In response to a powerful and seriously useful paper (do read it first!) from my German colleague and former President of EMDR Germany Michael Hase, I asked Chat GPT (OK, my wise figure at this point, it would seem) for a reflection on how the ideas set out there resonate with my own ai-EMDR approach and case for reform in the world of EMDR.

As increasingly the case the system gets to “know” me, it’s done a brilliant job. Read on and, as EMDR therapist, prepare to be reassured and perhaps inspired.

over to Chat GPT:

————————————–

This article — essentially a synthesis and clarification of EMDR Therapy’s evolving structure — aligns closely with your own critique of over-rigid adherence to the standard protocol, and indeed provides strong conceptual backing for your attachment-informed (ai-EMDR) emphasis on flexibility, relational attunement, and contextual responsiveness.

Here are the key points and how they relate to your position:

  1. Beyond procedural orthodoxy: fidelity and flexibility
  1. The author explicitly argues that best practice requires both fidelity to Shapiro’s model and the capacity to adapt EMDR to diverse clinical contexts.
  2. Over-attachment to the standard eight-phase procedural sequence risks reducing EMDR to a mechanistic technique rather than a living psychotherapy.
  3. Defining core elements — rather than enforcing rote procedural compliance — offers a foundation for legitimate clinical innovation.

🟢 Your resonance: this directly supports your challenge to dogmatic standard-protocol teaching within EMDR Europe and your defence of a relationally attuned, principle-driven practice that honours the AIP model’s spirit rather than its literal steps.

  1. The Adaptive Information Processing (AIP) model as the true “standard”
  1. The AIP model is reaffirmed as EMDR’s primary theoretical spine, not the procedural manual itself.
  2. The therapist’s task is to understand the client’s whole life system — both unprocessed trauma and adaptive resources — and to assess readiness accordingly.
  3. Shapiro’s own writings emphasised that positive networks, attachment capacities, and the therapeutic relationship are integral to reprocessing.

🟢 Your resonance: this supports your teaching that EMDR’s core is the processing of implicit memory within attachment and safety, and that procedural flexibility is legitimate when guided by a clear AIP conceptualisation.

  1. A six-level hierarchy clarifies what constitutes “real” EMDR

The paper proposes six nested “levels” (plus the therapeutic relationship as an overarching element):

  1. AIP model – the conceptual foundation for case formulation and change.
  2. Eight phases – the treatment arc, unevenly distributed, guiding the process rather than prescribing order.
  3. Protocols – strategic sequencing (e.g. standard, inverted, or specialised).
  4. Procedures – specific methods (resource installation, CIPOS, Flash, etc.).
  5. Bilateral stimulation – with attention to speed, rhythm, and “neurophysiological empathy.”
  6. Clinical interventions – e.g. cognitive interweaves when processing stalls.
  1. Therapeutic relationship – the indispensable, regulating container.

🟢 Your resonance: this hierarchy mirrors your ai-EMDR Core Framework structure — from AIP through relational field to interweaves — and legitimises your position that the “standard protocol” sits only at level 3 within a broader, more complex ecosystem.

  1. Therapeutic relationship as a core element, not a backdrop
  1. Shapiro repeatedly mentioned but never elaborated the therapeutic relationship; this paper names it explicitly as a core element equal in weight to the procedural hierarchy.
  2. The author draws on Dworkin, Siegel, and attachment theory to show that EMDR necessarily activates the attachment system.
  3. Real-time attunement, co-regulation, and embodied empathy are prerequisites for safe processing.

🟢 Your resonance: this is the very heart of attachment-informed EMDR. You have long argued that relationship is not merely “preparation” but the dynamic field within which reprocessing occurs — precisely what this paper proposes to formalise.

  1. Implications for training and consultation
  1. The author recognises that EMDR is “easy to learn but hard to do.”
  2. Basic training should provide the foundation, but true competence requires advanced, relational, and self-reflective work.
  3. Defining EMDR through its levels and principles would allow for innovation without dilution, guiding both research and practice.

🟢 Your resonance: this echoes your call for EMDR training to evolve beyond mechanical fidelity checks toward depth understanding — integrating personal process, attachment literacy, and therapist embodiment.

  1. Integration of attachment theory and non-pathologising stance
  1. The paper positions AIP as a non-pathologising model of human resilience, inherently compatible with attachment theory.
  2. Trauma is reframed as a blockage in the system’s natural drive to health, aligning EMDR with developmental and relational repair, not symptom eradication.

🟢 Your resonance: this is the philosophical underpinning of ai-EMDR — trauma as interrupted connection, healing as restored integration — and an antidote to rigid symptom-targeting EMDR practice.

  1. Balanced conclusion
  1. EMDR must stay anchored in AIP while continuing to evolve; defining its structure clarifies boundaries without stifling creativity.
  2. Recognising the therapeutic relationship as central legitimises the relational, attachment-based evolution now occurring in the field.

🟢 Your resonance: the article essentially articulates, within mainstream EMDR language, the rationale you’ve been defending: that strict procedural orthodoxy can betray Shapiro’s own integrative intent, whereas structured flexibility grounded in AIP and relational safety is fidelity.