Not rarely, along with the question of how to choose a specialist (Choosing a specialist), the question arises of what format of work to choose? Which one is effective, what are the pros and cons; Sometimes the question is straightforward: “Which format suits me/my case”? The answers, of course, often remain in the questioner himself; I can only tell you a little about the formats themselves - the choice is made by the person himself. But nevertheless, since such a question is hovering in people’s minds, let’s try to get a little closer to the three available formats and explore the hypothetical advantages and limitations that may exist in each of them. The first format is correspondence/text formats. This method clearly has advantages: any available messengers; time and deadlines (considering that this is an online format - you can be flexible in time and place); relative financial affordability (can start from just 500 rubles); for some clients this is the safest format of interaction (especially with a specialist/psychologist/therapist); no travel time; complete confidentiality (due to the format itself, and not just due to the code of ethics and personal principles of the specialist); here, on our expensive resource, there is even a demo version of this format (although it is available for public viewing). In general, there are many positive aspects. However, in this format, some advantages also turn into difficulties from the point of view of the therapeutic or counseling process. The format itself - the specialist does not see the client - the client does not see the specialist; This cannot be called a full-fledged meeting; no contact - no data; the specialist does not see reactions, feelings, movements; does not hear intonation (there is a risk of projections and second thoughts on the part of the client); plus - a lot of clarifying questions from the specialist (he doesn’t see what is happening and how); the time of such a session seems to be shorter (precisely because of the constant clarifications); plus it takes time to read, comprehend, formulate in your head, type - and the same on the other hand (speaking and hearing is faster); “excessive censorship” is when each of the participants has a lot of time (which again affects the dynamics of the process) to think about the answer; on the one hand, we can say that this helps to express thoughts more clearly - but this, alas, removes naturalness and spontaneity; which leads to a distortion of perception - the reaction of the client and the psychologist (if he also does this) will not be primary, but rather secondary, deliberate and perhaps “convenient and beautiful”, and not necessarily real; interruption of communication due to technical failures can also introduce significant inconvenience into the process; it is impossible to carry out most exercises and experiments in the here and now and receive a response from the client - everything will remain " behind the screen"; And the most important thing (in my opinion) is that the client continues to become strongly attached to his comfort zone, depriving himself of the novelty of the meeting. Doesn't allow himself to be seen and doesn't see the psychotherapist. Of course, comfort and coziness are important, and you don’t always need to leave your comfort zone and the usual headlong - however, you shouldn’t get stuck in it. This format, in my opinion, is perfect for an initial acquaintance with some of the processes of therapy or counseling, for clarifying questions and forming a request . Further, it can serve as an excellent start for self-development, working with a specialist. Sincerely yours, proactive Gestalt psychologist, Ermolov Alexey To sign up for a consultation session, write to WA 8(926)357-11-21