotsky Podcast 3.13.26
===
[00:00:00] Welcome to Kathy on the Couch, your podcast for everyday clinicians who sit with grief, trauma, and the hardest human experiences every day. You weren't meant to carry this alone, and this is a space for therapists who hold space for others and sometimes need a place to be held too. I am Kathy, and I am your EMDR consultant, trainer, and theologian specializing in.
Methods of death, dying, and bereavement. I created this podcast to support those who do the deep work, especially trauma and grief therapists [00:01:00] and EMDR clinicians needing a soft place to land, who want real conversations, meaningful support in a community where the hard questions are finally welcome. We also are thrilled to share and announce our Kathy on the Couch Membership Community, which is your home for grief and trauma consultation, professional growth.
It's by therapist, four therapists. Where you find a monthly consultation group, you'll find a monthly NBCCCE training. You'll get access to a course module and resource kits. We're so happy to have you in one place, and you don't have to go looking for all those items in all the places. You can just come here.
So we hold space for those who hold it all. That's our mission, where we talk honestly about all clinical challenges in the business of being a healer through curriculum development. And training and breaking the silence to lead and thrive in the field without losing ourselves in the process. So if you're looking to join for deeper connection, I invite you to join our membership community to help you [00:02:00] learn and grow.
Or if you're an EMDR therapist looking to be certified or a consultant, we have our program EMDR University. Remember to give us a five star rating wherever you get your podcast. Now let's get comfortable and let's head on over to the couch.
Vygotsky's concept of the zone of proximal development gave rise to a educational theorist, came to call scaffolding the practice of providing temporary calibrated support that enabled the learner to accomplish something at the edge of their current capacity. With explicit intention of gradually
[00:03:00] [00:04:00] withdrawing that support as learners independently independent capacity develops.
I brought something in that was genuinely about safety and something that had been going on. [00:05:00] And I observed something in my work with this client that raised a real concern and that kind every ethical code we work under would tell you to bring forward.
And I had been sharing it for weeks in regards to the plan and the concern and.
What happened was that the client didn't respond very well and complained, and
rather than engage with the clinical and ethical substance of what I was describing in the dilemma, the supervisor shared that they didn't know who to believe me or the client, who had by that point already come. To him with his own account of things, and this was so troubling. I had this felt sense that something may happen, but I wasn't sure.
something happened in my body in that moment. I can still locate it. It was a kind of collapse, but it wasn't dramatic or tearful. It was just a quiet cellular contraction. The [00:06:00] thing that before became something I needed to protect myself from, and I couldn't quite put my finger on it.
But the learning and their relational sh shift stopped. Not because I became less capable, but because the relational conditions that made my learning and comfort neuro neurobiologically possible had just been eliminated, squashed. So when I brought what happened to others factually, I was told I was overreacting.
And now there were two of them, two people in positions of authority whose job it was to scaffold my development. confirmed that the frontier was not safe to stand at. That bringing uncertainty forward was a liability. And that the appropriate response to my clinical instincts was not curious.
Engagement. It was skepticism, it was institutional, hidden, agendas And I didn't stop growing as a clinician, but I stopped growing there. And I wanna name that distinction carefully [00:07:00] because I think it matters for everyone in the room who teaches supervisors or consults that the learner almost always finds another way forward.
They go elsewhere. They find a peer, a book, another supervisor, a consultation group where someone stays regulated. When they bring the hard thing, what they lose is a developmental potential. That was specific to that relationship, the growth that could have happened inside a scaffolded space, that instead became the space where we had to survive.
And that was my zone of proximal development collapsing in real time. It's what it felt like in my body. When the regulated other became a source of threat rather than support. And that's why I say with full conviction and not as theory that the co-regulatory climate of a training or supervisory relationship is not a soft concern.
It's the clinical and ethical infrastructure of our whole enterprise. Without it, we don't have a zone of proximal development. We don't have a zone of self-protection. We can't cept, [00:08:00] and those aren't the same place. Okay.
Different supervisor, different moment. I brought something to clinical attention that generally troubled me and something I noticed in the room with a client in regards to manipulation, and.
And I was trying to manage a lot of very difficult cases. I had several child deaths. Lots of really hard things had happened and my supervisor, I asked him a question, he just sat there and thought about what I was saying so critically and with such honor her that it was just regulating and.
What changed when his nervous system meant mine? I didn't have language for it then. I didn't know what to call it, but it was coagulation. I didn't know about polyvagal theory or the social engagement system yet, or the way the nervous system can literally lend itself to each other. [00:09:00] But I just knew in my bones that something was being shifted and that material I had been bracing against became not easy, but it was navigated.
It was easily navigated. And the room felt different because of who was in it with me along on the journey in a shared experience. He wasn't above me, below me, he was right there with me. And not just that case, but so many cases. And that's what Vygotsky was describing, and that's what neuroscience has since confirmed.
This doctoral dissertation was an analysis of Shakespeare's Hamlet, a careful study of how meaning was constructed through the tension between what a character says and what the text withholds. Isn't that interesting? Before he turned his attention to the developmental psychology, he was deeply formed by questions of narrative interpretation in the way language both reveals and conceals inner experience.
That literary [00:10:00] sensibility never left his psychological writing. It is part of why his work really reads differently from most academic theory of his era, and also there is an attentiveness to complexity and ambiguity in Vygotsky that most of his counterparts lacked. Also, his work was suppressed by Stalinist authorities.
Shortly after his death, the Soviet regime found his emphasis on social construction of mind, ideologically convenient, and it foregrounded individual development within relationship in ways that didn't map neatly onto collect. Doctrine. It means his writings were banned for two decades, and by the time translations began reaching Western researchers in the 1960s and 1970s, he'd already been dead for 40 years.
So I wanna sit with that for a moment. The developmental psychologist whose ideas would eventually reshape educational theory, clinical supervision, and relational neuroscience, but most of the intervening period in [00:11:00] obscurity. Erased by a regime that found the idea of the individual developing within relationship to threatening to permit.
Now there's something darkly fitting about that, given that a central insight was about how power and relationship shape what becomes possible for a developing mind. If you've been following my work on Paulo Frere, that's exactly what he did, and Vygotsky understood decades before the neuroscience.
S existed to prove it, that learning is a relational process and that we can become shaped by who accompanies us. And that's what we're putting together in, this developmental consultation framework. So what is the zone proximal development? Vygotsky defined it as a distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving at the level of potential development is determined through.
Problem solving with adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers. So, in plain language, it's the gap between what a [00:12:00] learner can do alone and what becomes possible when they're supported by a more skilled or experienced, other supported, not overseeing. Not powered over cod coex experiencing.
It's a relational space which growth happens, and it's not the place where the learner already is, so they're just up the head of the road a little bit. It's not a place so far beyond them that they can't see what's ahead and that there are arrivals. it's also the development of frontier.
That becomes accessible in this supported relationship. So I want you to hear how radical that formulation is by God see, is not describing a fixed capacity that a learner possesses and that a good teacher helps him discover. He's describing a capacity that doesn't exist in isolation. That only comes into being in relationship.
So that's the learner's potential. Development is not a static quantity waiting to be measured. It's just a [00:13:00] dynamic, a relational force, a relational potential, a didactic space that expands or contracts, depending on the quality of the scaffolding and structure around it. Now he arrived at this insight without the polyvagal theory, without relational neuroscience, without any of the biological frameworks that would later confirm what he's describing.
He got there through observation, clinical attention, theoretical reasoning under political conditions that would eventually try to erase him, and that the neuroscience has since caught up with him, is a testament to the precision of his thinking.
So here's where it becomes especially interesting for those of us trained in trauma and nervous system work. Because when I read Vygotsky through a polyvagal lens, what I hear is precise description of co-regulation and the neurobiological conditions under which learning becomes possible. And I reflected on that within my own life.
And I resonated with a few experiences where I Learned because of the [00:14:00] person and the relationship I had in front of me. And that neuroscience of co-regulation begins with a deceptively simple observation. The human nervous system doesn't regulate in isolation. That's from Porges work and from the earliest months of life.
our regulatory state of ourselves as infants is organized through the proximity and attunement with our caregivers, with their nervous system. And they don't merely comfort their infant. We literally lend our own regulated nervous system to the infant's dysregulated one, creating the external scaffolding,
Their regulatory capacity gradually develops and can regulate. So it's not a feature of infancy that disappears in adulthood. It's a feature of human neurobiology that persists across the lifespan. So adults and states of stress, novelty, or challenge, continue to regulate more effectively in the presence of attuned.
Regulated others, And you already know this from clinical work, that the therapeutic relationship [00:15:00] is not the container where healing occurs. It's neurobiologically significant mechanism to the healing itself.
If there's something I want you to think about before we get into today's content, think about a moment in your clinical training or your personal life for that matter, when you were trying to learn something genuinely difficult, something at the edge of your current capacity. Not review, not consolidation, something new, a new concept.
Now think about who was with you in that moment. Not just whether there was someone there, but whether that someone was regulated, whether they were calm in the face of your uncertainty, whether their presence made the difficulty feel, navigated rather than overwhelming.
If you've had that experience, a supervisor who stayed steady while you fumbled through a hard case, a consultant who held space without feeling it with their own expertise, a peer who sat beside you and then not knowing with that rushing you towards resolution, then you [00:16:00] already understand. In your body.
That's what today's episode is about. You already know what Lev Vygotsky was describing when he formulated one of the most enduring concepts in developmental psychology, the zone of proximal development.
Welcome to the Rewire 360 podcast. I'm Kathy Couch, LCSW, fellow in Thanatology. Your EMDR consultant and the founder of Rewired 360 and Willow Creek Counseling. This episode is three of our six part series. Roots of the Revolution. why Pedagogical Theory Belongs In Clinical Training Spaces.
In Episodes One and Two, we looked at Paulo Re's Banking Model of Education and John Dewey's framework of experiential learning. Today we go deeper in the relational architecture of learning itself through the sense of a Soviet psychologist who died at 37, whose work was suppressed for two decades, who nevertheless produced a concept that the relational neuroscience of the 21st century is still catching up to.
If you're [00:17:00] coming to this episode fresh, here's the orienting premise of the whole series. The way we teach is inseparable from what we teach. Process is content, and if you are a trauma-informed clinician who also trains supervises teachers or consults in any capacity, then the design of your educational and consultive spaces is a clinical and ethical question, not just a logistical one.
Each episode in this series focuses on a foundational pedagogical thinker whose central insight has been confirmed by neuroscience, trauma research, or both. Today's thinker identified the relational conditions under which development becomes possible.
He gave us a framework for understanding not just what people learn, but how the presence of a regulated, attuned other makes learning neurobiologically available in the first place. That framework has profound implications for training, design, clinical supervision, and consultation practice, and that's what we're unpacking today.
So love Vygotsky was born in Russia in 1896 and he [00:18:00] died of tuberculosis in 1934. He was only 37 years old. He'd been actively publishing for less than a decade, and in that compressed window, he produced more than 180 works books, articles, lectures, manuscripts. Many of them compile post humanist, compiled from the, from his notes, and never intended in the form in which we now read them.
What is less commonly known is that Vygotsky did not begin as a psychologist. He began as a literary critic.
By God see's concept of the zone of proximal development gave rise to what educational theorists came to call scaffolding. And what is it? We just need to provide calibrated support that enables them to. Be present.
So here's something I wanna name because I find it both fascinating. Also a little maddening that I've reviewed a lot of [00:19:00] curriculum and I've been brought into a consultation on course design for training programs, continuing education platforms, graduate level clinical curriculum, and I can't tell you how many times they've opened a curriculum framework.
From a university, a professional association, a training institute, and seeing the word scaffolding sitting right there in the learning design. Standards include scaffolding, ensure content is scaffolded, scaffolding should be evident throughout. There's no mention of zone of proximal development or this dynamic.
And this is a part that still sits with me. The person reviewing your curriculum for compliance with Standard is not a clinician. They're a gatekeeper. They don't have clinical training. They've never sat with a grieving client or held the edge of trauma. Disclosure never navigated the developmental complexity of a supervisory or consultee relationship.
But they hold the institutional power. They endorse [00:20:00] curricula. They determine what gets through, what gets sent back, and they're looking not for the clinical sophistication, not for the developmental precision or for the evidence that you've actually located. That learner zone, they're looking for the gaps.
Reasons to reject language that doesn't match the template. A box that wasn't checked in the way the institution expected it to be checked, the video that wasn't recorded with the exact script that they. Ask for while also asking you to be original. I've been in that process. I've had curriculum I've built from genuine clinical knowledge and pedagogical care reviewed by someone whose expertise was institutional compliance and been told it was insufficient, not because clinical reasoning was wrong, because it didn't conform to some sort of structural expectation that had been written by people equally distant from the clinical room.
And I've watched that same process wave through curricula. That were clinically hollowed, but administratively tidy, boring. That's not a quality [00:21:00] assurance system. That's a power structure where in the language of standards. So what Paula re called that was a hidden curriculum. The unspoken lessons that institutional structures teach about who holds authority, whose knowledge counts, and what the real actual rules of the game are.
The nod, the wink and. Really, the hidden curriculum says, make it legible to the people who control access. Regardless of whether those people have any basis for evaluating what you've built. The hidden curriculum, of institutional gatekeeping doesn't just filter content. It quietly determines who gets endorsed and who's kept out.
So not on the basis of clinical competence or pedagogical integrity, but on the basis of proximity to that institutional power, do they know you? And fluency in institutional language? Some people move through those gates effortlessly. Others find the gate perpetually slightly closed, and with someone on the other side scanning the document for the gap that justifies.
[00:22:00] Not opening it. And I think about what Vygotsky would make of that, a concept he developed through careful observation of how development actually happens in relationships. It's all reduced to a checklist item administered by someone with no framework for evaluating whether the development is actually occurring.
Scaffolding is a decoration, scaffolding is compliant. Language scaffolding with no zone inside it. And the irony, is that the assessment process itself. acts exactly what it fails to require of others. It offers no scaffolding to the curriculum developer. It locates no developmental frontier.
It provides no calibrated supports. Just judging from a precision of institutional authority, whether the document in front of it contains the right words in the right places. And because scaffolding is not a feature you add to a course after you've designed it, it's a calibration problem that has to be solved before you design anything too far below the learner's developmental frontier.
And the [00:23:00] support is unnecessary and potentially patronizing, but too far above the gap can't be bridged, and the learner is left with a sense of. Failure rather than growth. So the scaffold has to find the zone, the place where you challenge and support and they're in productive tension and you can't find that zone if you've never asked where the learner actually is.
You can't evaluate whether someone else found it, if you've never been in that clinical room yourself. And. I remember sitting with a curriculum review, a continuing education program for licensed clinicians where every module had been designed around what the content expert knew and wanted to teach.
It was really impressive material, really sophisticated, and it had been built with no information whatsoever about who the participants were, what they were really carrying into the room, what their actual developmental edges were. Also, when I raised this response, all I got was well.
We said it was an intermediate level training as if a label on the tin was the same understanding as what's inside the people [00:24:00] sitting in front of you. That's not scaffolding. That's content delivery with the word scaffolding written in. So for professional clinical training, one size fits all. Content delivery isn't merely insufficient.
The pedagogical failure of calibration, an early career clinician working at the edge of basic clinical competence isn't the same as an experienced seasoned. Private practice therapist in the same zone. So the training that assumes otherwise isn't scaffolding anyone. It's presenting relational void. And so that's why pre-training assessment matters not as a bureaucratic formality, but who are we going to be teaching?
What is their level, not as another box, to satisfy a reviewer. He'll never meet the participants, but it's a genuine attempt to locate their actual frontiers. And that's a recommendation here. Now most effective continuing education is it designed around
This feature of Vygotsky's original formulation that gets underemphasized in most educational applications. When he described the zone [00:25:00] proximal development, he named two sources of scaffolding, adult guidance. and more capable peers. This is not a minor detail. It's an argument for the pedagogical power of peer learning.
They do that in China where they have peers in the classroom and the peers actually work with other students to get them up to grade level. They did this in the Harkness model at Dartmouth. Where the peers sit around a table and they're able to have discussion of peer led learning and it points towards something.
Contemporary learning sciences confirmed peer learning when while structured is among the most powerful drivers of professional development. So think about what this means in a room full of experience. Clinicians, a group of practitioners at various levels of specialization. The experience represents an enormous different variety of zones, each of which can serve scaffolding for the others.
So the early career clinicians questioned surface assumptions and the experience practitioners stopped examining those [00:26:00] and because they've applied them. And so the zone of proximal development flows in multiple directions, and that's where the didactic learning process needs to be, that we're both peers.
When someone in EMDR certification becomes a consultant, they move to a peer design. I've had dynamics and consultation where the consultant was the expert and I was the, you know, as rare says. The banking model that in the deposit, and the training designs that build structured peer consultation group case-based learning, we're not supplementing the real learning that happens in the didactic presentation.
We're activating that relational scaffolding without which deep learning is neurobiologically improbable. So most sophisticated resource in clinical training rooms isn't the presenter. It's the accumulated wisdom of the participants and designs that ignore that. You're leaving the most powerful scaffold unused.
So, it's not a minor detail and I wanna sit with it and [00:27:00] frame it for a moment because I think we underestimated in clinical training design constantly. And if I'm honest in ways I've underestimated it myself. But I run consultation groups, I've run them for years Early on, I think I carried an unexamined assumption that my job was to be the most useful person in the room, and that the value participants were taking home was primarily moving through me.
My clinical reasoning framework, my read on cases. Not always, but you know, I think that I felt that pressure and there were moments where that was true, but there were also these other moments where I eventually learned to recognize and then protect where the most important thing happens in the room had nothing to do with me.
I'd also been in those rooms where people presented that to me as well, and it was always in awe. And a newer clinician would ask a question, not a particularly sophisticated one by conventional measures, sometimes almost a basic one. The kind that more experienced practitioners have long since stopped asking out loud, and something would shift.
An [00:28:00] experienced clinician across the room would go quiet because a question is surface and assumption. They'd stopped examining something they had automated so thoroughly they'd forgotten. It was a choice. The newer clinician not yet knowing something that my expertise cannot, it cracked open a space that fluency sealed shut.
So that's a zone moving in multiple directions simultaneously, and it only happens if the design makes it possible. So the group of practitioners at various levels and expertise represents this enormous pool
Clinical training rooms isn't the presenter, it's the accumulated clinical wisdom of the participants. And Vygotsky's framework has particularly residence for two contexts that sit at the heart of how clinical competence actually develops over time. Supervision and consultation, which we've all been a part of.
And I wanna be personal here 'cause I think the theory only lands when it has a body attached to it. So clinical supervision is in Vygotsky in terms the prototypical zone proximal development relationship. A more [00:29:00] experienced other, providing calibrated responsive scaffolding within which is supervises clinical frontier, expands the parallel to the therapeutic relationship isn't coincidental and both relationships.
Involve an attuned, regulated other lending, their nervous system and competence to support the development of someone at the edge of their capacity. Both require attunement to the learner's level and understanding this, the zone of co-regulation advise supervisors to ask, am I scaffolding this, supervise these actual developmental frontier.
Am I providing support calibrated to my own anxiety about their performance or to their developmental need? They're not the same thing, but the difference matters. And I've been on both sides of that dynamic. I know what it feels like when a supervisory relationship is doing a thing it's supposed to do when someone's tracking my actual developmental frontier, calibrating their support where I am rather than they wish I were.
And I know from the story I told earlier what it feels like when that relationship becomes. Something you have to [00:30:00] survive, whether that you can grow inside of. And those aren't abstract distinctions. They live in the body and they shape what becomes possible for the clinician long after supervision ended.
So, that's where the Vy Gaia consultant begins creating conditions for the consultee to lead, articulate the problem in their own terms, to surface what they already know, where they feel uncertain. It's that you've taught them how to assess themselves so they know the question to bring and to demonstrate their current level of competence.
So the consultant listens for content, developmental information. What do they need next? Not what the consultant would need, or a more advanced practitioner, but what that person needs. So in my own consultation practice, it's meant letting the consultee lead the presentation of their material. Listen, don't interrupt.
Don't just come to me with a case form. And say, here it is, resisting the pull to redirect or reframe or feel the silence with expertise. This attention using an uninterrupted account is a [00:31:00] primary data source for this developmental assessment. And where does there reasoning show fluency? Where does it hesitate?
What questions do they ask? What questions do they not ask? The consultee knows where they are and what they're working towards, and the consultation becomes a transfer. And co-constructed map of their own developmental terrain and the map belongs to them. When we're done, this approach honors what Vygotsky understood about the social construct of competence, that the consultees capacity is not fixed.
Quantity to be measured and reported back, but a dynamic. The consultants first jobs not to answer, to locate the frontier. You can't scaffold what you haven't found If you're filling the room with your own expertise before the person in front of you has had a chance to show you.
Where they actually are. So I wanna close with what I always close within this series, A set of design questions. Because the Vygotsky and framework like Frere and Dewey's is ultimately diagnostic. The value isn't just knowing our theories, it's what the theory reveals about our current [00:32:00] practice and what makes it possible.
Five questions I'd invite you to sit with. And at answer them quickly. How do you assess participants' development before designing? What comes next? Are you calibrating or scaffolding? Are you deciding where they actually are or where you assume they are? If you're honest. Where is the institutional compliance template?
Where does that require you to say they are? How does your own training design activate peer scaffolding where participants with different levels brought into a structured relationship, not just in the seated room, but can also have interaction, developmental contact. That's what I do in my EMDR consultation program.
EMDR University. What's the co-regulatory climate of the room? Is it our own regulated presence? Are we presenting from a state that contracts with neurobiology safety? And the question I return to most often before I record or teach before opening a group is what am I bringing to the room? [00:33:00] So I'd invite you to think about what is your consultation practice?
Do you begin your own assessment of their developmental frontier before offering expertise? Lead with answers before the question's been fully formed. If you lead with answers, who's that serving? Where in their training or supervision is scaffolding or the next step? Graduated Challenge. Transparent intention designed to be removed as independent capacity grows.
Now it's a word curriculum document, a case presentation form, a design decision with reasoning. So I know these aren't comfortable questions. I know because I return to them. I'm not always satisfied with my own answers. They require a particular kind of honesty about the gap between our intentions and designs, but they're questions that move practice forward and they're worth returning to every time we step into a supervision or consultant role.
So love Vygotsky was not riding. Clinical training or EMDR consultation or continuing education design. He wasn't [00:34:00] writing about gatekeepers who hold institutional power without clinical knowledge or supervisors who chose not to believe the person they're supposed to be developing, or curriculum reviewer scanning documents for gap that justifies rejection.
He was a developmental psychologist in early Soviet Russia working under political conditions that would eventually suppress everything you produce. He was trying to understand how children develop language and thought and problem solving. He kept arriving at the same answer through relationship, through the presence of an attuned other, through the co-regulation, scaffolding of a more experienced mind lending itself, genuinely lending itself to a less experienced one.
The relational neuroscience of the 21st century is confirm what he described. And clinical training world is still in many ways, designing as if it hasn't heard the news, still using the word scaffolding without the zone. Still placing non-clinician as gatekeepers of clinical curriculum, still building supervision that structures that when pressure comes, asking the supervisee to carry the relational of [00:35:00] failure alone.
I know what it cost me in specific moments of my training, my early career, my navigation of institutional systems. When the person who was supposed to scaffold my development chose to control instead, or skepticism instead or compliance. Over critical integrity, and I know what it gave me. In other moments when someone stayed regulated in the face of my uncertainty and made the difficult thing navigable,
Both of those experiences are in this episode. Both of them are in the way I design now. Vygotsky's invitation is designed is to design for the zone, to locate the actual frontier, not the assumed one, not the institutionally convenient one. To calibrate the support where the learner is to lend our regulated nervous system, attuned attention, not because it's philosophically elegant, because it is how human beings grow.
So coming up in episode four, Maria Montessori and Self-Directed Learning, what it means for a learning environment to be designed for the autonomic safety. And why that [00:36:00] turns out to be a neurobiological. Questions before it's a philosophical one. That's an episode I've been looking forward to for a long time.
if today's episode was helpful and useful, share it with the supervisor, training director colleague who runs consultation groups. The full written post with a PA citations available at the Root of Practice [email protected]. The link is in the show notes. I'm Kathy Couch. This is a Rewire 360 podcast.
Thanks for being here, and we'll see you next time.
Thank you so much for joining us on another episode of Kathy on the Couch, the podcast for everyday clinicians. We hope today's conversation has inspired you, sparked new ideas, and offered you practical tools you can bring into your own practice. Whether you're just starting [00:37:00] out in the mental health field, or you are a seasoned clinician, we're grateful to have you as part of our growing community and Rewire 360 is here.
To companion you along your clinical career path from the moment you begin your professional journey. We offer comprehensive support and resources that guide you at every stage. So our curriculum is designed to fill the gaps often found in the marketplace, providing advanced training, consultation, and mentorship as you progress in your journey.
Visit us at the Kathy on the Couch community, the trauma community for clinicians or the EMDR University community for EMDR clinicians. Be sure to check out our show notes for a full list of resources. And don't forget to visit our swag store at Rewired 360 Shop. And this information shared on this podcast reflects perspectives and experiences of our guest hosts.
Is not intended to substitute for professional consultation, supervision, or individual guidance. If you have questions about how to [00:38:00] apply any of the concepts, we encourage you to consult with your clinical supervisor, consultant, or licensing board. As always, follow those research based protocols and best practices in your work.
We're here to walk along beside you as you deepen your clinical understanding and. Until next time, keep connecting, keep learning, and keep rewiring for success. Take care.
