Posts by Carol Lee4

normall said:Well, I’m actually on the same page regarding that. 😬

It isn't just about "social circumstances," either.

There is no such thing as exclusivity.

I mean, we're talking about scientific experiments on humans that are strictly illegal under US law 😬 😬 and since they have never been performed under strictly controlled conditions they essentially exist only as theoretical assumptions.

I still lean toward the idea that some individuals are simply born with an inherent predisposition toward darkness, and when placed in "typical" environments, they become criminal 😛 in most instances, though certainly not always.

👍

- every single person is an individual, and we can never truly generalize when it comes to human beings.

ironhawk36 said:Give me one kid with "bad" hereditary genes and another with "good" ones... if I isolate them from their surroundings and raise them identically, they'll both turn out selfless and unselfish—to whatever degree. It works the other way, too: put them in a toxic environment, and both children will grow up spiteful, selfish, and egotistical.

Like I mentioned before, genetics might set the stage for certain inclinations—think alcoholism or depression—but everything is ultimately triggered by some external factor first. 😉

- There have actually been studies done on twins who were separated and adopted into completely different environments and families...

- Regardless of the genetic makeup, social circumstances tended to win out, and in some cases, their behavioral paths ended up being totally different from one another.

- People are born with a certain temperament that is, for all intents and purposes, set in stone at birth.

- As we grow, everything from our parents to our social circles and our environment shapes who we become, molding both our strengths and our flaws.

- Ultimately, the weight falls on the individual; hitting adulthood isn't just about getting a driver's license or gaining legal rights—it’s about stepping up and taking full ownership of how we conduct ourselves.

- Past frustrations, like stuff from childhood, shouldn't serve as an "excuse" for acting out or being irresponsible once we're grown; we are continuously shaped by life and the society around us.
- At the end of the day, we choose our own path—not everyone who had a rough upbringing turns out poorly, just as not everyone with a perfect childhood grows up to be a saint.

- Every adult, provided they are mentally sound, carries the responsibility for their own actions and choices!!!

Kyle Morris7 said:Carol Lee4, do you think a failing economy carries more weight than the inherent darkness in people? Personally, I feel that evil is baked right into our nature, and things like a recession or any other kind of humiliation are really just the catalysts.

Evil is pretty much woven into the fabric of being human, and since we’re all out here living in such a materialistic society, a bad economy serves as the perfect trigger; it's no wonder they say everything comes with a price.

Kyle Morris7 said:I'm not trying to complicate things. We're looking at mass pathology here, which falls squarely under psychiatry. If it isn't a clinical pathology, then we're just dealing with evil—which, much like any other social behavior, is simply part of human nature.
But let’s circle back to my original point. I was actually hoping someone would bring up selfishness—basically, a total lack of solidarity—as the driver behind why people idolize criminals. A crowd will worship a villain if it serves their own interests, and they couldn't care less about the collateral damage. From what I've seen, that's often the primary reason behind this seemingly irrational hero-worship. In most discussions on this topic, you hear people say, "Hey, as long as I'm doing fine, why should I worry about someone else?" Honestly, I think that mindset is pretty much the norm.
Unfortunately, psychiatry doesn't classify pure egoism as a pathology, though in my opinion, it really should be.

Evil is fundamentally baked into human nature. Unless it manifests as an actual illegal act, it can't be punished, but as an inherent trait—or what some psychologists call the "shadow"—we all carry both good and evil within us, even if most of us go through life trying our hardest to project only the good side.

Kyle Morris7 said:I totally get where you're coming from, and I actually try to frame my posts in that same way. But it makes me wonder: why is the focus always on singling out one or two people—whether it’s in the legal system, politics, or the media—instead of looking at the crowd? It feels like we always hunt for a few specific "personifications of evil" while treating the masses as if they were just innocent bystanders being misled. In reality, holding the collective group accountable would be far more impactful than just punishing a few individuals.

Look at how Germany handled things after the war; there was mandatory denazification where everyone had to sit through Allied documentaries. They didn't put every single person on trial because, let's face it, responsibility isn't distributed equally—it usually starts at the top.

Kyle Morris7 said:Your opening line is actually a contradiction. I’d argue that "loving" and "being manipulated" are mutually exclusive concepts. If there is true love, manipulation can't exist because manipulation is fundamentally a deception. But the public doesn't want to be deceived, nor do I think they are. I’d frame it this way: the masses choose and follow a leader who promises to fulfill their specific desires and needs. So, it really comes down to the second half of your point. There is always good and evil, and in this scenario, the chosen leader is the vessel for that evil. The idea that people are just blindly manipulated—a theory repeated ad nauseam during the American Civil War (and other conflicts where large groups commit atrocities)—is totally wrong. Honestly, it’s dangerous, because it shifts all the blame onto one or two individuals when, in reality, the guilt lies with everyone.
Someone might argue it’s just about current fears, ignorance, or feeling threatened. But that isn't it either. If that were the case, the behavior would vanish once the fear subsided. It doesn't. Even after five, ten, or fifty years, the masses continue to lionize criminals.

Exactly. People enjoy being manipulated, because nobody is going to stand up and say, "Yeah, I love being played." On the flip side, history has shown us plenty of instances of voluntary manipulation, simply because it allows everyone to escape responsibility—either no one is guilty, or everyone is.

You mentioned Germany; I actually have roots there, my parents are German, and after the war, everyone went through denazification. Even so, if you talk to the oldest Germans, it's incredibly hard to get them to admit, "Yes, we were responsible." Very few will acknowledge their role in any wrongdoing—if anything happened at all—beyond saying what they personally could have done, which was usually nothing more than waving a flag like everyone else.
On a formal level, older Germans will admit Hitler was a criminal, but not in the way my family, or yours, or any other nation perceives him.
When you undergo voluntary manipulation, you aren't held accountable, you aren't conscious of it, and you aren't guilty. Those are the pillars of this phenomenon. Essentially, at a certain economic crossroads, a "figure" emerges to speak on behalf of the people. This has nothing to do with lack of resources or education; in fact, the key figures surrounding Hitler were highly educated.
- Before that happens, the stage is set. The environment is primed, tensions are stoked, and the public is sufficiently agitated, just looking for an outlet. In the past, this has always been fueled by a poor economy, and then this "earthly savior" arrives to begin the manipulation.
(Which the masses are practically begging for, since the groundwork is laid, the future looks bleak, and finances are in shambles.
We find ourselves needing a "Savior," a "Patriarch," a "Leader," or a "Father"—whatever label fits the era.
- At its core, it stems from patriarchy; the concept of the land is always tied to the idea of a mother, and so on.

Kyle Morris7 said:Inspired by all the political debates here about whether certain leaders are criminals or not, I wanted to start a thread exploring why people tend to worship and support mass murderers.
In the legal system, there’s a general consensus—well, almost everyone agrees—that a criminal is anyone who kills someone or orders a killing. Yet, when it comes to a statesman (doesn't matter which one) who is undeniably responsible for ordering the deaths of tens or hundreds of thousands, a massive number of people still cheer for them and view them as heroes. So, who are these people who refuse to see them as criminals? Are they psychopaths? Selfish people who can't see past their own noses? Are we talking about primitives, closeted criminals, or just a messy mix of everything? Or am I simply expecting too much from humanity?

It really comes down to the "shadow"—people actually enjoy being manipulated because the "leader" says the very things they would never dare to utter themselves, using those words to fuel various kinds of hatred...

These "leaders" essentially give voice to thoughts an individual wouldn't have the guts to say out loud. We all contain both good and evil within us—in varying proportions, certainly—but we carry both.

The "leader" often acts as a mirror for our own "evil."

Then the crowds gather, the applause starts, the euphoria kicks in, and some people even experience a sense of catharsis!

It begins with the validation of a thought you held privately, or perhaps a dark thought you were afraid to admit you had, and suddenly that darkness becomes public, reflected, and mainstream.

That is precisely how dangerous ideologies with bloody consequences are born.

Kyle Nelson2 said:There’s a massive difference between taking someone's life with your own hands and just clicking buttons in Warcraft to send an army into a slaughter...

Man, seriously, no matter what site I browse, you're always right there dropping these heavy takes..🙂 .!
Cheers 🙂

First off, if she was only ten years old, then she is a victim, period. It doesn't matter who is responsible for what—obviously, those responsible need to be held accountable—but a ten-year-old can only ever be seen as a victim, and likely one facing massive lifelong consequences.
As for the media, I’m not entirely convinced by what they're reporting. I get this nagging feeling that news outlets have just started competing with one another to see who can grab the most attention or break a story first... so I’m really skeptical about the accuracy of these media narratives.

My only regret is missing that televised interview (though, honestly, maybe I was better off skipping it), because you could learn so much from watching it, especially regarding non-verbal communication. It’s actually best when you completely "mute the audio"—you don't listen to the words, you just observe. There is so much to analyze there.
But again, it doesn't matter who answers for what or who is at fault; she was a victim at ten years old, and this whole media circus needs to stop.

Thomas Cruz12 said:"to sentence makes me think of someone building their career through a bedroom affair with some bloated, dim-witted, greasy CEO"

😬 Why is it that bosses in movies are always portrayed as overweight, clueless, and greasy?

p.s. Is "why" supposed to be one word or two? 😍

Well, I assume it's because back in the day—and even now sometimes—business deals were closed over massive steak dinners at places like Ruth's Chris; basically, the more meetings you attended, the more weight you put on. 😍

Oh, and way back when, being well-fed was actually a major status symbol, so maybe that’s where the trope really started... 🙂

It’s all about the wrong approach—starting with parents until age five, then moving to the schools and teachers, and eventually reaching professors.

Then you end up with this flawed perspective toward everyone because they spent years convincing you that you’re essentially useless and won't ever amount to anything, creating this endless cycle. Or, on the flip side, you become too timid to even speak up at a local grocery store, just buying whatever someone else suggests because you don't want to deal with the awkwardness of explaining why you lack a backbone or aren't sure if you actually need the item.🙂

You grow up believing you have no value, and honestly, most of us struggle to even accept a compliment properly.
For instance, when someone tells you they love your dress, instead of just saying, "Thanks, I love it too!" you immediately jump to, "Oh, this? It’s seven years old."👎

Whatever you convince yourself is true becomes your reality.🎉 😱
Please, let's keep the trolls and negativity out of this.🙂

I don't know all the gritty details about this case—just the bits and pieces you see floating around in the news. But I did want to point out that when three kidnappers are holding 100 people captive, it’s easy to see why everyone stays quiet.
There’s actually a psychological phenomenon known as "Stockholm syndrome," where hostages start developing an emotional bond with their captors after spending enough time in captivity. It’s been observed in POW camps before, and the term actually comes from a bank robbery in Stockholm where the hostages were held for a few days.
Beyond that, I don't really feel qualified to weigh in, though I do think there are certain behaviors here that can be explained through that lens.

Olivia Carter25 said:Look, my take is that if someone truly wants to be present in the moment, they first have to resolve everything that’s keeping them stuck. You can't just fix the symptoms; you have to dig into the underlying causes that created them.
That’s why I lean toward psychoanalysis—I find it much more effective than CBT. Though, obviously, a lot of it comes down to the therapist's skill.

No, I’m simply saying it’s pretty pathetic when you start making assumptions about what I’ve read, using this condescending tone, all because you don't know the material and can't find a solid argument to actually debunk mine. I still think it’s quite low 😛
And honestly, it’s frustrating debating with you—I’ve noticed that whenever an argument doesn't fit your narrative, you immediately make it personal. Suddenly, everyone has "resistance to therapy," or we aren't educated enough, or our explanations are "stupid." That isn't really a counter-argument.
I don't care for people who use their profession or their sense of "altruism" as an excuse to look down on others. This is a message board, not your private practice in Manhattan, so there’s no reason to treat any of us like your clients. If I started doing that, I could easily start psychoanalyzing your posts too, and I doubt you'd enjoy that one bit.

Regarding Big Pharma, I'm with you there. As for everything else, I’ll always advocate against taking a narrow view of the human psyche. 😉

Regarding being "present"—we all carry baggage from the past, and everyone should ideally address those root causes (not talking about extreme cases here). It’s usually much easier to go hunting for reasons in the past than it is to actually take responsibility for the "here and now."🙂

Personally, I don't know anyone who is entirely free of issues or childhood frustrations. Some people have the strength to move forward, while others find it easier to walk backward. Moving forward requires shifting your entire mental framework, and ultimately, it feels safer to "escape" into the past and find someone to blame rather than facing yourself.
I'm certainly not judging people who struggle; taking that step forward is incredibly difficult. It takes massive courage and strength to stop standing still, let alone to actually advance. 🙂

I view this forum as a mutual learning experience—I learn from you, and you learn from me, regardless of how you choose to perceive it. 🙂
But, I have to admit, this is my first time encountering so-called "know-it-alls" in America.
Why didn't you just go to grad school to become a therapist instead of showering us with half-baked information? I'm genuinely stunned by how everyone here thinks they're an expert on everything, from the NFL coach to psychotherapy. It’s incredible how smart we Americans are. I just wonder where we've all been hiding all these years?
Unfortunately, the statistics don't lie—over 40 percent of the population in the US struggles with basic literacy. 🙂

I know that people dealing with mental health issues tend to read a lot, especially professional literature, but reading doesn't automatically make you an expert. By pure circumstance, I’ve spent a lot of time studying and researching carcinomas; I devoured every medical text I could get my hands on, but that doesn't mean I'm an oncologist. I might know more about cancer than the average person on the street, but I’m certainly not delusional enough to pretend I'm an expert in oncology.🙄

There is one really vital point I want to make here. I make it a point never to smear anyone or judge them; the idea of labeling someone else’s opinions or lifestyle as stupid, ignorant, or whatever else you might have listed simply doesn't cross my mind. I expect that same level of respect in return when people interact with me.👋

Also, here is a little, handy little psychological exercise for everyone to try—right now, actually;
-What am I doing?
-What am I feeling?
-What am I thinking?
-How am I breathing?

At the end of the day, we are all our own ultimate lawmakers, judges of honor and status, the architects of our own lives, and the ones who hand out both the rewards and the punishments!

Resisting a therapist is actually a completely normal part of the process, even in your favorite style of psychoanalysis.😲

And just one more important thing—if this were my actual private practice, there would be a fee schedule involved, and believe me, it wouldn't exactly be affordable for most people around here!!!

My involvement here serves as a break and a rest sometimes, and hard work at other times, but it is always driven by pure altruism!!!!
I genuinely just love people!!! No matter what you might think about that.😘

Olivia Carter25 said:Look, my take is that if someone actually wants to be present in the moment, they first have to resolve everything that’s keeping them stuck. You can't just patch up the symptoms; you have to dig deep into the root causes that triggered them in the first place.
That's why I lean toward psychoanalysis—I find it much more effective than CBT. Though, obviously, at the end of the day, a lot comes down to the therapist themselves.

No, what I meant was that it's honestly pretty pathetic when someone starts making assumptions about what I've read, using this condescending tone, all because they don't know the material and can't find a solid argument to actually counter mine. It feels cheap to me. 😛
Besides, it's frustrating to argue with you because whenever an argument doesn't fit your narrative, you immediately turn it into a personal attack—suddenly we all have "resistance to the therapist," or we aren't educated enough, or our explanations are "stupid." That isn't really a counter-argument.
I'm not a fan of people who use their profession or their sense of "altruism" as an excuse to look down on others. This is a public forum, not your private office in Manhattan, so there's no reason to treat any of us like your patients. If I started doing that, I could easily start psychoanalyzing your posts too, and I doubt you'd enjoy that one bit.

Regarding the pharmaceutical industry, I'm with you there. As for everything else, I'll always stand against such a narrow view of the human psyche. 😉

It honestly feels like you're predisposed to dislike anything I write before I even type it. But hey, that's really your issue to deal with. Most people reach out to me privately; I handle plenty of inquiries and discussions via PDF files, so you're actually quite a rarity in being someone who takes issue with everything I say or discuss beforehand.
I already wrote most of my response to you on the BPD PDF, and I truly see no point in going back and forth with you over nothing.
Once you decide what you actually want to communicate or debate, then maybe we can have a real conversation. So far, it seems like everything I write is just something for you to push back against for whatever reason. Go ahead and keep contradicting me if it makes you happy. At this rate, you might as well try to argue that the moon is made of green cheese.
If you're a fan of those long, drawn-out sessions, then Dr. Gruden is probably your guy—he loves that approach even more than you do. Maybe you'll find common ground there. Either way, you seem more aligned with psychiatry than psychology, and that's perfectly fine.
Every famous figure in the world has a couch available at least once a week, so if they haven't solved their problems after all these years, I have to wonder: is the issue the choice of therapy, or is it just a status symbol?
I can only offer my own perspective on long-term psychoanalysis: if I'm struggling, I need help right now, not a marathon session debating whether my mother brushed my hair too hard or if she did it on purpose. I'm speaking from the viewpoint of a client who needs immediate relief, rather than someone stuck wondering if they're still living in the past because of something that happened forty years ago, looking for excuses in their parents, grandparents, or even the weather during their first stroller ride.
My personal belief is that we can't change the past, but we can certainly live in the here and now instead of letting our days slip away analyzing things we can't influence or alter.

I never expected us to agree on a single sentence, and frankly, I don't care if we do.
Maybe someone out there will find this a little helpful!
Best regards,😎
Sorry, I keep mixing you up with Lilu. Since your takes are so similar, it’s no wonder I occasionally swap you two in my head.

Olivia Carter25 Olivia Carter25 said:It’s interesting how you seem determined to frame one specific therapeutic method—and its underlying theory—as the only valid way to approach this. I honestly can't get behind that kind of narrow view, so I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree on that one. By the way, that "debate tactic" of yours is pretty recognizable—one of the classic moves where, when the actual arguments run dry, you pivot to personal jabs instead. Unfortunately, it’s also one of those tactics that people generally consider pretty cheap. I don't really feel like getting dragged into that, especially since I could just as easily start questioning the validity of your diploma if I wanted to, but I won't. 😉I’ve put just as much effort into defending my points as you have yours, so there’s really no need for me to start quoting psychoanalytic textbooks here.

Regarding empathy, I think you might have misread my point—give it another look. I was saying that a therapist should empathize with a client's struggles, but certainly NOT identify with them personally. Besides, the specific therapeutic dynamic you described is really just one single way of doing things. It’s definitely not a one-size-fits-all solution, especially since it won't work effectively for every type of psychological disorder.

Honestly, I feel like this whole discussion is going nowhere. Our fundamental views on how the human psyche actually works are just too far apart for us to find common ground, which is pretty clear at this point. So, let’s just leave it there for now; I'll be sure to jump back in whenever I feel like you've missed something important. 😁 😛

I am truly sorry if you interpreted anything I said as being personally provocative. I’ve been away for a little while, so I’m not quite sure which parts you're referring to.
When it comes to therapy, I’ve always been a firm believer in the individual approach. When you really start digging into the nuances of psychology, you eventually find yourself standing at this fascinating crossroads between Gestalt therapy and cognitive approaches. It’s one of those intellectual tug-of-wars that feels almost poetic once you get into the weeds of it. On one hand, you have the Gestalt perspective, which is all about that immediate, holistic "here and now." It’s less about dissecting your past like a biology project and more about how you’re actually experiencing the world in this exact moment. It’s visceral, it’s sensory, and it’s deeply focused on making sense of the whole picture rather than just staring at individual pieces of a puzzle. There's something incredibly grounding about that, isn't there? Then, you pivot over to the cognitive side of things, and the vibe shifts entirely. This is much more about the architecture of the mind—how we process information, how we categorize our experiences, and how our internal logic (or lack thereof) shapes our reality. It’s analytical, structured, and focuses heavily on those mental patterns and thought loops that keep us stuck. If Gestalt is about feeling the wave, cognitive therapy is about studying the mechanics of the tide. I often find myself wondering if they are truly opposing forces or just two different lenses looking at the same human soul. One looks at the flow, and the other looks at the plumbing. Personally, I think we need a bit of both to really understand what makes us tick. Behavioral therapies.I’m just going to jump in here regarding the group discussions. Psychodrama..
Of course, different therapeutic approaches tend to overlap, and they aren't nearly as strictly segregated as I initially laid out in my previous post. In practice, I find myself frequently integrating various methods—for instance... I’ve been diving into autogenic training lately, and honestly, it’s been a game-changer for my stress levels. It’s one of those things where you just sit there, focus on specific physical sensations, and let your body catch up with your mind. It sounds a little woo-woo at first, I know—I was definitely a skeptic myself—but once you get into the rhythm of it, the relaxation is incredibly deep. If you haven't tried it yet, I highly recommend giving it a shot during your downtime. Well, I suppose we're finally getting there. Deep breathing through the diaphragm—it’s one of those things you hear about constantly, but actually getting it right can feel a little awkward at first. I've been trying to incorporate more diaphragmatic breathing into my daily routine lately, mostly because I realized I spend way too much time taking those shallow, chest-only breaths when I'm stressed out. It’s a simple concept, really: instead of just moving your upper chest, you focus on expanding your belly to let your lungs really fill up. It sounds easy enough, but once you actually sit down and try to focus on that deep, steady rhythm, you realize how much tension you were carrying in your shoulders without even knowing it. It's definitely a work in progress for me, but I'm finding that taking a few intentional, deep breaths helps settle my nerves and keeps me a bit more centered throughout the day.I guess you could call them some sort of "exotic methods" that I’m still essentially "borrowing" from elsewhere, though unfortunately, they aren't quite part of our standard playbook yet. Buddhism, yoga, Reiki—it’s all part of that holistic wellness journey we’re all constantly navigating.... and so on.
Every single one of my therapy sessions is unique because I make it a point to collaborate with my clients to find the specific approach that feels most accessible to them—the one where we both feel we’ll see real progress quickly. However, there is one fundamental principle of traditional therapy that I simply won't budge on: the "here and now." I always insist on focusing on the present moment, as I believe it's the only way for a client to truly grasp the core of their struggle and take ownership of certain aspects of their life (though, to be fair, I'm not suggesting they take responsibility for absolutely everything).
It also turns out that the group dynamic plays a major role in this. Psychodrama. It’s incredibly effective because, in my experience, it’s the fastest way to help someone truly see where they fit into the middle of a problem and determine if there's actually a way out.
I truly believe there is always a way out. It just takes an immense amount of love, unwavering support, and a massive dose of courage and inner strength. You can definitely break free from that vicious cycle—it’s possible. A great therapist knows how to dig deep to uncover the specific triggers that finally push someone toward meaningful change.
What really gets under my skin when we talk is the specific terminology you lean on—specifically that whole "debate technique" thing. Poor thing.It seems like one specific therapeutic approach serves as a theoretical framework that—since I actually use it myself, according to what you supposedly believe—is essentially the only method worth considering.
I honestly don't quite follow this terminology being thrown my way—it feels like it's directed at me personally rather than at my work as a therapist. After all, you can't really know which specific therapeutic methods I choose to employ. I’ve been intentionally vague in my responses because, as I mentioned from the get-go, my goal isn't to lecture anyone on specific clinical techniques. My real mission here is much simpler: I just want to encourage people who feel they need support to reach out and find help without any shame, prejudice, or fear of being judged by those around them.
Any kind of professional support can be a game-changer, and once you start looking, you'll eventually find the right therapy or specialist that actually works for you. The most important thing is just to take that first step—to get moving and start reaching out for help. Personally, I don't really care what specific type of treatment it is, as long as it gets the job done!
One thing I will always passionately and clearly argumentirati against—and quite loudly among my colleagues—is the outdated reliance on old-school psychoanalysis, which proved itself ineffective for real-world issues over twenty years ago, and the cozy little marriage between psychiatry and Big Pharma!!!
I know this firsthand, and it isn’t just an issue here in America, though the trend is definitely creeping from the West toward more developing nations.
Every single day—and I mean truly every day—in places like Germany, there are multiple offers flying around, promising massive kickbacks—we're talking huge sums of money—if a doctor prescribes specific medications from certain pharmaceutical giants.
I know this is happening right here in the States too; based on my conversations with peers, ranging from primary care physicians up the ladder, this phenomenon is starting to take on epidemic proportions.
I am going to fight this as long as there is a single ounce of strength left in me, because I find it absolutely unethical and immoral... I'm almost running out of words to describe it, but especially over the last 15 years, this "trend" has been migrating toward lower-income countries. It makes sense, unfortunately, because specialists in those regions aren't paid nearly as much as their Western counterparts.
Best regards🙂

Robert Diaz7 said:It’s nonsense. Most of the time, it's just a sweeping generalization. ☕

Dear Lila,
Generalization is basically what happens when people start throwing around terms like "always," "constantly," or "never."
You don't have to agree with me, and honestly, you certainly don't have to.👍
We’re all here to swap perspectives, hash things out, and hopefully find some common ground somewhere in the middle.
I went ahead and introduced myself as a therapist, fully aware that I’m essentially inviting a storm of resistance, endless questioning, and a whole lot of overly personal inquiries my way.😠 👋
At the end of the day, we’re all just learning from one another, and honestly, I think that mutual exchange is the most important part of this whole thing.
Let’s be real: therapists aren't walking encyclopedias of human psychology, they can't fix everyone, and honestly, their personalities might not click with every single person walking through the door.
My only real motivation here is to share some of my own experiences with you all and to learn from yours.
I completely understand that some clients are going to push back against their therapists, and honestly, that’s just part of the job. We aren't all going to be everyone's cup of tea, whether we're looking at it from a personal standpoint or purely through our professional roles.
I really feel a strong desire to share some of my life experiences with all of you, especially those I've gathered through my years working as a therapist.
Of course, I’m genuinely happy if I was able to nudge someone toward seeking help.
Like I mentioned right at the very start, I truly care about people moving past those old prejudices against anyone living with certain disabilities. I really want to see a world where anyone who feels like they need a hand reaches out and asks for it—completely unapologetically and without an ounce of shame.🙂

Robert Diaz7 said:you're generalizing so much 🙄 you've clearly lost your grip on reality 👎 based on everything you post here!

I mean, there is definitely a specific profile of doctors who struggle with mental health issues themselves... ☕ you can imagine... it isn't something you just sense out of thin air.

When you make a generalization, you don't use terms like most of the time or usually; instead, you tend to use words like always, constantly, or something similar.

Olivia Carter25 said:So, if all you need to actually help people consists of

1. a college degree
2. supervision and clinical hours
3. staying up to date with literature and
4. conferences and stuff like that

then I’m genuinely curious why so many people in America can’t find a decent psychologist or psychiatrist (even though everyone in the field is doing exactly what you listed). Honestly, why is it so hard for them to find anyone who can effectively tackle their issues through anything other than just handing out a prescription.

In my view, that list is a far cry from what actually makes someone a psychotherapist. I don't think patients care about the diplomas hanging on the wall; they just want to know someone can actually help them. And that ability comes from extra qualities alongside those credentials, such as
1. a genuine desire to help (for people who have been through hell, that motivation is usually much stronger than for those who haven't)
2. empathy (not in the sense of identifying with the patient, but truly feeling for them) and
3. that "instinct," as dear Lila puts it—which is absolutely vital to the whole process

When you weigh all that against the reality of the mental health landscape in America, I can tell you that the chance of finding someone who can truly help a patient is honestly quite slim. I don't know what it looks like from inside your office, but let me tell you what I see from "the other side"—I see
a massive crowd of people who, despite trying everything to find help, bounce from one psychiatrist to the next, from one psychologist to whoever else, only to end up with wrong diagnoses, collecting labels, or getting an accurate diagnosis but zero actual relief. They end up meeting more therapists who probably need treatment themselves than sane people, and over the years, what happens?
- either they become totally cynical about the entire system and write off psychiatry and psychology altogether, turning instead to esoteric sects that might actually provide more comfort than doctors ever did
- or they spend years and years cycling through medications without their problems ever actually resolving
- or they simply hit a breaking point and decide to take matters into their own hands by educating themselves to try and fix things on their own

Now, I don't know where the disconnect lies. It’s certainly possible that because of the general state of the country, modern training or a younger generation of therapists remains an abstract concept. Maybe people just can't afford a good private therapist, maybe there are so few qualified ones in America that you could count them on one hand, or maybe the entire healthcare system is in such bad shape that it can't even provide adequate staff, let alone give them enough time per patient.

I’m sure all those factors play a role, but the core issue remains. And to me, it's a huge issue that reaches far beyond your specific profession. I understand that you all will fight tooth and nail to keep outsiders from interfering with your work, but if the profession itself isn't helping people solve their problems, it seems a little ridiculous when those same people start poking their noses into your business.

It's interesting that out of this entire post, you only highlighted four factors😕 which are merely the requirements to technically work as a therapist—you can't legally practiceas a therapist
The last part of my post , either wasn't read, or you just didn't want to mention it, but I think it's the most important part of the whole thing.

I have absolutely nothing against people "interfering" in the field, but if they are going to do it, it needs to be competent and argumentirati based, rather than being backed solely by personal experience (since every single person's lived experience is unique and not identical), media snippets, and a few books—especially that "pop psychology" nonsense that Americans launched just to make a quick buck.
I have to admit, most literature in that specific niche makes my skin crawl—with a few exceptions, of course. No offense to anyone who enjoys reading them, but I’d categorize most of it as nothing more than "romance novels" rather than serious work.
That said, I always welcome any well-reasoned suggestions, not just within a specialized field, but in general.
One of the absolute essentials for effective therapy is maintaining objectivity. You shouldn't get swept up in the emotions; instead, you need to keep as much professional distance as possible. The more objective a therapist can remain, the more successful the treatment will be. It’s essentially a fundamental rule of therapeutics.
Of course, this doesn't mean a therapist shouldn't show empathy toward a client. However, a therapist should never—under any circumstances—act as a "shoulder to cry on." That is precisely where objectivity ends and subjectivity begins. There shouldn't be a friendship between the client and the therapist; at a certain stage, a type of "connection" does emerge, but a skilled therapist knows how to manage that and keep it in its proper place.
Sometimes clients might feel frustrated by this approach, but it is strictly for their own benefit. If a patient is saying, "Everything is so hard right now," and the therapist responds with, "I know, times are tough," that isn't therapy—that's just grabbing coffee and chatting with a friend. Again, I want to emphasize: a therapist cannot escape feeling empathy, but they absolutely cannot serve as a "shoulder to cry on." It is incredibly detrimental to the patient. I realize that sounds a bit harsh when written out like this, but explaining the nuance would honestly take me several pages.
Best regards,🙂

Robert Diaz7 said:I think I misspoke earlier. It’s not that they’re actually "too healthy," it’s more that they’ve just never had to truly confront their issues. Their problems haven't reached that breaking point where they feel the need to sit down with a therapist to work through deep-seated conflicts. Because they've never hit that wall, they haven't even realized there's an underlying issue to begin with. So, from that specific perspective, they seem "perfectly fine" simply because they haven't done the inner work to become aware of what's actually going on beneath the surface.

I’m honestly convinced that if you've dealt with your own mental health struggles in the past and actually worked through them, it ends up being a massive advantage when you eventually become a great psychotherapist. It gives you a level of empathy you just can't teach. To me, choosing to enter this field isn't a negative at all; what's actually much more dangerous is that "never diagnosed" syndrome—where people walk around completely disconnected from their own pathologies and never bother to face them.

If you’ve never personally experienced pathology, how can you truly grasp what it looks like?
There’s a little bit of pathology in everyone, really. I truly believe that every psychiatrist should have to go through their own phase of confronting the "illness" within themselves.

It seems like we're really diving into the issue of how much people just don't know.
Psychiatrists, psychologists, and therapists all have mandatory requirements to follow. Supervision. so-called. Guided psychotherapy and ongoing support. Depending on where they’re based, support sessions would happen at least once a month—though more often, it’d likely be once a week or every couple of weeks. These wouldn't be conducted by anyone within the organization itself; instead, an independent therapist from outside the institution would come directly to them. It would be a mandatory part of the job requirements, so there wouldn't be any skipping out on those sessions.
I’ve already shared quite a bit about why I chose my major for personal reasons, so we're actually on the exact same page here. We might be using different words to say it, but our core perspectives are identical.
I’ve also written quite a bit regarding the distinction between what we consider "normal" versus "abnormal." Of course, you have to realize that pathology exists within the therapy profession itself as well; after all, therapists are only human. We all carry a little bit of pathology within us. Honestly, I don't think that's the issue at all; the real challenge lies in how we manage and become aware of those darker impulses—which is exactly why things like clinical supervision are so vital.
This theory...If you’ve never personally experienced pathology, how can you truly claim to understand it? That’s how it looks.It doesn't really hold water—to put it another way, for example...
Is it true that the most exceptional pediatricians, teachers, and educators are women who have raised plenty of their own children, while those without any experience of motherhood struggle to connect? Or am I just overthinking things?
I’ve always felt that the absolute best family doctors are the ones who have actually dealt with a whole laundry list of health issues themselves. I mean, how can you truly understand how to treat someone if you haven't lived through the struggle firsthand? It just makes sense to me—there's a certain level of empathy and practical insight you only get when you've been in the patient's shoes. Or maybe I'm just being overly optimistic about the whole thing.
Is it better to have a mom with a massive brood, or...
If you’ve never actually experienced a migraine attack, how on earth are you supposed to know how to manage one? It’s a bit of a Catch-22, really. And don't even get me started on oncology... it works the exact same way.😲
It’s all about...
I’m just checking in to see what everyone thinks about this.College life.
2.It’s all about putting theory into practice.
3. I’m a big believer in lifelong learning—constantly keeping up with the latest scientific breakthroughs and global advancements. Literature is really all about that constant, relentless cycle of learning and staying engaged. It’s not just about reading a book once; it’s about that continuous, steady commitment to growth and deep work.
Attending key seminars, specialized courses, major conferences, and professional workshops...
Let’s open up the floor for a little knowledge sharing. I'm thinking we could use this space to swap stories from our daily practice, dive into those pesky professional hurdles we all run into, or chat about any fresh perspectives and insights that have come our way lately. It’s really just an open invitation to exchange ideas, brainstorm new approaches, and see where our collective heads are at. Feel free to jump in!

I truly believe that anyone can be helped; it really just comes down to knowing how to actively listen. You have to approach things with a positive mindset, communicate on equal footing, and keep things civilized. It’s all about showing genuine respect for the individual—because, at the end of the day, every living being deserves that. Instead of judging, we should focus on offering support. For me, there is nothing more rewarding than helping someone find their way back to themselves.
Sometimes things move fast, sometimes they crawl, and there are days when everything feels like an uphill battle—but the important thing is that we keep moving forward. Progress is happening, and honestly, that's all that matters.
I’ve always felt that "letting someone go" is a lot like watching birds—something I absolutely adore. You gently lift them up, give them just enough strength to find their wings, and then you let them soar. They head off in their own direction, chasing whatever path they truly believe is best for them.👋
We all know our own path exists out there somewhere; it's just that sometimes, we get a little spooked wondering if we're actually on the right one! 😕
Don't just hand someone a fish; teach them how to cast their own line and reel it in!🤔
Best regards,🙂