For us psychologists, it is a privilege to dedicate ourselves to the well-being of human beings in the field of mental health and, in doing so, contribute meaningfully to people’s quality of life.
Remaining open and encountering alternatives that offer different perspectives and solid approaches is also a privilege. Discovering Scanning has been another opportunity for me to broaden my perspective, reposition myself, and recognize that we do not always have the best alternative—no matter how much we may value our approach or excel at our work. Within my field of study, training, and experience, it has been truly gratifying to witness that there is an option capable of delivering results beyond any specific theoretical framework or psychological approach.
Scanning is entirely independent of any particular school of thought. Regardless of perspective or field of study (psychoanalysis, behaviorism, constructivism, humanism, systemic approaches, etc.), it does not require a theoretical foundation. Likewise, it remains independent of the style, form, or individual capacity of any psychology professional, as it is based on mathematical and graphical analysis, leaving little to no room for subjectivity on the part of the psychologist.
I have been able to verify that the results provided by Scanning are free from assumptions and interpretations, offering accurate and conclusive outcomes. To approximate the kind of results Scanning provides, I previously needed to apply several psychometric tests, which also carry an approximate 30% bias.
As psychologists, we also have our own limitations. One is our specialty or theoretical-practical approach, which is only one among many. Another lies in the complexity of our own minds and processes—such as assimilating, interpreting, compensating, determining, defending, or protecting—based on our personal life history and the way we interpret results. This is our challenge as psychologists: to offer conclusions that closely reflect the client’s reality and needs. If we also consider the mental and emotional state of both the therapist and the person being evaluated at the time of the interview, the process becomes even more complex and less precise.
Regarding the client being evaluated, psychologists primarily work with the conscious information the individual has about their own life interpretation and what they are willing to share. Even when seeking well-being, it is common for people to protect themselves from vulnerability when facing another human being, which further reduces the reliability of interviews and assessments.
Scanning relieves this dynamic and protects the individual from feeling vulnerable, as it does not require prior sessions to build empathy and trust—elements typically necessary in therapeutic work.
The questions do not call for personal responses in which the client may feel confronted or judged.
Just as practice and years of experience make us more skilled professionals, Scanning, over many years, has refined its methodology within the field of exact sciences, offering a wide range of possibilities—from basic information to deeper levels of insight tailored to each individual and the intended application of the Scanning process.
I would like to encourage my colleagues to use Scanning as a reliable diagnostic foundation. In this way, we could determine with certainty the type of follow-up that would be most appropriate—much like an MRI, but for the person.
