Do a therapist's personal beliefs actually matter?

Do you think patients should actually know what their psychologist’s—or psychiatrist’s—core beliefs are before they commit to therapy?

....I’ve just been sitting here thinking.....how is a therapist with deep-seated patriarchal views ever going to truly grasp the frustrations and the sheer pressure a woman feels—someone who wasn't even raised with those old-school values—when she's dealing with a husband or a boss who lives by them?......

....or how is a psychologist who holds homophobic views supposed to connect with the struggles of a gay man.......or a lesbian?.....

....and then there's the issue of a racist therapist; if a person of color walks into their office, how can that doctor actually understand or help them when they're secretly harboring the belief that they deserve to suffer in the first place?......

....or even an ultra-nationalist therapist... how could they possibly offer real support to someone from a background or a nation that they personally despise or look down upon?.....

.....what's your take on this?.....
.....what kind of information should a client have a right to know about their therapist before they ever step foot in that office?.....

That is an excellent question, and it is one I have found myself contemplating quite deeply of late.

I can recall two specific instances where professionals—in one case a psychiatrist and in the other a psychologist—manifestly allowed their personal convictions to bleed into their practice, thereby severely undermining the trust their patients placed in their clinical expertise.

1. A close friend of mine, who is gay, sought help from a psychiatrist to manage panic attacks following a harrowing traumatic event involving two heterosexual men (I shall refrain from the specifics out of respect for his privacy).
The psychiatrist’s office was decorated with a massive crucifix on the wall, and he himself wore a similar one around his neck. It was painfully apparent that the doctor was attempting to steer the conversation away from any mention of homosexuality; whenever my friend brought it up, the psychiatrist would offer this pointed, heavy glance toward the crucifix on the wall and then back at him. Just when my friend began to wonder if he was hallucinating—feeling as though the doctor was uncomfortable discussing these matters "in front of Jesus" ( 🤣)—the psychiatrist abruptly cut him off, stating, "We aren't here to discuss your beliefs or your orientation, merely the trauma. Here, take these pills..." and after handing over the prescription, he effectively ended the session and sent him on his way.

2. An acquaintance of mine consulted a therapist to address debilitating jealousy, specifically regarding his inability to tolerate his girlfriend interacting with other men. During one session, the therapist requested—or perhaps simply permitted—that the girlfriend (whom I know well; she is perfectly lovely and by no means flirtatious, just naturally attractive) sit in on part of the discussion. Once they had asked her to leave, the therapist turned to my acquaintance and remarked, "I see exactly what the issue is. Honestly, even I would find a woman like that bothersome, and I certainly understand why her behavior upsets you. One must uphold traditional family values... yada, yada..."

So, where does that leave us?

To what degree of open-mindedness should a person be held when they possess the authority to serve as someone's psychotherapist?

If you ask me, such professionals ought to maintain a perfect distance from their own biases, focusing instead on the wholeness of the individual. They should accept the patient exactly as they are and use that acceptance as the foundation for delving into the core of the issue, but I suppose that is easier said than done.

Whenever I reflect on these dilemmas, I am reminded of that film where youth is wasted on the young, specifically the scene where Uma Thurman goes to see Meryl Streep for therapy. She discusses a wonderful younger man she has met, and the therapist appears supportive and delighted for her, until the chilling realization strikes that the young man is actually her own son, whom she had been raising for a certain young Jewish girl. 😁

Shouldn't psychotherapists and psychoanalysts be required to undergo some kind of rigorous internal audit before they even think about touching a patient?
I honestly feel like this topic just proves my point—a huge chunk of future medical professionals end up choosing psychiatry because they’re basically stuck in their own rigid, narrow-minded ways. But then, once they get that degree in hand, does all that baggage just magically vanish?

Look, at the end of the day, a therapist is just a human being. No amount of schooling or fancy degrees makes you immune to everything. What matters is developing self-awareness about your own limits and actually respecting them. A pro should know when to call it quits or refer someone out if they realize they can't handle it.

Clashes over beliefs happen all the time in therapy. It’s on the therapist to figure out if those views are getting in the way and then deal with it the right way.

I was doing a counseling session recently with someone who thinks cannabis is this massive hard drug, even though they're actually a heavy user themselves. I have totally different views on it, but honestly, it didn't bother me one bit. While we were talking through their issue, I pointed out some gray areas and corrected some misinformation they had, but I didn't push it any further than what was necessary for the work. I don't care about winning an argument. Meanwhile, I have a colleague who can't pull that off. That subject is such a landmine for them that they wouldn't even work with someone holding those views, so they just distance themselves beforehand to stay safe.

Issues regarding personal morals come up constantly when you're working with criminals—pedophiles, abusers, murderers, you name it. Back in grad school, we used to debate whether we could actually work with people like that, and it was wild seeing how much we differed. One female colleague would work with anyone except a pedophile; I personally couldn't stand skinheads; others wouldn't touch anyone with a criminal record. It always comes back to knowing your own boundaries and sticking to them. You aren't bulletproof against someone else's personality.

crimsoncanyon2 said:Shouldn't psychotherapists and psychoanalysts be required to undergo some kind of rigorous internal audit before they even think about touching a patient?
I honestly feel like this topic just proves my point—a huge chunk of future medical professionals end up choosing psychiatry because they’re basically stuck in their own rigid, narrow-minded ways. But then, once they get that degree in hand, does all that baggage just magically vanish?

They certainly should, though I can't say for sure if everyone needs it or how long it takes... my understanding is that psychotherapists should undergo their own personal psychoanalysis for about four years during their training (at least, that’s what I heard from a psychiatrist who doesn't practice psychoanalysis herself, but was required to complete a four-year psychoanalytic program)...
As for psychologists—I don't believe they are strictly required to, as I haven't come across many cases where they have their own therapy... though they might engage in some form of supervision...

And regarding psychiatrists being people with their own biases... 🤷 well, they certainly are... and it's true that some may be dealing with their own issues... that's just a fact...

Which is why some people say that—ultimately, it is the therapist's own personality that does most of the healing. 😁
So, isn't it wise to be very careful when choosing someone to guide you through such a delicate process as psychotherapy? 😍

Here is how you can tell if your therapist is truly the right fit for you;


Your first psychotherapy session

During that initial therapeutic hour, the therapist gathers essential information about the individual seeking help. The consultation usually begins by collecting basic data regarding previous physical and mental health history, followed by a series of questions designed to get a sense of the reasons and motivations behind the person's decision to seek therapy.

This helps the psychotherapist gain a deeper understanding of the situation facing the person—whether they are looking to resolve specific issues through psychological means or hoping to ensure new emotional growth and development through the therapeutic relationship. That first encounter is also a vital opportunity for the client to evaluate the therapist's methodology and personality, gauging whether the fundamental conditions for a collaborative therapeutic relationship actually exist. Sometimes, it might take a few sessions to make that assessment. It is quite important, therefore, to discover which specific psychotherapeutic technique the practitioner employs, and equally important to determine which approach feels most acceptable to the person seeking care.

It is best to discuss primary goals and what you hope to achieve through therapy during that very first meeting. Please feel free to ask your therapist any other questions you might have, such as the expected duration of treatment, how frequently sessions occur, how long each session lasts, or anything else on your mind. If you don't feel comfortable with the therapist, or if you sense inconsistencies that prevent you from doing your best work with them, please feel free to look for someone who is a better match. Occasionally, it takes a few meetings before either you or your therapist reaches that conclusion. Once therapy officially commences, consistency in attendance is necessary, with frequency varying based on your established goals and the specific therapeutic technique used. In any case, for anyone wishing to grow and evolve psychologically, emotionally, and in every other sense, psychotherapy is a wonderful choice.

Mario Mikulan

Source:
http://www.regionalni.com/lifestyle/...-psihoterapiji

Terry Grant2 said:They certainly should, though I can't say for sure if everyone needs it or how long it takes... my understanding is that psychotherapists should undergo their own personal psychoanalysis for about four years during their training (at least, that’s what I heard from a psychiatrist who doesn't practice psychoanalysis herself, but was required to complete a four-year psychoanalytic program)...
As for psychologists—I don't believe they are strictly required to, as I haven't come across many cases where they have their own therapy... though they might engage in some form of supervision...

And regarding psychiatrists being people with their own biases... 🤷 well, they certainly are... and it's true that some may be dealing with their own issues... that's just a fact...

Which is why some people say that—ultimately, it is the therapist's own personality that does most of the healing. 😁
So, isn't it wise to be very careful when choosing someone to guide you through such a delicate process as psychotherapy? 😍

Here is how you can tell if your therapist is truly the right fit for you;


Your first psychotherapy session

During that initial therapeutic hour, the therapist gathers essential information about the individual seeking help. The consultation usually begins by collecting basic data regarding previous physical and mental health history, followed by a series of questions designed to get a sense of the reasons and motivations behind the person's decision to seek therapy.

This helps the psychotherapist gain a deeper understanding of the situation facing the person—whether they are looking to resolve specific issues through psychological means or hoping to ensure new emotional growth and development through the therapeutic relationship. That first encounter is also a vital opportunity for the client to evaluate the therapist's methodology and personality, gauging whether the fundamental conditions for a collaborative therapeutic relationship actually exist. Sometimes, it might take a few sessions to make that assessment. It is quite important, therefore, to discover which specific psychotherapeutic technique the practitioner employs, and equally important to determine which approach feels most acceptable to the person seeking care.

It is best to discuss primary goals and what you hope to achieve through therapy during that very first meeting. Please feel free to ask your therapist any other questions you might have, such as the expected duration of treatment, how frequently sessions occur, how long each session lasts, or anything else on your mind. If you don't feel comfortable with the therapist, or if you sense inconsistencies that prevent you from doing your best work with them, please feel free to look for someone who is a better match. Occasionally, it takes a few meetings before either you or your therapist reaches that conclusion. Once therapy officially commences, consistency in attendance is necessary, with frequency varying based on your established goals and the specific therapeutic technique used. In any case, for anyone wishing to grow and evolve psychologically, emotionally, and in every other sense, psychotherapy is a wonderful choice.

Mario Mikulan

Source:
http://www.regionalni.com/lifestyle/...-psihoterapiji

Nah, only analytical therapists actually undergo psychoanalysis...

Quentin Tarantino:

Psychologists—I don't think they need it. I've never even heard of them having their own therapy... maybe some supervision, but that's it...

That has nothing to do with the profession itself. It's about the specific type of psychotherapy they're trained in... everyone hits the same requirements to get their degree... some programs make personal therapy mandatory, some don't, some make it optional...

Quentin Tarantino:

That's why people say the therapist's own personality is what does most of the healing. 😁

I also heard a solid concept recently: that a therapist heals themselves too... basically by learning something new from every single client, which helps them evolve into a more complete person along the way...

redharbor9 said:Nah, only analytical therapists actually undergo psychoanalysis...

Quentin Tarantino:

Psychologists—I don't think they need it. I've never even heard of them having their own therapy... maybe some supervision, but that's it...

That has nothing to do with the profession itself. It's about the specific type of psychotherapy they're trained in... everyone hits the same requirements to get their degree... some programs make personal therapy mandatory, some don't, some make it optional...

Quentin Tarantino:

That's why people say the therapist's own personality is what does most of the healing. 😁

I also heard a solid concept recently: that a therapist heals themselves too... basically by learning something new from every single client, which helps them evolve into a more complete person along the way...

That’s definitely going to be a much tougher climb than just getting through one's own personal psychotherapy or psychoanalysis...

I mean, I’m guessing it all really just boils down to how good the psychologist actually is, you know? It’s totally inevitable that any therapist is going to bring their own set of biases and personal beliefs to the table, but the whole point is whether they can step back enough to look at the patient's views objectively and see how those beliefs actually mesh with their overall character.

I’m not entirely convinced how much a therapist's own journey through therapy actually matters here. When you're dealing with topics like substance use, sexuality, or even more controversial issues, a lot of it is subjective and constantly shifting. It isn't really about labeling things as right or wrong—it's more about whether those things create internal conflict for the individual.

The goal is really just finding the right fit with the right professional. Though, even that's a bit complicated. For instance, imagine someone has a specific trait X and a problem Y. They want to fix problem Y without changing trait X, so they look for a therapist who fully accepts X so they can feel safe. But what happens if problem Y is actually caused by trait X?

bluemason3 said:I’m not entirely convinced how much a therapist's own journey through therapy actually matters here. When you're dealing with topics like substance use, sexuality, or even more controversial issues, a lot of it is subjective and constantly shifting. It isn't really about labeling things as right or wrong—it's more about whether those things create internal conflict for the individual.

The goal is really just finding the right fit with the right professional. Though, even that's a bit complicated. For instance, imagine someone has a specific trait X and a problem Y. They want to fix problem Y without changing trait X, so they look for a therapist who fully accepts X so they can feel safe. But what happens if problem Y is actually caused by trait X?

If I may indulge in playing the "devil's advocate" for a brief moment:

- Pedophilia and drug abuse aren't merely issues that can be categorized as pathologies; they are technically criminal offenses under American law.

- Consequently, it feels logically inconsistent to group homosexuality within that same sequence. It isn't a disease, nor is it something that should—or even could, if we are speaking from a modern American perspective—be tossed into the same basket as the aforementioned behaviors.

From my perspective as a layperson, it makes sense that an expert in the human psyche would need to employ additional cognitive tools to view a pedophile or a criminal as a human being deserving of help, maintaining a certain degree of clinical distance and empathy despite the nature of the individual.

On the other hand, as a free citizen in this modern era, I believe I have the right to feel unsettled when psychology professionals allow their own biases to interfere. When experts hold prejudices against things that clash with their upbringing or deeply ingrained convictions, they descend to a level of judgment they simply shouldn't reach—namely, the level of conservative bias.

Forgive me, but it is quite difficult for me to respect someone as a major scientific authority in psychology or psychiatry when I see them visibly uncomfortable—perhaps staring at the ceiling while a gay man shares his life experiences (even having to interrupt him to stop the discomfort)—or when they label a woman as "promiscuous" based solely on her attractive appearance, telling a patient that she "really does seem promiscuous and isn't marriage material." (I am referring to the two specific examples I mentioned earlier).

A high degree of openness, an acceptance of differences, an understanding of personal choices, and above all, a total ABSENCE of discrimination are, in my view, absolute "must-haves" for anyone intending to successfully assist people in this field.

There was a period when I used to see this psychiatrist whose primary therapeutic technique involved pulling out an acoustic guitar at some point and insisting that I sing along while he played

The first time it happened, I actually found it amusing—I figured it was some unconventional diagnostic tool, perhaps testing my emotional response or something similar... however, it turned out to be his standard routine. It was quite an exhausting ordeal; the man simply wouldn't relent, and I eventually realized he does this to everyone—literally, it's just his "method"

I won't mention his name, nor will I say which hospital or clinic he’s affiliated with in the States

His go-to response whenever I tried to describe the various struggles and mental states I was navigating was some tired variation of the phrase—everything will fall into place once you find love...

Frankly, I have no idea what his actual professional philosophy is

placidwolf27 said:There was a period when I used to see this psychiatrist whose primary therapeutic technique involved pulling out an acoustic guitar at some point and insisting that I sing along while he played

The first time it happened, I actually found it amusing—I figured it was some unconventional diagnostic tool, perhaps testing my emotional response or something similar... however, it turned out to be his standard routine. It was quite an exhausting ordeal; the man simply wouldn't relent, and I eventually realized he does this to everyone—literally, it's just his "method"

I won't mention his name, nor will I say which hospital or clinic he’s affiliated with in the States

His go-to response whenever I tried to describe the various struggles and mental states I was navigating was some tired variation of the phrase—everything will fall into place once you find love...

Frankly, I have no idea what his actual professional philosophy is

🤣

Is this some kind of musical therapy?
Just hippie nonsense? Love, music, love—give me a break.😁

Quincy:

Dennis Jackson38 Asks: Pedophilia and drug abuse aren't just clinical pathologies; they are serious criminal offenses under the law.

Looking back at history, our attitude toward both of these things has been incredibly inconsistent. Honestly, I’m not even sure if we’ve managed to shake off the influence of social context today—or if that's even something we can actually achieve.

Quincy:

To be honest, I don't think it makes sense to group homosexuality into that logical sequence. It isn't a disease, nor should it even be remotely considered one—not if we're looking at things from a modern perspective. It doesn't belong in the same category as the issues mentioned above.

But honestly, everything I just said applies here too.

Quincy:

As a layman, I get it. If you’re an expert in the social sciences and health professions, you have to pull in some extra tools to stay objective. You need that mental distance and a healthy dose of empathy just to look at a predator or a criminal and see them as a human being worthy of help.

That’s true, but people aren't robots in the real world, so that isn't always going to be possible. The real question is where we draw the line on what's considered problematic or even a disorder. Some might argue that homosexuality needs treatment; we've seen actual examples of that from some of our most prominent psychiatrists mentioned here on the forum. 😁 Let’s say you have one therapist who views homosexuality as an illness—something that needs to be "cured" because they see it as a fundamental problem. Then you have another who holds the exact opposite view. Obviously, those two approaches are going to lead to completely different therapeutic outcomes.

Quincy:

On the other hand, as a free agent in the modern world, I should be allowed to call out professionals in the social sciences and health professions when they let their own biases get in the way. It’s frustrating when people who are supposed to be objective let deeply ingrained, conservative prejudices cloud their judgment and drag them down to a level they really shouldn't be operating at. Look, I find it hard to respect someone claiming to be a major authority in the social sciences and health professions when they act like this. You have one instance where they look visibly uncomfortable, staring at the ceiling while a gay man tries to share his experiences, eventually having to ask him to just stop talking. Then there’s the case where they label a woman promiscuous based on nothing more than her looks, telling a patient that she "really does seem promiscuous" and isn't "marriage material." It’s hard to take that kind of behavior seriously.

That assumes mainstream beliefs are some kind of universal truth, but they aren't. They’re just illusions—subjective views held by different social groups that shift constantly. This isn't classical physics; there are no exact formulas or absolute certainties here. I don't buy into the idea of total objectivity either. We're all limited by our own perspectives.

Quincy:

For anyone planning to work in this field, I need to see a high level of openness, an acceptance of differences, and a genuine respect for people's choices. Most importantly, there absolutely cannot be any trace of discrimination. That’s non-negotiable for me.

I get that, but honestly? Someone who's seen the darkest sides of life might actually be better equipped to help a member of the Catholic Church than someone like me. 😁

bluemason3 said:I’m not entirely convinced how much a therapist's own journey through therapy actually matters here. When you're dealing with topics like substance use, sexuality, or even more controversial issues, a lot of it is subjective and constantly shifting. It isn't really about labeling things as right or wrong—it's more about whether those things create internal conflict for the individual.

The goal is really just finding the right fit with the right professional. Though, even that's a bit complicated. For instance, imagine someone has a specific trait X and a problem Y. They want to fix problem Y without changing trait X, so they look for a therapist who fully accepts X so they can feel safe. But what happens if problem Y is actually caused by trait X?

Look, you really have to face your own demons first if you ever hope to be in a position to help someone else—it’s absolutely vital that anyone entering the psychotherapy field takes the time to truly understand themselves first...

The real question is: how much does finishing therapy actually guarantee that a therapist has done the work on themselves? That they’ve actually faced their own baggage? Sadly, I've seen plenty of cases where people didn't move an inch, even after grinding through full analysis...

redharbor9 said:The real question is: how much does finishing therapy actually guarantee that a therapist has done the work on themselves? That they’ve actually faced their own baggage? Sadly, I've seen plenty of cases where people didn't move an inch, even after grinding through full analysis...

Well, if that's the case—it's definitely bad news...

bluemason3 said:Quincy:

Dennis Jackson38 Asks: Pedophilia and drug abuse aren't just clinical pathologies; they are serious criminal offenses under the law.

Looking back at history, our attitude toward both of these things has been incredibly inconsistent. Honestly, I’m not even sure if we’ve managed to shake off the influence of social context today—or if that's even something we can actually achieve.

Quincy:

To be honest, I don't think it makes sense to group homosexuality into that logical sequence. It isn't a disease, nor should it even be remotely considered one—not if we're looking at things from a modern perspective. It doesn't belong in the same category as the issues mentioned above.

But honestly, everything I just said applies here too.

Quincy:

As a layman, I get it. If you’re an expert in the social sciences and health professions, you have to pull in some extra tools to stay objective. You need that mental distance and a healthy dose of empathy just to look at a predator or a criminal and see them as a human being worthy of help.

That’s true, but people aren't robots in the real world, so that isn't always going to be possible. The real question is where we draw the line on what's considered problematic or even a disorder. Some might argue that homosexuality needs treatment; we've seen actual examples of that from some of our most prominent psychiatrists mentioned here on the forum. 😁 Let’s say you have one therapist who views homosexuality as an illness—something that needs to be "cured" because they see it as a fundamental problem. Then you have another who holds the exact opposite view. Obviously, those two approaches are going to lead to completely different therapeutic outcomes.

Quincy:

On the other hand, as a free agent in the modern world, I should be allowed to call out professionals in the social sciences and health professions when they let their own biases get in the way. It’s frustrating when people who are supposed to be objective let deeply ingrained, conservative prejudices cloud their judgment and drag them down to a level they really shouldn't be operating at. Look, I find it hard to respect someone claiming to be a major authority in the social sciences and health professions when they act like this. You have one instance where they look visibly uncomfortable, staring at the ceiling while a gay man tries to share his experiences, eventually having to ask him to just stop talking. Then there’s the case where they label a woman promiscuous based on nothing more than her looks, telling a patient that she "really does seem promiscuous" and isn't "marriage material." It’s hard to take that kind of behavior seriously.

That assumes mainstream beliefs are some kind of universal truth, but they aren't. They’re just illusions—subjective views held by different social groups that shift constantly. This isn't classical physics; there are no exact formulas or absolute certainties here. I don't buy into the idea of total objectivity either. We're all limited by our own perspectives.

Quincy:

For anyone planning to work in this field, I need to see a high level of openness, an acceptance of differences, and a genuine respect for people's choices. Most importantly, there absolutely cannot be any trace of discrimination. That’s non-negotiable for me.

I get that, but honestly? Someone who's seen the darkest sides of life might actually be better equipped to help a member of the Catholic Church than someone like me. 😁

Are you referring to that same historical stretch where people insisted the Earth was a flat disc, thought leeches were the panacea for almost every ailment, or believed redheaded women were witches destined for the pyre? 😬

bluemason3 said:Quincy:

Dennis Jackson38 Asks: Pedophilia and drug abuse aren't just clinical pathologies; they are serious criminal offenses under the law.

Looking back at history, our attitude toward both of these things has been incredibly inconsistent. Honestly, I’m not even sure if we’ve managed to shake off the influence of social context today—or if that's even something we can actually achieve.

Quincy:

To be honest, I don't think it makes sense to group homosexuality into that logical sequence. It isn't a disease, nor should it even be remotely considered one—not if we're looking at things from a modern perspective. It doesn't belong in the same category as the issues mentioned above.

But honestly, everything I just said applies here too.

Quincy:

As a layman, I get it. If you’re an expert in the social sciences and health professions, you have to pull in some extra tools to stay objective. You need that mental distance and a healthy dose of empathy just to look at a predator or a criminal and see them as a human being worthy of help.

That’s true, but people aren't robots in the real world, so that isn't always going to be possible. The real question is where we draw the line on what's considered problematic or even a disorder. Some might argue that homosexuality needs treatment; we've seen actual examples of that from some of our most prominent psychiatrists mentioned here on the forum. 😁 Let’s say you have one therapist who views homosexuality as an illness—something that needs to be "cured" because they see it as a fundamental problem. Then you have another who holds the exact opposite view. Obviously, those two approaches are going to lead to completely different therapeutic outcomes.

Quincy:

On the other hand, as a free agent in the modern world, I should be allowed to call out professionals in the social sciences and health professions when they let their own biases get in the way. It’s frustrating when people who are supposed to be objective let deeply ingrained, conservative prejudices cloud their judgment and drag them down to a level they really shouldn't be operating at. Look, I find it hard to respect someone claiming to be a major authority in the social sciences and health professions when they act like this. You have one instance where they look visibly uncomfortable, staring at the ceiling while a gay man tries to share his experiences, eventually having to ask him to just stop talking. Then there’s the case where they label a woman promiscuous based on nothing more than her looks, telling a patient that she "really does seem promiscuous" and isn't "marriage material." It’s hard to take that kind of behavior seriously.

That assumes mainstream beliefs are some kind of universal truth, but they aren't. They’re just illusions—subjective views held by different social groups that shift constantly. This isn't classical physics; there are no exact formulas or absolute certainties here. I don't buy into the idea of total objectivity either. We're all limited by our own perspectives.

Quincy:

For anyone planning to work in this field, I need to see a high level of openness, an acceptance of differences, and a genuine respect for people's choices. Most importantly, there absolutely cannot be any trace of discrimination. That’s non-negotiable for me.

I get that, but honestly? Someone who's seen the darkest sides of life might actually be better equipped to help a member of the Catholic Church than someone like me. 😁

Upon further reflection, one could theoretically conceive of a brilliant robot designed to step into the role of a therapist—one capable of posing flawless logical inquiries and delivering impeccable logical responses and diagnoses. Why, then, would such a thing never succeed in the real world? Because a machine will never possess the single most vital element required to truly grasp the struggles of another human being: empathy.

bluemason3 said:Quincy:

Dennis Jackson38 Asks: Pedophilia and drug abuse aren't just clinical pathologies; they are serious criminal offenses under the law.

Looking back at history, our attitude toward both of these things has been incredibly inconsistent. Honestly, I’m not even sure if we’ve managed to shake off the influence of social context today—or if that's even something we can actually achieve.

Quincy:

To be honest, I don't think it makes sense to group homosexuality into that logical sequence. It isn't a disease, nor should it even be remotely considered one—not if we're looking at things from a modern perspective. It doesn't belong in the same category as the issues mentioned above.

But honestly, everything I just said applies here too.

Quincy:

As a layman, I get it. If you’re an expert in the social sciences and health professions, you have to pull in some extra tools to stay objective. You need that mental distance and a healthy dose of empathy just to look at a predator or a criminal and see them as a human being worthy of help.

That’s true, but people aren't robots in the real world, so that isn't always going to be possible. The real question is where we draw the line on what's considered problematic or even a disorder. Some might argue that homosexuality needs treatment; we've seen actual examples of that from some of our most prominent psychiatrists mentioned here on the forum. 😁 Let’s say you have one therapist who views homosexuality as an illness—something that needs to be "cured" because they see it as a fundamental problem. Then you have another who holds the exact opposite view. Obviously, those two approaches are going to lead to completely different therapeutic outcomes.

Quincy:

On the other hand, as a free agent in the modern world, I should be allowed to call out professionals in the social sciences and health professions when they let their own biases get in the way. It’s frustrating when people who are supposed to be objective let deeply ingrained, conservative prejudices cloud their judgment and drag them down to a level they really shouldn't be operating at. Look, I find it hard to respect someone claiming to be a major authority in the social sciences and health professions when they act like this. You have one instance where they look visibly uncomfortable, staring at the ceiling while a gay man tries to share his experiences, eventually having to ask him to just stop talking. Then there’s the case where they label a woman promiscuous based on nothing more than her looks, telling a patient that she "really does seem promiscuous" and isn't "marriage material." It’s hard to take that kind of behavior seriously.

That assumes mainstream beliefs are some kind of universal truth, but they aren't. They’re just illusions—subjective views held by different social groups that shift constantly. This isn't classical physics; there are no exact formulas or absolute certainties here. I don't buy into the idea of total objectivity either. We're all limited by our own perspectives.

Quincy:

For anyone planning to work in this field, I need to see a high level of openness, an acceptance of differences, and a genuine respect for people's choices. Most importantly, there absolutely cannot be any trace of discrimination. That’s non-negotiable for me.

I get that, but honestly? Someone who's seen the darkest sides of life might actually be better equipped to help a member of the Catholic Church than someone like me. 😁

Really? Seriousness? A therapist "views" it??? There hasn't been a "view" regarding this specific example since 1970. (I find it hard to believe that we still have to Wikipedia and copy-paste this stuff on this PDF 😁)

Since the 1970s, the consensus of the social sciences and health professions has moved to the belief that homosexuality is a normal variation of human sexual orientation, while there remain those who maintain that it is a disorder.[2] In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder.

Listen to this... "influence the therapy." The only thing it will influence is his loss of medical licensure, because he's busy declaring a homosexual person to be sick.
Now, remind me about that little girl they kept locked away just for being a lesbian... chills....

bluemason3 said:Quincy:

Dennis Jackson38 Asks: Pedophilia and drug abuse aren't just clinical pathologies; they are serious criminal offenses under the law.

Looking back at history, our attitude toward both of these things has been incredibly inconsistent. Honestly, I’m not even sure if we’ve managed to shake off the influence of social context today—or if that's even something we can actually achieve.

Quincy:

To be honest, I don't think it makes sense to group homosexuality into that logical sequence. It isn't a disease, nor should it even be remotely considered one—not if we're looking at things from a modern perspective. It doesn't belong in the same category as the issues mentioned above.

But honestly, everything I just said applies here too.

Quincy:

As a layman, I get it. If you’re an expert in the social sciences and health professions, you have to pull in some extra tools to stay objective. You need that mental distance and a healthy dose of empathy just to look at a predator or a criminal and see them as a human being worthy of help.

That’s true, but people aren't robots in the real world, so that isn't always going to be possible. The real question is where we draw the line on what's considered problematic or even a disorder. Some might argue that homosexuality needs treatment; we've seen actual examples of that from some of our most prominent psychiatrists mentioned here on the forum. 😁 Let’s say you have one therapist who views homosexuality as an illness—something that needs to be "cured" because they see it as a fundamental problem. Then you have another who holds the exact opposite view. Obviously, those two approaches are going to lead to completely different therapeutic outcomes.

Quincy:

On the other hand, as a free agent in the modern world, I should be allowed to call out professionals in the social sciences and health professions when they let their own biases get in the way. It’s frustrating when people who are supposed to be objective let deeply ingrained, conservative prejudices cloud their judgment and drag them down to a level they really shouldn't be operating at. Look, I find it hard to respect someone claiming to be a major authority in the social sciences and health professions when they act like this. You have one instance where they look visibly uncomfortable, staring at the ceiling while a gay man tries to share his experiences, eventually having to ask him to just stop talking. Then there’s the case where they label a woman promiscuous based on nothing more than her looks, telling a patient that she "really does seem promiscuous" and isn't "marriage material." It’s hard to take that kind of behavior seriously.

That assumes mainstream beliefs are some kind of universal truth, but they aren't. They’re just illusions—subjective views held by different social groups that shift constantly. This isn't classical physics; there are no exact formulas or absolute certainties here. I don't buy into the idea of total objectivity either. We're all limited by our own perspectives.

Quincy:

For anyone planning to work in this field, I need to see a high level of openness, an acceptance of differences, and a genuine respect for people's choices. Most importantly, there absolutely cannot be any trace of discrimination. That’s non-negotiable for me.

I get that, but honestly? Someone who's seen the darkest sides of life might actually be better equipped to help a member of the Catholic Church than someone like me. 😁

If I had to choose a personal motto to live by, it would be:

"Not doing more than the average is what keeps the average down"

In an effort to extract the philosophical core from this topic and steer the conversation back toward its intended course, I’ll attempt to refocus the point 😉

It is perfectly reasonable to expect those who have dedicated their lives to mental health to possess a higher degree of insight, openness, and freedom from the primitive biases found in whatever "mental mainstream" you are referring to.
I am certainly not suggesting they need to be superhuman, far from it; however, they shouldn't be using their credentials as an excuse to implant their own prejudices into patients who come to them in good faith—especially those dealing with more complex issues.

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.

Dennis Jackson38 said:Are you referring to that same historical stretch where people insisted the Earth was a flat disc, thought leeches were the panacea for almost every ailment, or believed redheaded women were witches destined for the pyre? 😬

Upon further reflection, one could theoretically conceive of a brilliant robot designed to step into the role of a therapist—one capable of posing flawless logical inquiries and delivering impeccable logical responses and diagnoses. Why, then, would such a thing never succeed in the real world? Because a machine will never possess the single most vital element required to truly grasp the struggles of another human being: empathy.

Really? Seriousness? A therapist "views" it??? There hasn't been a "view" regarding this specific example since 1970. (I find it hard to believe that we still have to Wikipedia and copy-paste this stuff on this PDF 😁)

Since the 1970s, the consensus of the social sciences and health professions has moved to the belief that homosexuality is a normal variation of human sexual orientation, while there remain those who maintain that it is a disorder.[2] In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder.

Listen to this... "influence the therapy." The only thing it will influence is his loss of medical licensure, because he's busy declaring a homosexual person to be sick.
Now, remind me about that little girl they kept locked away just for being a lesbian... chills....

If I had to choose a personal motto to live by, it would be:

"Not doing more than the average is what keeps the average down"

In an effort to extract the philosophical core from this topic and steer the conversation back toward its intended course, I’ll attempt to refocus the point 😉

It is perfectly reasonable to expect those who have dedicated their lives to mental health to possess a higher degree of insight, openness, and freedom from the primitive biases found in whatever "mental mainstream" you are referring to.
I am certainly not suggesting they need to be superhuman, far from it; however, they shouldn't be using their credentials as an excuse to implant their own prejudices into patients who come to them in good faith—especially those dealing with more complex issues.

Exactly... broad perspectives, zero prejudice, but above all, empathy—without that, the whole thing just falls apart. Thank goodness I actually have some...😉

Kyle Lee7 said: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.

Absolutely.🙂

I actually know a neuropsychiatrist who had to grind for years before he was finally allowed to practice as a psychotherapist. It wasn't even a choice; his supervisors simply wouldn't clear him because they didn't believe he was ready. Even after completing a massive, multi-year therapeutic process himself to pass that final "competency test," the point remained: no amount of prior education, specialization, money, or professional reputation matters if you haven't done the internal work. They wouldn't let him touch the profession until he was truly prepared.