Posts by darksailor98

hiddendriver34 said:Exactly. Honestly, we have a unique headache because we're expected to squeeze a five-hour weekly lesson plan into just four hours.🙂.

But if you ask me, the big flaw in the current American curriculum is that it's obsessed with memorizing facts. It focuses way too much on rote knowledge and not nearly enough on building actual life skills and competencies. It wouldn't be such a tragedy if that factual stuff didn't vanish from your brain so quickly; otherwise, you walk away from school having learned almost nothing of substance.

I find it pretty fascinating how you guys don't really bring this up with parents. These folks spend years doing their kids' homework, dealing with the sheer insanity of the American education system on a good day, venting when they finally hit a breaking point, and watching in horror as their own children struggle to function. They see their kids spending more time staring at textbooks than they ever did, yet somehow graduate without basic literacy or any real metacognitive tools.

swiftcyclist42 said:I’ve mentioned this a few times already: your communists and our old guard aren't the same thing.
Back in 2000, when the old America crowd regained power, they shook this country to its core. They tried to rattle the very foundations of the American state; they couldn't quite tear it down because Harmon built such a solid, fortified foundation, but the damage was still massive.
Since 2000, there hasn't been a single relevant independent media outlet left in the country. The Democrats control almost everything, maybe with the exception of The New York Times. They even scrapped Independence Day after 2000, and they went as far as renaming the US Congress to strip the "official" feel out of it.
They let Philadelphia fall into neglect.
Over at CBS, they ran an unprecedented purge, replacing or demoting anyone with true patriotic values.
Up until 1999, America was a sovereign, proud, and militarily strong nation. After 2000, we became a laughingstock and a doormat.
And we have the old America crowd and a naive American public to thank for that—people who actually voted this anti-American gang into office.

Regarding Independence Day, I have to admit, it never really made sense to me. It felt like nonsense.

The only real issue in America is this incomprehensible failure to grasp the concept of patriotism, which led to those patriots being degraded and replaced.

Besides, a country isn't truly sovereign, proud, or militarily strong when its ministries are paying off their debts with canned goods—which was the reality back in 1999. And those canned goods are exactly why that coalition won the election.

Nobody loves the person robbing them. So, when someone loots the country, they don't love the country either. And once that person finishes looting and leaves everyone helpless, well, it can't be anything other than a doormat. Good luck with your communists.

swiftcyclist42 said:I was actually thinking about this today.
I did the math, and it turns out I've lived under Communist rule for two years longer than I have under the current American administration.☕
With another four years of the Democratic Party ahead, that ratio is only going to get worse, right? But hey, no big deal—I can manage under the Communists; I'm used to it. We always find a way to get by, don't we?☕

What exactly makes you think we’re looking at four years of Communist rule if we aren't already living under it?

Well, look, I'm not really worried about who the legal successor is. What actually concerns me is whether you’ve been played once or twice already—or if it’s reached that point where you just have to feel a little embarrassed for yourself because you actually believed the people who told you they weren't her successors.

Joseph Peterson6 said:What kind of answer are you looking for? Is this some sort of trivia question? Like, "Identify the mysterious patient A, B, or C"? 😕

He’s probably talking about what life looks like for an American retiree who spent their whole career teaching kids in public school. You see them get sick, and then you compare that to someone who earned way more and pulls in a premium pension—which they’re entitled to, granted, if they paid into the system for at least 16 years.

Rebecca Scott3 said:...okay....maybe that's just how things work over there....maybe in your neck of the woods, patients/clients just have to do whatever a psychologist or doctor wants them to do.....
....but I really hope you aren't actually in the field....or at least don't have anything to do with the profession...
....by your logic, I guess shackling someone up is probably fine too, since then they won't be able to kill themselves.....etc.....it's honestly no wonder the whole country goes to hell when it's run by people who view another human being as nothing more than an object to make money off of.....
......I'm out of words.....it just seems like we're living in two completely different worlds....and clearly, we're never going to see eye to eye on this....

Is that seriously your response to my post??

I sincerely hope that no one ever facing suicide has to rely on your help.

Rebecca Scott3 said:I was asking around the forum to see what everyone thinks about transparency in this field. Specifically, should a psychotherapist be completely open with the public about their personal stances? I mean, things like whether they hold religious views, or if they have any homophobic biases—like, do they actually view homosexuality as some kind of sickness or abnormality? Or even more practically, would they be willing to work with people from different backgrounds, races, or genders? It’s one of those big questions that really gets people talking.

I was thinking about this scenario earlier—this little girl walks into her therapist's office and opens up about wanting to end her life, right? And instead of actually helping her through that darkness, the therapist starts throwing religious guilt in her face. Talking about God, sinning, all that stuff... it just felt so wrong to me. Think about it this way: if she grew up in a deeply religious household and she’s standing there telling a professional she wants to die, she already knows exactly what her faith says about it. She knows the "sin" aspect better than anyone. So, at that moment, she’s either already stepped away from those beliefs, or—and this is the part that hits harder—her pain has become so massive that any kind of spiritual punishment feels completely insignificant compared to the weight of what she's carrying. Using fear as a tool when someone is that vulnerable? It just doesn't sit right with me.
It’s also just fundamentally unethical. Honestly, I think there’s even a criminal element to it—forcing a child who is already suffering to face even more violence. It feels wrong to weaponize fear against them, whether you're threatening them with sin, telling them they'll be cast out from the church, or scaring them with the idea of eternal suffering in the afterlife. It's just not right.

Look, if you just look at the examples we've been discussing... it’s pretty obvious that some therapists simply lack the emotional maturity needed for this kind of work. Because of that, the current setup just isn't enough. We need a different way to actually protect the client. It shouldn't be about expecting every therapist to be some kind of flawless superhero. That's just not realistic. It's more about having actual regulations in place. We need to make sure clients understand from the jump that their therapist isn't a god or a perfect being. They need to know there's a system—that one person might be held accountable for the therapy, while another might not be, depending on how things are structured. It’s about accountability and safety, not perfection.

I'll just stick to this one point; I agree the rest of it is pure madness. Look, the medical profession's mandate is to prevent suicide, and the American healthcare system operates under that exact principle. So, really, you aren't debating the concept of treatment—you're arguing about values. To talk about how doctors handle suicidal patients as if there's some perfect manual is pretty arrogant—unless you have a magic formula for preventing suicide (which I'm sure every psychiatrist in the country would love to have, given how much they struggle with it). You're basically saying you'd follow the standard protocols, then start counting how many people died or how many families sued you afterward. A little constructive criticism goes a long way, but maybe try stepping into their shoes for a second. Consider the culture, the legalities, and how an American hospital actually functions.

redharbor9 said:I'm digging this... This is probably why clients are always itching to know more about their therapist. Some folks feel safer going to someone still grinding through their training because they see that person is just as stressed out as they are. Others dig the idea that they're learning together. I even know a mediocre therapist who clients actually prefer simply because he isn't perfect, just like them. Etc. etc.

A therapist is basically a model whose mere presence and existence impacts the client alongside the actual work... it's that whole circularity thing... the core concept behind Cybernetic Psychotherapy as a field...

I agree. That comment about the therapist with poor vision being liked because they aren't perfect? It just highlights how many therapists send the wrong message by implying that a visible disability is their only imperfection. 🙄

Dennis Bailey2 said:It isn't vague at all. 🤷

I say it is. That is literally the job description. Who ever said being a therapist was easy?🤷

I wouldn't necessarily go along with that last part. To me, it's vital to show a client they're accepted exactly as they are within some kind of framework. Regardless of the specific therapeutic work being done—even if you're just sitting there in silence—you are the model. Most pathologies seem to stem from some level of self-rejection or a lack of self-respect anyway. Personally, it makes my skin crawl when I see therapists trying to sell this idea of being superhuman or acting like machines. It sends a pretty shitty message to the client.

redharbor9 said:Quentin Tarantino

Dennis Bailey2 I can't even begin to process this. Total nonsense. Hell yeah, it can be done. 🤷 Look, let’s get one thing straight: you can't predict how psychotherapy is going to turn out. It's impossible. Period. Spot on.Look, you can't just suggest an intervention without having a rock-solid idea of what the outcome is going to be. You need to be damn sure there’s a massive chance it actually works. If you don't have that, you might as well just go betting on Yellow Mist instead. 🤷 Is it Red...? 🤔 I always forget.

That’s what I’m talking about. Most things work on probability—that's just common sense. Sure, you run into situations where there are zero assumptions in practice, but even then, you're working within a safe context. But Rebecca Scott3 was out here claiming 100% certainty on an outcome? Please. That’s straight-up delusional.

Of course it's unrealistic. You can work with a gifted kid, but that doesn't guarantee they'll turn into a Nobel Prize winner. Or you can give someone Advil; it doesn't mean their headache is definitely going to vanish.

edit: obviously, that doesn't mean working with gifted kids or taking Advil is pointless.

redharbor9 said:😂 Honestly, I’m not even surprised by ExxonMobil anymore. It was only a matter of time before everyone else rolled out their own version of the same garbage. Lite psychotherapy. Which consulting firm would you even bother with?

I don't see how they even plan to pull that off. Maybe they'll restrict them to working only with patients who have an official diagnosis? Either way, it's a mess.

Rebecca Scott3 said:...well, honestly... sometimes it’s just better to sit in silence rather than trying to force an answer....
.....for the most part, you're always acting like you have the final word, and there's just no room for actual dialogue....
....and that hits the nail on the head regarding the issue.....so many therapists out there act like they're some kind of infallible gods who can never be wrong, no matter what......
....

It feels like you're just waiting for him to meet your perfect standards. Honestly, that seems more about your own headspace than anything else. What matters more: your expectations, or whether the therapist is actually doing a bad job?

By the way, I agree with one thing. It's a real problem when someone peddles their grandmother's old-school biases under the guise of professional therapy instead of just owning them as personal beliefs. That kind of thing should be addressed in every clinical training program and regulated by professional boards.

redharbor9 said:And what you said... if that MPO stuff actually passed, I wouldn't be shocked at all. I did some digging into how things work over in Europe, and honestly, it's just a total circus everywhere. You've got countries where psychiatrists aren't even allowed to be psychotherapists—only psychologists have the monopoly there. Then you've got places where the psychiatrists hold the whole monopoly. Some spots let anyone who finishes psychotherapy practice, while in others, psychologist-therapists are ranked right up there with psychiatrists in hospitals. It's a mess.

Then you look at America, where psychologists fought their way into being able to prescribe meds. I don't get how or why that happened, or how that even works in practice...

It feels like there isn't a single decent legal model to point to, because the whole system is just a joke everywhere.

Take Canada, for example. Psychotherapy is legally defined there, but it's so incredibly rigid that it’s going to tank the number of available therapists relative to the population. Non-psychology specialists have to finish this massive preparatory course first, and to get certified, you need documented personal therapy, supervision... endless hours of it, and it costs a fortune. They're out of their minds.

Sure, it "professionalizes" the field on one hand, but on the other, it guts the pool of potential therapists, which is definitely going to drive prices through the roof.

The reason they're cheaper is because clinical psychologists cost less than psychiatrists, which makes them interesting to insurance companies. I mean, in some places, even a GP handles deliveries, so why shouldn't a clinical psychologist handle pharmacotherapy? Another reason is to separate them from those specializing in counseling. What I heard is pure absurdity: now the people doing counseling want to ban the clinical types from doing their job, claiming they should only be allowed to perform psychotherapy.😁