Posts by redharbor9

darksailor98 said: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.

By the way, I think things would be clearer if we actually defined what we mean by intervention... To me, in Cybernetic Psychotherapy, every single word spoken is an intervention since language is everything in my field... but most people probably think it implies some "major action."

Dennis Bailey2 said:From what I gather, she was bringing up a scenario where a psychologist, driven by some outdated patriarchal bias, refers a woman back to her husband simply because "it's the right thing to do," without giving a single thought to how that actually impacts the woman.

My stance hasn't changed: when a psychologist finds themselves in a situation where they can't maintain total professionalism, they need to hand the patient off to a colleague.
I'm not a psychologist, but I do work in education from time to time; I have no issue stepping back and asking a peer to examine a student when I realize I can't be objective. I don't see any reason why a psychologist wouldn't follow that same standard.

She was dancing around the specifics and playing the generalizations whenever it suited her goal...

Quentin Tarantino:

I still say that if a psychologist finds themselves in a spot where they can't stay completely professional, they need to hand the patient off to a colleague. I’m not a psychologist, but I do educational work part-time; I have zero issues asking a peer to handle a student when I realize I can't be objective. There's no reason a psychologist wouldn't do the exact same thing.

As far as psychologists go, that's literally their official protocol. For psychotherapists, though, it usually just comes down to whether or not they've actually grown up yet...

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.

Dennis Bailey2 said:I couldn't agree more. If a therapist realizes their own personal biases are getting in the way of the treatment, they have a responsibility to step aside. They need to refer that patient to someone else immediately. 🤷

Let me try to illustrate this, for instance:

So, let’s look at this scenario. A school counselor intervenes with a suicidal student by using fear—specifically the threat of God and hell. If that kid was raised in a devout Christian household, that fear might actually work. It creates a barrier, preventing the act through genuine terror. But then you have the flip side: what if the counselor avoids those religious themes entirely? If the child is so deeply rooted in their faith that divine retribution is the *only* thing keeping them alive, and the counselor ignores that reality, aren't they essentially leaving the door wide open? You could argue that by stripping away the only deterrent the child recognizes, the counselor is inadvertently facilitating the tragedy. Has that version ever crossed your mind?

Is this actually a valid question, or does it all just come down to the psychologist's own agenda? Here’s the thing:
If a psychologist decides this is the only way forward because they realize that kid’s faith is the only thing keeping them from checking out entirely, then the doctor is doing their job. It’s about survival. If religious conviction is the sole barrier between a child and suicide, then you work within that framework. Period.
If that fairy tale nonsense is truly the only tool this psychologist has in his kit for suicidal kids—even those who’ll probably die of laughter before they ever feel helped—then he needs to face reality. He has to admit his approach is a failure and hand that child over to a professional who actually knows what they're doing.

Furthermore,

How on earth does any therapist claim to know exactly what the fallout of an intervention will be? It’s pure hubris. No one can predict the ripple effects of a psychological nudge with clinical certainty.

It has to be based on something—presumably their education and actual field experience—because otherwise, they’re completely out of their depth. The whole point of calling someone an "expert" in their lane, whether they're a psychologist, an engineer, a surgeon, or even just a mechanic under the hood of a Ford, is that the person actually knows what they're talking about. What kind of fallout are we actually looking at after her intervention?If things weren't set up this way, it wouldn't matter if you walked into an engineer's office for psychological counseling or asked a cobbler to draft the blueprints for a skyscraper. It would be completely meaningless.

Look, a psychotherapist should be able to tell the difference between a patient's actual issue and their own personal baggage. If they’re too emotionally attached to their own convictions, they lose the ability to judge whether those beliefs are actually interfering with a specific case. It's basic competence.

You need to distinguish between a supposition—which is just the idea a therapist holds when making an intervention—and the actual goal they're chasing and assuming will be the outcome... You honestly believe you can predict the outcome?

darksailor98 said: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.😁

😂 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?

Rebecca Scott3 said:redharbor9... I didn't realize this was an exclusive club where only the top-tier professionals get to talk about the actual hurdles clients face in psychotherapy
...plus, I’m just not used to dealing with people who get aggressive... and honestly, I have no intention of getting used to it...
...it's been a long time since I left the old neighborhood, and that kind of confrontational way of talking (which seemed pretty standard back home, if I recall correctly) feels totally foreign to me now...
...you can spin it however you want... throw around fancy labels, keep attacking... it doesn't really matter to me...

Not that I know of. Where’d you read that or who told you that?

...also not used to dealing with aggressive people... and I don't want to get used to it...

I'm not used to talking to people who don't listen either, but I'm working on it...

....left the States a long time ago and that style of communication (which was pretty common back home if I recall) feels foreign to me now....

...interpret it however you want... throw labels, start attacks... I don't care...

Does ignoring questions count as part of this "new way" of communicating you've adopted?

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......
....

That’s always a convenient excuse, but you don't have to give the answers to me—give them to the other people who actually care about my questions... how about that? 🙂

.....basically you're always on the defensive and there's no actual conversation....

There is a conversation happening, you're just dodging it because you won't answer questions or you twist what's been said out of context...

....and that's exactly the issue.....so many therapists think they're infallible gods who can never be wrong..........

And then you've got people who know nothing about therapy acting like they're experts on everything (not talking about you)... everyone's part of the problem here. If people actually want to fix things, they need to start listening and learn how to communicate constructively instead of just obsessing over being right.😉

Rebecca Scott3 said:redharbor9, I think you’re having a hard time following because you’re way too focused on just being defensive... it feels like you see yourself in all of this, so your only goal is to play down how much responsibility a psychotherapist actually carries...
....because when I point out that certain mistakes are dangerous... and I’m laying them out specifically... and saying they aren't comparable to, say, a bad haircut at a local salon... you’re the one claiming everyone makes mistakes and that those mistakes are just a matter of perspective...(which basically implies that what I see as a massive blunder could actually be considered a success).... I mean... if a child dies or a husband beats his wife, is that supposed to be a "success" in therapy?
....you’re constantly trivializing these errors... why do you need to do that?
...where does this urge come from—to mask these mistakes not just with relativism, but by labeling them successes? Okay... sure, there are successes, but only if those two therapists are actually sadists or psychopaths.

tell me, what are your actual ideas? I have an idea that things need to change... and I have ideas on how... so why don't you say something? Don't just keep repeating the same thing... that everything in psychotherapy is fine, it's just that society isn't perfect.

I’ve already put forward my views and suggestions regarding what needs to change...
....first off, psychotherapists shouldn't be people who are unstable, superficial, racist, narcissists, psychopaths, or anyone with a history of violent behavior, egocentrism, or sadism.

..a client needs to know, and has every right to know, exactly who they are entrusting themselves to in therapy.
....and honestly, supervision should probably be some kind of constant oversight, rather than just something a therapist does whenever they feel like it.
...there really ought to be some kind of federal law regulating what a psychotherapist can, should, and must do versus what they cannot or must not do... and when rules are broken, there should be actual consequences.
.....using God, hell, or the devil to scare children (or anyone, really) is, to me, pure mental abuse. I know this from experience... and that should be sanctioned, and in a therapeutic setting, it should be illegal.

....I believe a psychotherapist is responsible for the advice and guidance they give their clients... not necessarily how the client carries it out, unless the outcome was already predictable and obvious.
.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ...............................
....Q&A session...

"What even is a mistake? Who gets to decide what counts as one? What seems like a mistake to you might actually be a solution for someone else, right?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
....in my view, it's a mistake if a therapist convinces a woman—who moved away from her husband specifically to escape physical and emotional abuse—that she should go back and try to live with him again under some new set of rules dictated by the therapist.
...okay... maybe it doesn't look like a mistake to you... but it does to me... and if so, what exactly is that supposed to be a "solution" for?
what problem was solved here?
....
"How can he possibly know she'll end up in the ER? How can any therapist know the exact consequence of any intervention they make? Have you ever heard of paradoxical intention as a method in psychotherapy? How familiar are you with systemic approaches, especially those that emphasize keeping families together and finding ways to make the family unit functional again? How can you be sure his actions weren't part of a specific technique or an idea they developed together?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
....well, I don't know... maybe I have some sort of intuition... but somehow, my gut tells me that if he beat and mistreated her before... and not just her... then there's a very high probability he’s going to beat and mistreat her again. Maybe that sounds illogical to you, but I guess I'm from a different planet where things usually work that way.
It feels to me like that therapy was just completely paradoxical... in every sense of the word. Even when you look at it through the lens of preserving a family—kind of like those old-school American traditions where people stick together "until death do us part." It’s like they just wait for the weaker partner to pass away so they can claim there was never actually a breakup. The family unit and the public image stay perfectly intact. As for that young woman's perspective, I don't really want to get into an argument about her motives because she seemed terrified from the very start. If her suggestion had been something truly toxic, she would have been even more frightened.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You're looking at this example solely through the lens of your own ideas about divorce and abandoning husbands, and you aren't allowing for any possible explanations—of which there are plenty—because you think you're right and that therapist isn't. On what basis are you gathering this information? Were you actually present during the sessions, or is she just retelling you what happened?"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...it turns out the therapist was actually right. He hit her, and she won't go back to him for anything, not even if her life depended on it, because she barely made it out alive. I wasn't in the room during the therapy sessions, so I only know what happened based on what she told me... but I'm not so naive that I can't tell what the general truth is. Besides, a lawsuit is coming because she has evidence that the therapist was essentially pushing her toward that edge.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"What if a school psychologist tries to scare a suicidal child with God and Hell? If the kid was raised in a devout Christian household, they might actually get scared enough to stop. Or, what if the psychologist *doesn't* use that fear, and the child ends up killing themselves because their faith was the only thing keeping them tethered? What then? Does that scenario ever cross your mind?"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...no, it doesn't occur to me to try and scare anyone... especially not a child who is already struggling with suicidal thoughts. Obviously, if they were raised in a religious way but their pain or illness is greater than that fear, the fact that they're talking to a school authority figure tells you everything. They are seeking support, protection, and help... not a scare tactic. In the end, she took her own life, and she did it in a way that looks like an accident.
She basically chose a path where she wouldn't be judged for sinning, and her family wouldn't have to deal with the fallout of her decision.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, it doesn't occur to you because you're looking at it through a single, narrow viewpoint just to prove your point. Is there some magical way a therapist can know everything about a client instantly, effectively shutting down any chance for actual exploration during therapy?"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...if you're a psychotherapist... if you have even a shred of knowledge about children or human nature... you'll know that it was a plea for help, not a call to battle against the child or an attempt to dominate them.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From what I can see based on other people's experiences with psychotherapy on these forums, patients and therapists work together to explore the self. The questions asked and the directions taken are evaluated to see if they're productive, and that's why the investigation continues. How exactly does one "investigate further" when the client ends up beaten or dead? Or are these people just collateral damage in massive research studies used by someone to build a career?

And since you brought up suicide, how much do you actually know about the complexities of suicide within psychotherapy? Pick up a textbook on ethical issues in counseling, flip to the section on suicide, and then come back and try to make these kinds of conclusions. Once you see the kind of impossible pressure that puts on therapists..."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...Look, I’ve said this before: I’m not a psychologist, a psychotherapist, or a psychiatrist. I don't have all the textbook theories down pat. My understanding comes strictly from being in the trenches. I know firsthand how devastating it is for therapists when a client takes their own life... (I've seen a close friend struggle through the absolute wreckage of losing a client that way). I'm not saying a therapist is automatically to blame whenever something like this happens... but in this specific case—with a sixteen-year-old girl—there's clearly some responsibility there.

....On one hand, you’re arguing that our society and government are still a bit of a mess and unorganized. But then, on the other hand, you're claiming that nothing in psychotherapy needs to change—that there aren't any mistakes to be made, and that everything happens for a reason. It feels a little contradictory to me... if society is failing to provide a solid foundation, how can everything in therapy be perfectly fine and part of some grand design? It just doesn't quite add up to me.

Nah.

Quincy:

Look, when I say people are making dangerous mistakes—and I’m laying out exactly what those mistakes are—you try to pivot. You claim everyone messes up and that "mistakes" are just a matter of perspective. So, by your logic, if I call something a failure, you're saying it could actually be a success? Give me a break. By that logic, if a kid dies or a husband beats his wife, that’s just a successful therapy session. Get real.

I also said more stuff... and asked a few things too... Taking my words out of context isn't constructive communication. Period.

Here we go again. You really think every single move a therapist makes is flawless? Like, if they steer a client down a certain path, that direction is somehow guaranteed to be the right one for solving the problem? Give me a break. You honestly believe there aren't times when they wander off into dead ends or head straight toward a mistake?

Quincy:

You’re just making excuses for mistakes... why do you even need to do that? Where do you get this need to cover up mistakes? You aren't just hiding behind relativity; you're actually trying to spin them as wins. Okay... sure, they're "wins" only if those two therapists are straight-up sadists or psychopaths.

Where exactly did I call mistakes a win?

Quincy:

Spit it out. What are your actual ideas? I’ve got my own thoughts on what needs to change and exactly how we pull it off. Stop circling the drain and say something. Don't just sit there repeating the same tired lines. Sure, psychotherapy is fine and all, but let’s be real—society itself is a total mess.

It’s obvious things need to change. Where exactly did I say or imply that everything is fine in psychotherapy? Show me.

Quincy:

I already put my cards on the table about what needs to change. I said it before, and I’m saying it again. First off, psychotherapists shouldn't be unstable, shallow, racist, narcissistic psychopaths. They shouldn't have a history of abusive behavior, being egocentric, or being straight-up sadists. Period. Look, a client has every right to know exactly who they’re getting in bed with for therapy. It's their life. Period. Supervision shouldn't just be some random thing that happens whenever a therapist happens to remember it. It needs to be constant, hands-on oversight. Period. There needs to be some kind of actual law on the books regulating what psychotherapists can and can't do. They need clear rules on what they’re allowed to do versus what’s strictly off-limits—and when they break those rules, there has to be real consequences. Period.

So what did you actually achieve with that stance once things actually started changing on the ground?

Scaring kids—or honestly, anyone—with God, hell, or the devil is straight-up mental abuse. Period. I know because I lived it. It’s messed up, and there should be actual consequences for it. Honestly, if a therapist tries that crap, they should be stripped of their license.

Alright, now answer me based on that hypothetical scenario I just laid out.

Look, I think the therapist is on the hook for the advice and guidance they hand out. Period. They aren't responsible for how the client actually carries it out—unless the outcome was already obvious and predictable from the jump.

Of course he’s responsible...

Honestly, I think it’s a total joke when a therapist tries to convince a woman—who literally had to pack up and move out just to escape physical and mental abuse—that she should go back to her husband. Telling her to give it another shot based on some "new rules" or "agreements" the therapist cooked up? That's not therapy. It's dangerous.
Look, maybe you don't see it as a mistake, but I definitely do. So, what exactly is that supposed to solve?
So, what actually got settled here?

You think it’s a mistake. Someone else doesn't. So what? What exactly makes you so damn relevant that you’re right and everyone else is wrong?

So, based on that question, you actually think things just get fixed in one session? Like, you roll up to therapy and suddenly all your problems vanish? Give me a break. Real issues don't just disappear overnight. It takes work—weeks, months, maybe even longer. It’s not a magic trick.

Look, I don't know... maybe I just have some kind of sixth sense. But honestly? My gut is telling me that if he was beating her and treating her like garbage before—and not just her, either—then there's a massive chance he's gonna do it all over again. You might think that’s totally illogical, but hey, maybe I'm just wired differently. That's just how things usually go in my world.

You say it "usually" goes like that... so does "usually" mean it doesn't always work? Or what?

That whole therapy thing felt totally backwards... in every sense of the word. Even when it comes to keeping families together. It’s like that old-school "until death do us part" mindset—you just wait around for the weaker person to pass away so you can claim there was never a split. Keeps the family and the public image perfectly intact. I’m not even gonna bother arguing about that young woman's idea. She was terrified from the jump. If her suggestion had actually been poisonous, she wouldn't have been scared at all.

So, you seriously don't know what paradoxical intention is? Seriously?

Turns out the therapist was right all along. He beat her, and there’s zero chance she’s ever going back to him—she barely made it out alive. I wasn't at the session, so I only know what happened based on what she told me, but I'm not naive. I can tell what the truth is here. Plus, a lawsuit is coming. She’s got enough evidence to prove he actually pushed her into this situation.

And who exactly forced her to listen to some therapist? If that therapist told her to never come home again, would she have actually done it? Or if they told her to kill her husband, would she have followed through on that too?

Look, I’m not trying to scare anyone. Especially not a kid who’s already suicidal. If they’ve been raised with any sense of morality or faith, and their pain is so heavy that they actually reach out to an authority figure at school, they aren't looking for a lecture. They're looking for support. They're looking for someone to step up and protect them. You don't scare a kid who's already at the edge. Besides, she ended up dead anyway—and it looks like a total accident.
So she just chose the path where nobody can judge her for sinning and her family doesn't have to deal with the fallout from her decision. That's it.

I didn't ask if you thought you could scare someone. I asked about a specific scenario. And I’m not talking about your little example—this is purely hypothetical. So drop the personal stuff and stick to the hypothesis.

So, you're telling me that if a therapist watches a suicidal client walk out the door after failing to find any way to stop them, they shouldn't even bother taking a risk on a potential intervention? That's ridiculous.

Look, here’s a classic scenario from a book I read... A psychiatrist ends up in court because a client took their own life. The family sued him for negligence, claiming he should have seen it coming. But get this: there wasn't even a hint of suicidal ideation during therapy. They weren't even talking about that. They were focused on a specific, manageable issue, which they actually solved successfully. So, what exactly was that therapist supposed to do?

Look, the literature is pretty clear on this: there are plenty of cases where therapists spot a suicide risk, call the authorities to step in, and then get slapped with lawsuits from clients claiming a breach of confidentiality. And guess what? Those therapists actually end up getting convicted.

Look, if you actually know anything about psychotherapy—if you have even a shred of real knowledge regarding kids or how people work—you’d get it. That wasn't an invitation to go to war with that kid. It wasn't some power trip to try and dominate them. Get it right.

Stop playing games and moving the goalposts. What exactly was the point of that "domination" you keep bringing up? Are we talking about your specific situation here, or are you just making broad generalizations now? Pick a lane. You keep jumping between being specific and being vague, and it’s getting old. Make it clear which one you're doing. 🙂

Look, I’ve said this before: I’m not a psychologist, a therapist, or a psychiatrist. I don't have a textbook degree. I just know what I've seen happen in the real world. I know firsthand that when a client takes their own life, it absolutely guts a therapist—I've seen one of my friends go through hell after losing a client that way. I'm not saying a therapist is automatically to blame whenever something like this happens, but in this specific case involving a sixteen-year-old girl? There's clearly some responsibility here.

Could be. Could not be. But does that mean we can just slap a label on every single therapist out there and generalize about suicide risk in therapy? Not a chance.

You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth. One minute you're claiming society and the government are a total mess, then the next you're saying psychotherapy shouldn't change a single thing. You're acting like there are zero mistakes and that everything happening in therapy is somehow "meant to be." How does nothing in society being right work, while everything in therapy is perfectly fine and purposeful? Makes zero sense to me.

Where did I ever say everything in psychotherapy is fine and nothing needs to change?

Rebecca Scott3 said:redharbor9... it’s pretty obvious that the concept of an "error" just doesn't exist in your world of psychotherapy. You don't seem to believe in any actual criteria, and honestly, that says everything I need to know. When you look at it that way, there aren't even any good or bad approaches left—no real methods, no real therapists. It all just boils down to a "hey, come see me" vibe, as long as you're willing to open your wallet because you managed to walk across a stage with a degree.

How is a psychotherapist supposed to know if an abusive husband is going to turn violent again once the wife goes back home? It feels impossible. You have this woman in therapy, and then her psychologist suggests she should reconcile with him—basically telling her to try and start over under these new "conditions" he’s supposedly created through his charm. How could anyone possibly predict that this man is just going to beat her again shortly after? To me, it seems completely unpredictable. It's like trying to guess when a storm is going to hit when you can't even see the clouds forming.
....if you just went around asking half the people living on her block..... they’d tell you straight up that talking to that guy is a lost cause since his best arguments always backfire.....
....(and I know all this because that woman walked me through her entire session with the therapist....... and then, out of nowhere, right after that whole mess, the therapist just completely cut her off....... talk about a miracle, right? He probably got pissed because she didn't follow his little playbook to the letter...... but honestly, the main instruction wasn't even the point......

suicide is such a heavy thing for any parent to carry ....and the responsibility of a psychologist is huge too...... because if we don't actually know what we're doing, we're just passing the kid off to a psychiatrist..... or checking them into a hospital..... notifying the parents..... and so on....
....but no...... it's always "I know everything and I can handle it" ....while leaving everyone else to deal with the fallout.....
look, I know that kids ...especially teens... take their own lives, and preventing it is incredibly hard, but there are specific things that absolutely have to be done to try and lower those odds even a little bit.....

because if a psychologist... or a psychiatrist.... can't actually make a difference, then at the very least they should tell the parents what kind of direction the child is heading in..... they need to work as a team with the family instead of leaving parents totally in the dark about what's going on with their kid.... or worse, having no clue the kid is even seeing a school counselor because they think since the kid is over 16, it's all "private business" now.....

so, is your social circle not "normal"?
well, what exactly counts as normal?
where do you even find a "normal" society these days?

about organizing things better....
....my suggestion was basically that therapists should be more transparent about themselves.... like, what are they actually specialized in, do they hold old-school patriarchal views, or are they actually okay with the LGBTQ+ community or do they still view it as some kind of disorder.....
they should just state clearly and loudly which type of client they are actually equipped to work with.....
....cultural clichés pop up all the time...... because we say one thing while implying something completely different under the surface...... misunderstandings happen constantly, and it's just part of the problem... etc...

Classic textbook case of bad communication... instead of actually answering the questions, you just attack the person asking them...

how is a therapist supposed to know an abusive husband is going to beat his wife if she goes back....if the woman is in therapy and the psychologist suggests she return to that abusive guy under some "new conditions" he's magically created to start over.......how could anyone predict he'll end up beating her soon.......it's totally unpredictable.......
....you'd just have to ask half the neighborhood to find out. They'd tell you that guy is impossible to talk to, which is basically his strongest selling point.

Once again, you're just repeating yourself without answering a single thing...

....(and I know all this because that woman told me exactly what was agreed upon with the therapist.......and then suddenly, after that whole mess, the therapist just stopped talking to the client altogether......get this: he got pissed at her because she probably didn't follow his instructions perfectly......but apparently, the main instruction doesn't even matter......

And how objective is a woman in that kind of situation really going to be when retelling things? Do people think everyone—especially those in deep emotional distress—can remember conversations perfectly and recount them accurately? Or that clients can perfectly interpret and understand complex therapeutic interventions?

suicide is a heavy topic for any parent....and the responsibility of the psychologist is huge too......because if we don't know what we're doing, we're just passing the kid off to a psychiatrist.....shoving them into a hospital.....notifying the parents.....etc....
....but no......I know everything and I can handle it.... and I'm definitely not responsible for the consequences.....
I know that kids... especially teens... commit suicide and that they're hard to stop, but there are specific steps you HAVE to take to lower that risk....

because if psychologists... and psychiatrists.... can't do anything, then they should at least tell parents what the kid is planning to do.....they need to work as a team with parents rather than leaving them completely in the dark about what's happening with their child....even if they don't even realize the kid is seeing a school psychologist.....since the kid is over 16, it's supposedly their private business.....

So once again, you dodged every single question and just looped back to your own talking points... I could drop another dozen questions pointing out how flawed your logic is, but why bother if you're just gonna ignore them anyway?

....my point was that psychotherapists should be transparent about themselves....their specialties, whether they hold patriarchal views.....if they're actually okay with the LGBTQ+ community or if they still think it's some kind of mental disorder....
they need to state clearly which client profile they actually work with....
....cultural clichés happen all the time......we say one thing but imply something totally different....misunderstandings are constant...etc...

Who did you actually submit this proposal to, and what happened with it?

Rebecca Scott3 said:I'm ready to get to work. Just send over the text you need me to transform, and I'll handle the rest—reworking everything into a natural, conversational American voice while sticking strictly to your substitution rules. I'll make sure the setting feels right at home in the States and that the tone stays true to the original poster's personality. Standing by for your first post.

Just because someone else messes up doesn't mean it’s acceptable when a psychologist or therapist gets it wrong. It's one thing if a regular person slips up, but when those mistakes aren't just accidents—when they're actually rooted in their own deep-seated biases or beliefs—that’s a whole different story. That's where you start questioning if they're even legitimate. I mean, we're talking about someone who holds a master's degree and is out here running therapy sessions. If their core perspective is flawed, how can they be trusted to guide anyone?
You can’t honestly sit there and tell me that’s the same thing as just getting a bad haircut. I mean, seriously? It’s like saying a botched hairstyle is comparable to a young woman being sent right back into the hands of an abusive husband she had already moved away from. She trusted him—she actually believed he knew what he was doing when she listened to him—only to end up in the ER a few days later with injuries. There is no comparison. One is a minor annoyance; the other is a life-altering tragedy.
Imagine this scenario: a school psychologist—someone who’s put in the work to earn their Master's degree—is sitting down for a session with a student. During that conversation, the kid opens up and reveals they’re planning to take their own life. But instead of stepping up, the therapist starts preaching. They start throwing around all this stuff about God, hell, and sin, basically using fear tactics to lecture the kid. Because they're more focused on those religious warnings than actual clinical intervention, they end up just shutting the kid out entirely. And because that professional failed to act, the child goes on to take their own life. It's a terrifying breakdown of how things should work.
So... was the kid actually in the wrong? I mean, should they have just gone out and hunted down some other therapist? Like, grab their own cash out of a student budget and just pay to move on? It’s a tough one.
....
I mean, honestly... how is it that nobody in America thinks we need actual regulations in place? We really need to figure out how to stop these bullies from using their positions in society to harass people under the guise of "treating" homosexuality. It’s just wrong that they can abuse their authority like that without any oversight.
Do you really think people who get locked up and "treated" in those places should be expected to just find their own way out? I mean, we’re talking about psychiatric wards—basically prisons under a different name. Where exactly were they keeping that young girl while they tried to "cure" her of being gay? It's hard to imagine someone finding an exit when they're held in a place like that.
I mean, seriously... where exactly was the oversight in all of this?
From what I can tell, it seems like psychologists around here only head off to supervision when they feel like they have some extra cash lying around—you know, basically whenever they decide it’s actually worth parting with their own money.
....
I’ve never actually sat on a therapist's couch myself... but I have plenty of friends and acquaintances who hold their master's and doctor degrees in psychology. I also know quite a few people who are currently in therapy. Honestly, after hearing about the sheer volume of issues people deal with, it’s hard to wrap my head around the fact that there isn't more oversight in place. You'd think there would be stricter regulations governing the practice, especially when it comes to ensuring patients have a right to know exactly who is sitting across from them providing that care.

Maybe I didn't mean everything I threw out there in that list... honestly, it was mostly just food for thought. A little bit of a provocation to get things moving... but, well...
Honestly, I couldn’t imagine ever stepping foot in a place run by someone who’s a religious fanatic, a racist, or stuck in that old-school patriarchal mindset. To me, those things just don't mesh with how I live my life. It’s hard to wrap my head around how anyone could hold those views while still claiming to respect basic human rights and how the world actually works today. It's just a total mismatch with my values.

I honestly don't think private psychotherapy is accessible to the average person here in the States. And let's be real—it’s definitely not cheap. It’s certainly not like dropping a few bucks at a local barbershop; it’s way more than that. For most people, the cost is just eye-watering, making it something only a small fraction of the population can actually afford. The way the system is set up feels pretty broken, too. The government basically covers a handful of sessions a year, but usually only for those who aren't even in the workforce. That’s such a tiny percentage of people. Everyone else is just left to figure it out on their own. Most people end up just heading to their primary care doctor, getting a prescription for some meds, and calling it a day. That’s really where the support ends.

What even counts as a mistake? Who gets to decide what a mistake is? What you call a blunder might actually be the solution for someone else, right?

....you can't tell me this is the same as a bad haircut. If a therapist sends a young woman back to an abusive husband she already moved out from—thinking she knows what she's doing—only for her to end up in the ER with injuries a few days later...

How the hell is he supposed to know she’ll end up in the ER? How can any therapist predict the outcome of any intervention they make? Ever heard of paradoxical intention in psychotherapy? Are you even familiar with systemic approaches, specifically the ones that focus on keeping families intact and finding ways to make them functional again? How do you know his move wasn't part of the process or some idea they arrived at together?

You're looking at this example through the lens of divorce and leaving a husband, refusing to see any other explanation. There are plenty of possibilities, but you won't admit them because you think you're right and the therapist isn't. And how do you even know this stuff? Were you actually in the session, or just listening to someone else recount it?

....or if a school psychologist (who also has a Master's) talks to a kid and learns they plan to kill themselves... and then the therapist scares them with God, hell, and sin, ignores them because of it, and the kid ends up dead...
....Is the kid at fault then? Should they have just pulled cash out of their own college fund and gone find another therapist?

What if the school psychologist scares a suicidal kid with God and hell, and since the kid was raised in a strict Christian household, they actually get scared enough to stay alive? Or what if the psychologist *doesn't* use that tactic, and the kid kills themselves because they were so religious that fear of hell was the only thing holding them back? What then? Doesn't that cross your mind?

No, it doesn't, because you're being one-sided just to prove your point... Is there some magic way a therapist is supposed to know everything about a client instantly? Because if there were, there wouldn't be any room for actual exploration in therapy.

From what I see with people on these forums, they explore themselves alongside the therapist. Whether the questions or the direction of the sessions are "good" or not, that's why you keep exploring...

And since you're bringing up suicide, how much do you actually know about suicide in psychotherapy? Pick up a textbook on ethical issues in psych, read the section on suicide, and then come back with these conclusions. You'd see the impossible position it puts therapists in.

Quincy:

Seriously... how is nobody in America calling for actual regulations here? We need laws to stop these predators from abusing their positions in society just to "treat" gay people. It's straight-up harassment and it needs to be shut down.

Everyone thinks that way, but the people actually calling the shots? They're all on the same page. Our society is nowhere near where it needs to be. It’s a mess.

Quincy:

You seriously think those people locked up in "treatment centers" were just gonna find their own way out of those psych wards? Please. And where exactly were they keeping that young girl while they tried to "cure" her of being gay? Give me a break.

They had her locked up in a psych ward. Look, you're free to suggest how we stop this and actually punish the doctors responsible. Give me something concrete. I want exact solutions.

Quincy:

Where was the oversight in all this? Seriously. As far as I know, these psychologists only go for supervision when they feel like blowing cash. Basically, they only pay up when they decide they actually need to.

Supervision isn't some forced requirement—it’s usually driven by how much a therapist actually gives a damn about their work. In my experience, the pros who are actually serious about growing and leveling up are the ones constantly hunting for it. Meanwhile, the hacks? They won't touch it because they think they've already got it all figured out.

Quincy:

I’ve never personally sat on a therapist's couch, but I know plenty of people who have—including friends with actual Master's and Doctoral degrees in psychology. I also know tons of people currently in therapy. Honestly, after hearing about all the issues out there, it blows my mind that there isn't more regulation in this field. Patients deserve to actually know who they're dealing with when they hand over their money.

Nobody's forcing him to sit through therapy with someone who won't even open up. 🙂

Quincy:

I wouldn't be caught dead stepping foot in the house of anyone who's a religious fanatic, a racist, or some patriarchal dinosaur. Those things just don't mesh with how I live my life or how I see basic human rights. Period.

Me neither.

Quincy:

Look, private therapy isn't exactly accessible to the average person here in the States. I don't buy the idea that it's cheap enough to be like a trip to the barber. It’s insanely expensive around here. Most people just can't swing it. Plus, the government only covers a handful of sessions a year, and even then, it's mostly for people who aren't even in the workforce—which is a tiny fraction of the population. Everyone else is basically on their own. You go to your GP, they hand you some pills, and that's the end of it.

Everything's overpriced here, but you see how fast people dig up cash when their backs are against the wall. Anyway, this whole debate about psychotherapy rates is getting old, and I’m just not in the mood to deal with it.

When I lost mine, the cops just told me to hang tight while they looked into it and then they'd get back to me 🤷

goldenscout14 said:My take? They have to pass the same rigorous board exams and earn their licenses just like everyone else. No one is born with that level of expertise; it’s something you have to actually work for and acquire through years of study.

I’m talking about how this actually works on the ground, not just some theoretical way they 🙂 I tried looking for an actual training program or a list of what they can actually do, but I can't find anything... it's all too vague for me to wrap my head around...

So, about that barber guy who keeps twisting my words...

Look, a psychotherapist is just a pro. Just like a plumber, a surgeon, a chef, a teacher, or a contractor. We’re the clients. We pay the bills, and if we aren't feeling it, we move on. If I don't like a guy, it doesn't mean he sucks—it just means he wasn't for me. Someone else might think he's great. It's that simple.

Take this for example: three years ago, I messed up my head and went to see a neurologist. I wasn't happy with her because I felt like I had to basically tell her how to do her job just to see any progress. So, I walked out and found someone else. End of story. Some people love her, but she didn't click with me and I didn't feel like she could actually help. Same thing would've happened if I'd gone to a private clinic and paid out of pocket—if the service isn't worth the price tag, you leave and find a better deal elsewhere.

The point isn't about the specific job title; it's about how professional services work in general.

Michelle Evans said:Therapy is a deeply serious undertaking, both for the therapist and the client alike.

It seems like many people on this thread—including those who have been on both sides of the couch—are still stuck on the idea that therapists need to be flawless. There’s this notion that they should be perfect not just in the office, but in their private lives too, as if being human would somehow compromise their ability to work. But I know plenty of professionals who function incredibly well precisely because they aren't perfect; they admit they're constantly working on themselves, just like anyone else...

As for the billing aspect... I haven't noticed anyone else being judged for working for a paycheck or having a career that pays the bills.

....maybe it's unrealistic to expect more....but can someone tell me if you're truly okay with seeing a psychotherapist who does nothing more than take your money......

That’s why you start with an initial consultation. You lay out your concerns, learn how the process works, discuss what you expect from them, and what they expect from you. From there, you both decide if it's a good fit to move forward together.

Exactly. And nobody even bothers to mention one of the biggest rules for keeping a therapist sane: don't be a therapist 24/7. You need to step away from the job during your free time and actually live your life like a normal person...

From where I'm sitting, this whole discussion is heading toward a place where therapists aren't allowed to be human beings outside of their sessions...

It honestly fascinates me how people will tolerate some jerk acting like an idiot once he takes off his tie, but they expect mental health pros to maintain perfect professional behavior 24/7...

And regarding the billing... I haven't noticed anyone else being expected to work for free or pretend their job isn't their livelihood.

I think the real issue here is just pure frustration over prices. Hardly anyone understands the massive grind it takes to become a therapist, the cost of training, the endless continuing education, and just how hard the work actually is. But the ones complaining the loudest are usually the same people spending $133 on makeup or $833 on shoes, or taking out loans just to go on a ski trip, etc.

That’s why you do an intake interview at the start of therapy. You lay out the problem, get the lowdown on how the process works, what you want from them, and what they expect from you. Then, both sides decide if they actually want to work together.

And that’s all there is to it.🙂

Rebecca Scott3 said:...honestly, if a psychologist or therapist claims that therapy is exactly the same thing as getting a haircut (where if you're unhappy, you just walk away and move on without consequence), then they're being a total fraud. Because if those two things are truly comparable, then that therapist isn't providing any real service other than acting as a trendy way to drain someone's bank account... they're basically just a luxury item for making money...
....I've always believed that a therapist should be doing much more serious work than that......to be fair, almost every psychologist I've met so far....except for one guy.....seemed to be at that level of just trying to pad their own pockets.....granted, I haven't been a patient of theirs, we were just friends......but I don't buy into the "expertise" of therapy if the person behind it lacks the basic personality traits to be stable, mature, and genuinely driven to help others rather than trying to dominate or manipulate them......

...Look, I'm not saying a therapist needs to be perfect......but should they really be a racist, a sexist, a patriarchal manipulator... an egoist, or a narcissist?
....Maybe that's asking too much, I guess. But can someone please tell me if you're honestly okay with a person seeking out a psychotherapist for help, only to have that person do nothing but take their money...
I mean... maybe that's fine with you guys... but it isn't for me. Because if that's the case, it means the whole profession is just smoke and mirrors... that there's absolutely nothing behind it... nothing meant to actually help the person...
.....If that's true, then a hair stylist is actually better... or at least cheaper... by anywhere from three to fifteen times. I mean, a haircut might cost $20 at some places and $80 at the really good ones... but you aren't paying $250 at just any salon... unless you're hitting up some high-end Hollywood spot...

You’re gonna stay stuck like this until you actually start reading what people write instead of just looking for everyone to agree with you...

Most of your points have already been shut down with solid arguments (go read driftinggull21 again) and clear explanations, but you just keep circling back to the same tired ideas without ever budging...

Kyle Lee7 said:I completely agree with you. I have nothing against someone practicing if they are truly qualified, but there has to be a set of criteria, specific prerequisites, and an authoritative governing body that officially certifies someone as a therapist. There also needs to be some level of oversight.

As things stand, you see people just deciding one day to write "I am a psychotherapist." We’ve even seen posts claiming, "I cured someone of psychosis and several other disorders after everyone else gave up on them." It’s the same kind of thing you see with those self-proclaimed miracle workers peddling snake oil. That's my take on it.

Look, you have to distinguish between saying "I cured them" and actually working with someone who seemed impossible to help. I can't stand it when clients thank me for "curing" them, "saving" them, or "rebirthing" them. I always use the bridge metaphor: therapists just build the bridge, but the clients are the ones with the guts to walk across it—plus they're the ones providing the materials to build it.

But hardly anyone gets that. It's something I'm still wrestling with... I don't know why I have such a hard time accepting that the success rests on my shoulders, or why it bugs me that people struggle to realize the success is primarily theirs. But that's a whole different conversation.

As for getting results with "lost causes," I don't get how you lump that in with self-proclaimed miracle workers. If you'd actually read the massive amount of professional literature mentioned here on the forum, you'd see plenty of famous cases regarding the miraculous recovery of "lost causes" that people always bring up—like Ericsson and George, or Linder and Kirk. There's a clear pattern where the cause of these successes is always unconventionality, and the experiences shared on this forum point directly to that issue within modern therapy.

driftinggull21 said:

Essentially, what you’re describing will become reality if the proposed psychotherapy legislation passes. The current Secretary is pushing to define psychotherapy strictly as medical treatment. Until then, we remain stuck in this legal gray area where the wording is open to interpretation, which explains the current chaos.

That would be absolute madness. If they managed to push through the regulations for MPOs, I wouldn't be surprised if they forced this nonsense through as well.

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.

mistymason1 said:Uh! Great topic. But pretty hard to reach a conclusion. Maybe redharbor9 will correct me, but I suspect that with psychodynamic approaches, you actually need to know as little as possible. At least at the start. As for whether they *should* know or not, it’s not really a simple answer.

Heh, a clash of beliefs is obvious enough; the choice is clear. Either they can accept it or they can't. But what about countertransference that the therapist fails to recognize?

There is no undisputed or clear etiology for either homosexuality or pedophilia. There are correlations and various hypotheses, but nothing is definitively proven. So, your stance that things are as you described is really just another belief, unsupported by anything other than prejudice (that's just how it is; there's no scientific proof).

Exactly. It’s a complicated mess. But at the end of the day, I guess no therapist should ever be crossing that line, regardless of what they think. Professional or otherwise.

Political correctness makes this a taboo subject nowadays, but it’s far from simple. Most gay people eventually face a conflict between their sexual orientation and the instinct to have children. Fifty years ago, there was no way to resolve that tension other than just pretending to be straight. Today, technically, you have options like IVF, egg donation, or surrogacy—but that doesn't change the fact that it remains a deep social and moral issue. Things used to be much more complicated than what today's quasi-liberal society tries to force on us through hypocritical political correctness.

Removing homosexuality from the DSM and the ICD isn't exactly without its controversies. As Beljki pointed out, it’s more of a consensus than some kind of definitive scientific discovery, since we still don't really know the causes behind homosexuality. I guess.

I wouldn't be surprised if most psychodynamic practitioners still view homosexuality as a sexual deviation. Technically speaking, that’s where it sits—specifically regarding homosexuality rather than bisexuality—within that same diagnostic category used for pedophilia. I guess it's just how the classifications work.

And what about "learned" biases?

I get the feeling most psychodynamic therapists still view it as a disorder, even if they don't say it out loud. Is that how you see it too? And what happens when there's a conflict between sexual drive and the drive for reproduction? Doesn't the solution usually just end up aligning with the therapist's own personal—or maybe even moral—convictions?

The rule of thumb is not to overthink it. That's why in classic psychoanalysis, the client just lies on the couch while the therapist sits off to the side so they don't even see them... but in the real world, it mostly just comes down to the therapist's own personality...

Heh, the clash of beliefs is obvious right away, so that part is clear. They either can accept it or they can't. But what about countertransference that the therapist fails to catch?

And the same goes for everything else a therapist misses... nobody is perfect and nobody has this flawless ability to spot everything and deal with it... therapy is just a process of two people learning together....

mistymason1 said:Uh! Great topic. But pretty hard to reach a conclusion. Maybe redharbor9 will correct me, but I suspect that with psychodynamic approaches, you actually need to know as little as possible. At least at the start. As for whether they *should* know or not, it’s not really a simple answer.

Heh, a clash of beliefs is obvious enough; the choice is clear. Either they can accept it or they can't. But what about countertransference that the therapist fails to recognize?

There is no undisputed or clear etiology for either homosexuality or pedophilia. There are correlations and various hypotheses, but nothing is definitively proven. So, your stance that things are as you described is really just another belief, unsupported by anything other than prejudice (that's just how it is; there's no scientific proof).

Exactly. It’s a complicated mess. But at the end of the day, I guess no therapist should ever be crossing that line, regardless of what they think. Professional or otherwise.

Political correctness makes this a taboo subject nowadays, but it’s far from simple. Most gay people eventually face a conflict between their sexual orientation and the instinct to have children. Fifty years ago, there was no way to resolve that tension other than just pretending to be straight. Today, technically, you have options like IVF, egg donation, or surrogacy—but that doesn't change the fact that it remains a deep social and moral issue. Things used to be much more complicated than what today's quasi-liberal society tries to force on us through hypocritical political correctness.

Removing homosexuality from the DSM and the ICD isn't exactly without its controversies. As Beljki pointed out, it’s more of a consensus than some kind of definitive scientific discovery, since we still don't really know the causes behind homosexuality. I guess.

I wouldn't be surprised if most psychodynamic practitioners still view homosexuality as a sexual deviation. Technically speaking, that’s where it sits—specifically regarding homosexuality rather than bisexuality—within that same diagnostic category used for pedophilia. I guess it's just how the classifications work.

And what about "learned" biases?

I get the feeling most psychodynamic therapists still view it as a disorder, even if they don't say it out loud. Is that how you see it too? And what happens when there's a conflict between sexual drive and the drive for reproduction? Doesn't the solution usually just end up aligning with the therapist's own personal—or maybe even moral—convictions?

My take? It’s got nothing to do with which school of thought you follow...

And what happens when there's a clash between sexual drive and the urge to reproduce? Isn't the answer always just based on the therapist's own personal beliefs? Or even their morals?

That assumes things are way too linear. Like, "client has a problem, therapist has the fix." Sure, people do that in therapy sometimes, but it's definitely not the rule...

In a spot like that, you gotta dig into the options with the client. It doesn't have to be one way or the other. There's always a gray area, or you can just dive into their emotions and desires until they see things differently. That's how it works.

driftinggull21 said:

I wouldn't be surprised if most psychodynamic practitioners still classify homosexuality as a sexual deviation—which, strictly speaking, it is (referring specifically to homosexuality rather than bisexuality); thus placing it within the same diagnostic category (F.65) as pedophilia.

Roughly 90% of psychiatrists consider homosexuality to be a disorder.
Source: unofficial office chatter.

And one certainly cannot argue that 9 out of 10 psychiatrists are failing at their profession.

I think this is a perfect example of why this whole debate just goes in circles... Just because one trait exists doesn't mean it wipes out an entire set of skills or professional competence...

I know therapists who view homosexuality as an illness, but when they’re actually working with gay clients, they don't bring it up or try to "fix" them—they just accept their orientation. There's a gray area here...

People here are obsessed with this nonsense idea that therapists have to be perfect, and even more ridiculous is the thought that they need to make sure a client is satisfied right out of the gate. driftinggull21 made a decent point with the barber analogy... you go, you aren't happy, you don't go back. Should a barber have to hire a model to demonstrate his skills before he touches your hair just so you don't walk away unhappy? It’s not about the money, but with a therapist...

This is that classic case of having totally unrealistic expectations for psychotherapy...