One might think that math is the last place we can find parallels for the work we do as mental health professionals. After all, math can be a very sterile, cold, and a mechanical beast. But there are various concepts that can apply to the world of human service.
In statistics, degrees of freedom is defined as follows:
In statistics, the number of degrees of freedom is the number of values in the final calculation of a statistic that are free to vary. The number of independent ways by which a dynamic system can move, without violating any constraint imposed on it, is called number of degrees of freedom.
While this definition is quite sterile, the idea is really quite simple. It’s really just talking about how much ‘freedom of movement’ there exists in a system. However, it’s also quite interesting to consider how this idea can be further extended to our clients’ lives. For example, how much freedom of movement does a client have in spite of all the various constraints they are facing in their individual lives? And how do social determinants of behavior further restrict a client’s freedom of movement in their own unique microcosms?
When it comes to barriers that restrict one’s freedom of movement, we must be careful to differentiate between internal barriers and external barriers. Internal barriers tend to be biological, learned, or self-imposed. Examples include: learned helplessness, our beliefs and values, physical impairments, or symptoms of mental illness. External barriers, on the other hand, include challenges posed from the outside environment or external world. This would include “social determinants of behavior” (poverty, limited resources, dysfunctional social systems, chaotic environment, or discrimination).
To use yet another statistics metaphor, we also want to avoid two errors that are very similar to the Type 1 and Type 2 errors we learned about in statistics. More specifically, we as providers want to avoid two fundamental mistakes: the application of poor treatment (Type 1) or the with-holding of proper treatment (Type 2).
When thinking about these philosophical issues, it’s paramount to check your biases at the door. To accomplish this task, it helps to consider the client’s locus of control as well as the provider’s locus of control. Too often, clients and providers disagree on just how much control (i.e. freedom of movement) the client actually has in the face of challenges. Consider the following matrix.
Locus Too Internal
Client: Client may assume too much responsibility and blame him or herself for things that aren’t their fault.
Provider: Provider may minimize the role of social determinants of behavior and assume the client has more control than they really possess.
Locus Too External
Client: Client runs the risk of “learned helplessness” and shirking responsibility by putting too much blame on others or outside forces for the predicaments they are in.
Provider: Provider runs the risk of over-protecting client and minimizing how much power or resources client really has, further reinforcing learned helplessness.
It further helps to ask the following questions:
How much control does the client have over this situation? Is the provider’s locus of control accurate or realistic? Where is the fine line between enabling and accommodating?
What role do the social determinants of behavior play in the client’s life?
How can we address internal barriers as well as external barriers? How can we incorporate advocacy in our work to address external barriers?
If a provider minimizes social determinants of behavior, how can this lead to victim blaming
If a provider puts too much emphasis on a client’s external situation or external variables, how can this lead to learned helplessness and lack of responsibility?
How do issues like nature, nurture, free-will, and determinism apply?
How can we make sure to avoid the two kinds of fundamental mistakes: applying bad treatment or with-holding good treatment?
Takeaway: Math often seems like a cold world filled with numbers and logic. And sometimes we would just as soon forget about all those statistics classes we had to take. And yet, sometimes we can draw parallels from it in the work we do as mental health professionals. In particular, it helps to stop and think about how much freedom of movement a client actually has, given the parameters and constraints they are facing. It’s also important we are aware of not only a client’s locus of control, but the provider’s as well (since clients and providers alike carry biases). It’s also helpful to be mindful of the two fundamental mistakes mental health professionals can make, which include: applying poor treatment or with-holding good treatment.