When people interrupt their inner processes (self-interruption), a motive is required for this. Why does someone push back their tears? Why does someone hide a tenderly emerging insecurity? Why does someone pretend they are not angry? These are everyday situations which we are used to. Because of the interruption, the experience remains more diffuse, and the inner process terminates more quickly. Why do people use such self-interruptions? When internal reasons are at play, then, as a rule, it is the expectation that the consequences of the interruptions will be less grave than the consequences of permitting them. Thus, fears are involved which often play in the background and are not questioned. The simple question “Why do you not allow yourself to cry?” will often cause a degree of alienation. However, if something new is really supposed to happen, then it needs an interruption of the self-interruption of the self-perception. From a metatheory viewpoint this is a core function of counselling. Only then can either the need, and the associated fear, become concise, or the ways and means by which the client works himself up into an unfruitful inner dialogue. One of the most favoured ways in which people interrupt their self-perception is through speaking. However, when speaking serves to reduce experiencing (‘talking something away’), then it is important that the counsellor prevents the speaking. Otherwise highly fruitful chances in the present moment are lost and the possible intensity in the counselling sequence is destroyed (<a href=”https://metatheorie-der-veraenderung.info/wpmtags/daniel-stern/”>Daniel Stern</a>).