Working with incongruence in a Wholebody Focusing Oriented approach to psychotherapy: towards a mutuality of shared presence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of congruence in psychotherapy and counseling refers to the process of achieving an organismic state of harmony between the body, mind and behavior of the client. Much time in the therapy session deals with psycho-behavioral markers of incongruence, or what gets in the way of the client expressing themselves in a genuine and spontaneous way which matches their present moment experiencing. Rogers noted in his later years that a therapist who can be open to full awareness of their present moment experiencing offers a quality of presence which releases a growth capacity in Self and others. Using a Wholebody Focusing Oriented approach to the therapeutic alliance, this article explores further Rogers’ notion of therapeutic presence as a dynamic field phenomenon of wholebody–environment–situation awareness between therapist and client. We will use session anecdotes to illustrate therapist-client interactions of “true congruence” emerging out of moments of incongruence for both. We are suggesting that organismic congruence is a natural outcome of inter-relational presence, as therapist-client open up to each moment of the wholebody–environment interactive space in surprising and forward moving ways.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".