bluemason3 said:I seriously doubt that such a bombastic scenario is actually realistic.🙂
CNN, how does the government even make money off "insurance premiums" when private health insurance in America is practically non-existent? Most people are covered through Medicare, which is state-run. That means the government is essentially paying itself, so it’s actually in their best interest to cut costs rather than increase them. You can see this trend everywhere lately—shorter hospital stays, rushed post-op recoveries, and a massive push toward home care instead of actual clinical treatment...
The point is they're making a profit, period. It doesn't matter who they're taking it from or how they do it. 😍
Yeah, I remember guys trying to pull some bullshit during their military physical, only to show up at the DMV for their driver's license later. They were absolutely stunned when the paperwork from the first exam popped up right in front of them. 😍
Look, finding an educated subject in the Rorschach is gonna be a struggle. Even if you do find one, a smart examiner isn't just gonna stop there—they’ll spot the patterns regardless. They're gonna pull in other personality assessments too, making sure the final call is based on the whole damn picture...
That’s just the same old answer, and they’re definitely going to keep digging... why even bother with an answer like that? It feels like a blatant attempt to mess with the testing process.
Plus, the Rorschach isn't some one-of-a-kind thing. Projective tests aren't just synonymous with the Rorschach... there are plenty of them out there.🙂
Jerry Sullivan2 said:So, you’re suggesting that just any random person with a psychology degree is actually qualified to assess someone whose mental state has drifted outside the bounds of normal functioning.
(I mean, if someone is significantly overweight yet remains absolutely convinced they are thin—and can't rationally grasp that they aren't, or even that watching their weight might be a good idea—that isn't exactly a standard perception of reality, I suppose)
Don't you think that role should probably be reserved for, say, a clinical psychologist, or perhaps someone with specialized training in counseling? Or does finishing a general psychology program automatically make one qualified for that kind of work (and for working with people in general, for that matter)?
Hell no.
(because being overweight while being convinced you're skinny—and being unable to grasp the reality that you need to watch your weight—isn't a normal way to perceive things)
That's called body dysmorphia.
Shouldn't that be handled by, say, a clinical psychologist or someone with specialized counseling training? Or does anyone with a basic psychology degree automatically get a pass to handle stuff like this (and work with people in general)?
Obviously they should, but I don't get why you're even asking me. In this specific case, you need someone who actually specializes in body image and eating disorders. That matters way more than whether they focused on clinical vs. counseling psych...
Jerry Sullivan2 said:But what kind of psychologist are we even talking about, and where would they go? "Psychologist" is such a broad term, isn't it? Are we talking about a school counselor? If she goes to a clinic or a hospital, they might run some psychological testing... but then what? What comes after that? Which specific specialists actually deal with eating disorders?
Besides, if I'm not mistaken, a distorted body image can sometimes veer into psychotic territory. And once you hit that point, I guess it’s no longer just a job for a standard psychologist.
Just get her to a psychologist first. Let them do their thing and point her in the right direction if she needs more help. That’s how the whole system works anyway.
Look, if you’ve got a warped perception of your own body, you're drifting into psychosis territory. Once that happens, a standard therapist isn't gonna cut it anymore. You need real help.
A lot of stuff can take on psychotic elements, but honestly, it doesn't have to. 🙂
There’s zero point in wasting time here. I can stir up enough baseless fear to make your life a total nightmare if I feel like it. That's why I told you to go see a doctor and a therapist. Sit down with some actual pros, talk through whatever's going on, and figure out your next move. 🙂
Harold Anderson3 said:Hmm... so you know deep down you aren't thin, yet your mind just won't let you believe it. I can somewhat relate to how unsettling that feels. I don't think what you're going through is necessarily an extreme crisis, but it's certainly uncomfortable to live with. I've seen people struggle with anorexia before, and it's a truly harrowing thing to witness; I knew a girl who was dangerously underweight, yet she was convinced she was overweight. She had absolutely no concept that her perception was the exact opposite of reality. It could reach a point where you actually start losing too much weight, and that would be a much more serious issue. Talking things through with a therapist would likely be a huge help for you, as they could help explain why your mind is playing these tricks on you.
Body dysmorphia is a real deal and it can spiral into much worse stuff. You need to hit up a therapist, get some real insight into what's going on (and how bad it actually is), and start tackling it head-on...
You need to go see an endocrinologist for that issue we talked about, and honestly, you should hit up a psychologist too to deal with those thoughts and that distorted body image...
Asking for advice on a forum isn't going to do squat for you; you're just gonna end up with a bunch of useless ideas... the only real advice worth taking is to go see some professionals and stop stalling...
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.
So you got hit with some alternative perspectives that tried to justify his behavior, but since they didn't line up with your view, you just shut down and trashed the whole conversation.
Rebecca Scott3 said:...you're putting words in my mouth... .....I never said it had to be 100% guaranteed...but it does have to be something that makes sense through logic and basic common sense....like, any decent therapist should be able to predict that an abuser isn't going to suddenly flip a switch and change their entire personality overnight, or just drop all their old habits out of nowhere....
So you hate it when people put words in your mouth, right? But when you do it to everyone else, suddenly it's fine.🙂
darksailor98 said: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.
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 say it is. That is literally the job description. Who ever said being a therapist was easy?🤷
It’s too vague. There’s zero definition here about what actually counts as an action that triggers specific consequences and what doesn't. It's just undefined.
Quentin Tarantino
I say yeah, because that's literally his job. Who ever said being a psychotherapist was easy? 🤷
Nobody said anything, but let's be real: theory is one thing, and actually doing the work is another. 🙂
I’d define an "intervention" simply as any action or move that triggers a meaningful consequence.
In a clinical setting, you could argue that every word out of a therapist's mouth falls under that umbrella. That means the practitioner has to be hyper-aware of their objectives; they need a clear grasp of the specific outcome intended by every individual word they choose to utter.
That's pretty vague when you're talking about a specific situation, right?
In psychotherapy, you could argue that every single word spoken counts as an "intervention." That means a therapist would have to be hyper-aware of their goals and know exactly what outcome every single word will trigger.
I don't buy it. If that were true, they'd have to weigh every possible word perfectly, but in therapy, there are tons of moments where there just isn't time for that... plus you've got those exploratory phases to deal with...