# Insight vs somatic approaches 2 Dec 2025 I have been trained predominantly to seek Insight—to understand _what_ is happening and _why_. The assumption was always that insight is the first step; only then can we take control and work through the issues. This comes from the medical model: if a person is sick, there must be an etiology, a linear cause and effect or perhaps it’s the “scientific method”, So in practice, we dig deep. We ask clients to analyze their anger or sadness, to uncover schemas and internalized beliefs. But I’ve started to wonder if there is a limit to how much insight can actually do. Sometimes, it feels like a trap. Clients use these newfound reasons as a label to justify their behavior—"I do this because of X"—and it becomes a new identity. And even if they _do_ want to change, insight is only step one. The real work of re-writing the narrative or re-parenting oneself is cognitively heavy. It feels exhausting. I think modern people are already too "brainy"—we are stuck in analysis, using thought to fix thought. This brings me to a radical alternative. What if we don’t need to dig into the past? What if the problem isn't a lack of understanding, but a disconnection from our bodies? There are schools of thought now—Polyvagal Theory, the gut-brain connection—that suggest we are cut off from our feelings. Approaches like the Sedona Method focus entirely on the _here and now_. You just experience the sensation, feel it fully, and then decide to release it. It’s a bit Buddhist, this idea of non-attachment. You don't need to know _why_ the feeling is there; you just give it attention until it stops screaming for it. So which approach is "right"? Maybe there is no such thing. I don't want to fall into a "language game." I’m reminded of how, after the word "self-esteem" was coined, everyone suddenly had self-esteem problems. Sometimes the label _is_ the trap. As my mentor taught me, we should "flirt with theories, don't marry them." Maybe we can combine both? We can start by attending to the sensation like a child needing attention—experiencing it fully without asking why—and letting it go. And then, only _after_ the charge is released, we can exercise our intellectual curiosity to understand the pattern. Experience first, understand later. ### Reading on 25 Jan 2026 - This reminded me of a book i read, sometimes better to just observe the behavior rather then listening to what they say. - Because they may not even know what they don't know. - [[202102222010 Describe, do not explain. Be curious]]. - For example, a man who constantly goes into "bad relationship", why? Maybe he will give reasons. But actually it's because he doesn't know what relationship suppose to be like. - Instead of the "why" (what he say), maybe we focus on the "how" (what he wants), and is the "what" he is doing helping him to get there? - Related to this approach in [[202102042048 Book Notes - Change by Design]] - [[202102082003 By observing people we gain insight into their creative resourcefulness]] -- Observe how people actually behave first then you design solutions. - Users often request features they _think_ they want, but their behavior reveals what they _actually_ need. For example, a user might treat a 'Mood Notification' like a human speedometer: she doesn't use it to log emotions, but to see how many alerts are piling up. The frequency of the alerts becomes a physical signal that her day is moving too fast for her mental health --- Related - [[202009071534 Notes Reading Wittgenstein and Psychotherapy. From Paradox to wonder. John M. Heaton#Explanation]] - [[20220107 My current understanding of treatment rationale and theories#How do patients know what help they need?]] - [[Emotional Wellness - Navigating Triggers for Recovery - backup#Title : Navigating Triggers for Recovery]] - [[Mind-Body Connection]] - [[Mind Body Connection, Gut Brain Axis]] - [[Book - The Body keeps the score]]