I completely agree. This aligns perfectly with my own philosophy of what therapy and a therapist should ideally provide, and it’s also backed up by my own personal history—having gone through two separate therapeutic journeys myself.
I think I fall into that category of people who don't mind discovering bits and pieces about their therapist over time. In the beginning, knowing anything about them wasn't a priority for me—it wasn't even on my radar. What mattered most was simply finding someone I felt a connection with right out of the gate. To be honest, even now, I have no idea what their political views, religious beliefs, or other personal stances are, and frankly, I don't care. What really matters is how they show up for the work. They’ve proven to me that they aren't judging me based on my own values or trying to mold me to fit theirs; instead, they focus entirely on me as an individual and prioritize my actual well-being.
That being said, if any of them had started throwing around racist, homophobic, xenophobic, or misogynistic remarks—I’d have just turned on my heel and walked out right then and there. Even though those views wouldn't personally affect me, I simply have no interest in working with anyone who isn't open-minded.
Quentin Tarantino said:Moral standards are really just matters of social consensus; they aren't exact sciences and don't necessarily drive scientific progress. Before the era you're describing, people held entirely different convictions. In fact, certain periods in ancient history were actually more liberal in some respects than what we consider "modern" today. So while things definitely change, I'm not sure if it's always a straight line of "progress." And, for the record, people didn't actually believe the Earth was a flat disc back then either. 😁
I'm not quite following—what are you actually trying to get at here?
Are you suggesting that a therapist should only be tolerant of behaviors and inclinations that align with current American social norms and definitions of "normalcy," and that they should judge or try to "fix" anyone who falls outside those lines?
Do you believe a therapist ought to pass judgment on a client for being gay, an atheist, or someone living a promiscuous lifestyle?
Or do you think that regardless of what a person accepts as "normal," a therapist should accept the patient as an individual and show them empathy—primarily because they are a human being in pain, rather than treating them like societal outcasts who need to be exorcised?
While completing a training program doesn't necessarily guarantee a therapist has done their own inner work, failing to go through the process means they haven't even tried.☕ Personally, I wouldn't dream of sitting down for a session with anyone claiming they can help me if they haven't taken the time to work on themselves first. Beyond that, I truly believe that people shouldn't—and likely aren't capable of—practicing psychotherapy before reaching a certain level of maturity.
Finally, I have to agree with Dennis Jackson38: the ability and willingness to accept a client as a fellow human being—regardless of their religious views, sexual orientation, or any other inclinations that might clash with the therapist's own—is the absolute *conditio sine qua non* for anyone calling themselves a psychotherapist. Anything less than that is simply unacceptable and unprofessional.
Judgment isn't a therapeutic tool, at least not in the specific schools of thought I've studied.
Honestly, I’ve read so many posts on this forum lately where people insist they can’t see a doctor because "it’s my mom, my dad, a close family friend, my cousin, an aunt, or just the neighbor next door"—usually when dealing with mental health issues or STIs—that I’m half-tempted to propose some kind of new regulation stating you aren't allowed to see anyone you've ever met before in your life. Just to be safe.
For those of you who need a little more guidance, I'll let you in on a massive secret: there are actually other doctors out there!
I’m sorry, but where exactly are you getting this "he and I are both healthy" idea from? Did you BOTH actually get tested for various STIs BEFORE you started having sex? Since you aren't using protection anyway—and honestly, you really should, especially considering the risks involved when pregnancy isn't the only concern, given that things aren't exactly sterile down there... I highly doubt you have You have no idea how many bacteria and viruses can exist during certain stages without showing any symptoms at all; you can't just assume someone is healthy just by looking at them. We women go in for checkups once a year if everything seems fine, but those who are more proactive go in for swabs too—and they are often shocked by their results, even when they haven't experienced a single symptom.
Oh, thank you so much! I'm not a doctor, just someone following along closely. 😁 I really believe people need to stay informed, especially when they’re dealing with a tedious chronic diagnosis. The only thing I don't quite get is why the doctor didn't check on iron levels since they were low last time—she probably just forgot. Is it possible that those dizzy spells when moving from lying down to standing up (I notice it during my yoga practice, specifically during "Sun Salutations") could be linked to an iron deficiency, or maybe just low blood pressure? My hemoglobin levels look normal on the blood work—so I guess I'm not technically anemic? That said, I don't eat meat very often, and I'm not exactly a huge fan of green vegetables either.
Because of the medications I’m currently taking, I make it a point to get my blood work done regularly, and this time I decided to include a urine test for the first time.
Here are the results from yesterday (urine): For the most part, everything looks normal: pH 5.0, specific gravity 1.025, glucose negative, Bilirubin negative, ketones negative, Erythrocyte/Hb negative, proteins negative, Urobilinogen normal, nitrites negative, leukocyte esterase negative....
However: appearance was cloudy, color yellow, Leukocytes 8-10, Erythrocytes 2-3, squamous epithelium - plenty, bacteria - plenty
I should mention that I’m not experiencing any discomfort or symptoms at all. This was just a routine check-up. I usually have a tendency toward bladder infections, so if something were actually wrong, I doubt I would miss it—there's no stinging or anything like that.
Is it possible to get a result like this because I didn't realize I needed to provide a urine sample? I actually went to the bathroom right before heading to the lab. I barely had anything left to pass, so it took me a few minutes to force myself to go for the analysis, and instead of a midstream sample, it was just the initial (and only) flow. What should I do now? I really don't want to take antibiotics unless it's absolutely necessary, especially since I feel fine. For what it's worth, my blood leukocytes are 9.2.
Regarding the blood work, what I'm curious about is that last time my iron was low. I took treatment for a month, but on this report, I don't see iron listed—unless I'm just missing the abbreviation (last time it explicitly said "Iron, Fe"). Because of that, I'm not sure where my levels stand now. Also, my monocytes were high last time, but I don't see that here either...
I'm taking these results to my primary care physician next week, but until then, I'm wondering where those bacteria in my urine came from. Perhaps it really is just because I wasn't prepared and provided the sample incorrectly. Thanks..
Angela Reyes79 said:I'm not sure if this topic has been covered here yet, so apologies if it has. 😎 Here’s the situation: I'm 16 years old. According to my latest measurements (taken 5 days ago 😁), I am 167cm tall and weigh 48kg 🙂. I've been at this weight for two years now. I manage to gain maybe 2kg, but it drops off almost immediately. I am looking for advice, specifically from anyone who has dealt with something similar. Don't just tell me to "eat more." I have no intention of eating mindlessly only to end up looking like a cow later on 😳. I need help with meal timing, portion sizes, and exercise. There is a gym near my house, but I'm not sure if starting there is a smart move. I am in no rush; anything done too quickly won't last. I know the weight will come eventually, but it won't happen by itself. Besides, I want to build muscle mass. My goal is to gain about 10kg (maybe even 15kg 😁). What are your suggestions? 🙂
You actually received some great advice there, and if I may jump in—you don't need ten extra pounds, let alone fifteen. At 5'6", depending on your body type, you could look fantastic anywhere between 117 and 125 pounds. You really don't need much more than that, unless you happen to have a very large frame, in which case an extra 5 pounds wouldn't be a problem at all.
I have an average build—not big, not tiny—and standing at 5'6", my weight has fluctuated between 115 and 140 pounds since I hit my full height around age 14 or 15. Personally, I feel my best at around 120 pounds; up to 125 is fine too, but anything beyond that starts adding unnecessary softness in certain areas (like the stomach or thighs) that just isn't needed.
Focus on eating healthy. For breakfast, try cereals but load them up with almonds, hazelnuts, or raisins. Make sure you're getting meat, fish, pasta, veggies, stews, whole grain bread, eggs, and dairy. Avoid fast food because those are just empty calories. Also, try squeezing your own fruit juices instead of buying processed ones.
One more thing—you're only 16. Be happy that you are naturally slender, and please don't fall into the trap of overeating junk food just to gain weight. I know so many friends who were very thin back then, but once they grew up and started working office jobs, living off bakery snacks, pizza delivery, and burgers... they ended up gaining quite a bit of weight after marriage and having kids, and now they spend all their time complaining about it.
Speaking from my own experience as a client, I can say I’ve been really happy with the results. Every session leaves me feeling great, and I’ve noticed tangible shifts in my life, specifically in my career and how I interact with people. A big part of that for me is the level of trust I have in my practitioner; they are a fully certified therapist, and I’ve known them for quite a while through their other professional work. The actual process starts with the client doing some groundwork—answering a specific series of questions designed to pinpoint the core of the issue. After that, the therapist takes over to handle what’s called mental program deactivation. Since I’ve also been seeing a doctor for traditional psychotherapy on a regular basis for a few years now, I can definitely spot the similarities in that initial phase. However, there is a major difference in pacing. In standard psychotherapy, you’re encouraged to express yourself at your own speed. With Theta, it’s more like fast-forwarding; the therapist asks very direct questions and digs straight into the material you bring to the table. You often end up uncovering more in a single hour of Theta than you might in several months of traditional therapy.
I tend to go for Theta sessions occasionally when I feel the need or want to tackle something very specific. On the other hand, I view my traditional psychotherapy as a way to do deep, thorough soul-searching and fundamental self-improvement.
Honestly, it’s pretty funny reading comments where someone says, "This is just selling smoke," only to have someone else reply, "I agree, though it's my first time hearing about it." It’s actually quite cute.😛
I’d just like to weigh in—in a purely non-professional capacity, of course—regarding what was mentioned about the optic nerve. A standard eye exam, which is likely what you’ve already undergone, isn't enough to definitively rule out or confirm specific issues involving the optic nerve.
I personally dealt with optic neuritis twice. The first time around, it took a full month of testing through my insurance provider to finally get a diagnosis. By the time they actually confirmed it was inflammation of the optic nerve, my symptoms had already started to subside. They eventually used evoked potential testing to figure it out. Aside from that, the process involved a traditional ophthalmology exam, color vision testing (since optic neuritis often makes it hard to distinguish colors like red and green on those Ishihara tests with the colored dots), and a visual field test.
When it comes to the symptoms of optic neuritis, you typically experience pain when moving your eyes at first. This is usually followed by blurred vision, most often in just one eye. For me, it felt like looking through water; specifically, when I tried to read text, every single word seemed to have a different level of brightness, and I couldn't see the whole sentence clearly—just one word at a time. Colors also look much more washed out, and you might fail those color perception tests. You should try looking up some images of those color plates online, cover one eye, and see if you can actually make out the numbers.
Look, you can complain all you want about how everything here is broken, unfair, or just plain terrible. And sure, there are issues—especially in the public sector, where breaking through as a genuine expert is often much harder than simply being "well-connected." But at the end of the day, talented people find their way. They land great roles and climb the ladder because they actually have what it takes, and more importantly, they have the grit to chase what they want.
Think about it: an employer who genuinely needs someone capable—someone who can own their role, fit into the culture, and ultimately provide real value—isn't looking for someone to recite rehearsed clichés or put on a theatrical performance during an interview. I say this as someone who has been on both sides of the hiring table multiple times. I’ve seen colleagues and friends who are incredibly skilled secure amazing positions and skyrocket in their careers. They didn't get there by pulling strings or memorizing a list of five strengths and weaknesses; they got there because they are intelligent, educated, and driven professionals. They aren't just sitting around complaining about how unfair the world is or how incompetent bosses can be.
Yes, the world can be incredibly unfair sometimes. But that doesn't mean you're stuck, and it certainly doesn't mean you should pretend to be someone you're not just to get ahead.
Michael Miller39 said:Please... what kind of elite executive role are we talking about here where you can just double a company's revenue?
So, I assume what you're trying to say with these quotes is: if I prove my value immediately, you'll take me.
Let's be real. That's not how it works. In large corporations where everyone has a "big idea," it's nearly impossible to break through unless you're already high up the ladder. American management is notoriously arrogant; they don't listen to the little guy with a great concept. A "big idea" only gets sold by someone with the right pedigree or status. The only places where a regular employee actually gets heard are at companies like Zuckerberg's or perhaps a small startup.
Sure, they sell themselves well, and that's where it ends. They look good on paper, while their bosses assume they can't do any better. Managers I know who actually understand their craft perform far worse than those just climbing the corporate ladder. It's common knowledge that most managers are just dead weight.
Finally, HR management is incredibly amateurish, relying on a handful of basic seminars... basically just sitting there listening or sleeping. Anyone with enough confidence and charisma can call themselves a manager. And they do, but they aren't increasing the company's bottom line.
Where exactly in his post did you see him saying she needs to double the firm's total revenue?😕 The guy actually wrote that she should bring in twice what they pay her in salary—and doubling your own paycheck is definitely not the same thing as doubling the company's entire revenue. 😉
Nathan Kelly5 said:Well, it is telling; it speaks volumes about employers. If actual expertise were prioritized over optics or pseudo-psychology, this wouldn't even be a conversation, right?🙂
My advice to anyone who can afford it is to just be themselves—be whoever you are and whoever you feel comfortable being. Don't fake it, provided you have the breathing room to do so, given the current job market in the US. Some people will appreciate your actual character, and you'll be able to show up as your true self. I suppose a little extra professionalism doesn't hurt, but some people play the part so poorly that it backfires; at my last two companies, three women had complete mental breakdowns because of it. Look, the pressure is intense, but if you lack the backbone to handle things when they hit the fan at work—where expectations are naturally higher—you aren't going to get far. Trying to say "yes" to everything and pretending to be perfect until you eventually snap isn't sustainable. Just be yourself, speak your mind, and call it a day.
Actually, I don't think it reflects the employers themselves, but rather the perception people have of them.
That being said, if you're looking at a massive government agency or a huge bureaucracy—well, I won't even go there because those places are driven by red tape and endless formalities.
But when you're dealing with a private company, where you actually need someone competent to get the job done properly—that's different. You want someone who actually knows their stuff and wants to work, and honestly, you can't fake your way through that for long. What kind of manager would I be if I hired someone based on an act, only to realize they're incompetent and end up having to do two people's jobs myself?
I’ve hired several people over the last few years, and honestly, I’ve been happy with everyone I’ve brought on board.
The first thing you look at is whether they actually know how to do the job—do they have the right qualifications, the experience, or at least the genuine potential to learn the ropes?
That’s just the baseline requirement. When it comes down to picking the final candidate, that’s where personality takes over. And I don't mean grilling them with a checklist of "five strengths and five weaknesses." Instead, I prefer to just sit down and have a conversation—often over coffee. We start with technical topics and then naturally drift into more casual territory, talking about their interests or what they do outside of work. I make sure to participate too, so it doesn't feel like a police interrogation.
Once you observe someone and they finally start to relax, their true self really comes through.
For me, the most important things were finding someone who was grounded, easygoing, and confident. I look for people who communicate easily, show real initiative, stay positive, and demonstrate a certain level of maturity.
I won't get into the smaller details, since those vary depending on the industry.
As for faking it, giving rehearsed answers, or putting on a polished act: please don't. Anyone with even a shred of intuition will see right through you in a heartbeat.
Whatever role you’re applying for, you need to do your homework on what the requirements are. If you aren't a fit, don't pretend to be—even if you do get the job, you're only doing yourself a disservice in the long run. Just be honest. If you haven't put in the effort to research everything possible before the interview, and reflected on why you actually want to work there and what you expect from the role, how can you expect anyone to take you seriously?
Even the title of your thread gives it away—what is it that an employer wants to hear? It sounds like you think you can just tell someone exactly what they want to hear, regardless of whether it's true. That’s actually quite condescending toward a potential employer, and it doesn't fly with us. A better approach would be to ask the employer what they specifically need to know.
The relationship between an employer and an employee isn't a one-way street. You have every right to expect respect, appreciation, and fair treatment, but the same standard applies to you.
On a good day, my primary care doctor sees about 60 patients, but on the rough days? It can hit 90. Don't ask me how I know... if they start adding blood draws to the mix, they might as well clock in at 4:00 AM. If you have a clinic with a lighter schedule, you're lucky; this place runs like a literal assembly line.
I’ve also figured out the rhythm of the lab work here. Since they open from 7:00 to 9:00, the sweet spot is arriving just a few minutes before 9:00. I’m always running a little behind, so when I rush in right before 9:00, there are only a couple of people ahead of me, and I’m usually done by 9:00 sharp. One time, I actually showed up right at 7:00—heaven knows what I was thinking—and it was a total madhouse. There were over 30 people waiting! I honestly don't get the obsession with showing up at 7:00 on the dot, or even worse, 6:45. Yet, between 8:30 and 9:00, the place is practically empty.
Just a few blocks away from my primary care physician, there’s a Quest Diagnostics center. It’s super convenient—you get your referral from the doctor, head over, and they get you in and out really quickly. They send all the results directly to my doctor, too. If everything looks normal, I just get a call and don't even have to swing back by the clinic unless something actually needs attention. I honestly hope it stays this way. I mean, if things keep running this smoothly, why would they ever need to close down a facility like that??
Don't go trying to diagnose yourself through an online forum. Your first stop should always be your primary care physician. It might turn out to be nothing at all, or it could be something significant, but either way, you shouldn't be left guessing.