Do a therapist's personal beliefs actually matter?

redharbor9 said:I bet they’d want a blood test next, and let's not forget about equipment size for the male therapists, obviously.😍

Kyle Lee7 said:I completely agree. This aligns perfectly with my own philosophy of what therapy and a therapist should ideally provide, and it’s also backed up by my own personal history—having gone through two separate therapeutic journeys myself.

I think I fall into that category of people who don't mind discovering bits and pieces about their therapist over time. In the beginning, knowing anything about them wasn't a priority for me—it wasn't even on my radar. What mattered most was simply finding someone I felt a connection with right out of the gate. To be honest, even now, I have no idea what their political views, religious beliefs, or other personal stances are, and frankly, I don't care. What really matters is how they show up for the work. They’ve proven to me that they aren't judging me based on my own values or trying to mold me to fit theirs; instead, they focus entirely on me as an individual and prioritize my actual well-being.

That being said, if any of them had started throwing around racist, homophobic, xenophobic, or misogynistic remarks—I’d have just turned on my heel and walked out right then and there. Even though those views wouldn't personally affect me, I simply have no interest in working with anyone who isn't open-minded.

placidwolf2 said:So here's my question: How is a mentally unstable client actually supposed to realistically assess a psychotherapist's values or level of openness?

For many therapists, if not most, intentionally provocative stances and creating friction can serve as a way to more quickly develop specific methods for handling certain clients. I know a colleague—a total authority and top-tier specialist in the US for specific disorders—who would say things like to his patients (even the less attractive 🙂 ones): "You're a total bombshell, what's wrong with your life?" Many experienced this as borderline workplace harassment and left immediately, even though I know for a fact he never crossed professional boundaries. Once many clients realized his method of working and his undeniable success rate—especially after being disappointed by other therapists—they tried to come back to him, but he simply couldn't take them anymore. Not because he didn't want to, but because he was just too busy.

I often hear from people deciding on therapy: "I clicked with my therapist right away." Or, "I didn't." But what does "clicking" even mean? You can "click" with the first new age guru you meet, a snake oil salesman, or some three-month graduate of a quasi-therapeutic course. But will they actually help us?

Recently, I briefly described how Schema therapy works regarding a certain personality disorder. Everyone was appalled and gave long-winded responses about how they'd never dream of trying "something like that." And yet, while Schema therapy shows success rates as high as 52% for that specific disorder, everyone would rather stick to psychoanalysis, spiritual healing, etc.—methods that have a success rate of zero percent for this condition—just because it's more comfortable. A terrifyingly large number of patients, when starting therapy, get the impression that their "ideal self" is far too distant from their "actual self," making everything feel futile, leading them to look for an excuse to quit (pre)emptively.

So, is psychotherapy merely serving as an excuse for many to claim their condition is unchangeable, just so they can preserve the status quo and a sense of relative comfort instead of truly wanting to change? Or am I mistaken?

fadedbear92 said:It really depends on how ill or unstable they are... a therapist has to find their own way to reach the client. It doesn't always happen during that first session—though I know people who bail immediately—but ideally, they should research how a specific type of practice works beforehand...
Quincy Jones:

For many therapists—if not most—intentionally provocative stances or creating "incidents" serve as a way to more quickly develop methods for handling specific clients.

Sure, that happens, but that doesn't mean that kind of approach is actually going to work for the client...

Quincy Jones:

I know a colleague—a total authority and top-tier expert here in the States for certain disorders—who would tell female clients (even those who weren't exactly his type 🙂) things like, "Well, you're a total bombshell, what else could you possibly need in life?" Many women felt this was basically workplace harassment and left immediately, even though I know for a fact he never actually crossed any lines.

To me, that’s already crossing a major line, unless you've known them through therapy for a very long time, of course...

Quincy Jones:

I usually hear from people deciding on therapy: "I just clicked with my therapist right away." Or they didn't. But what does it even mean to "click"? You can "click" with the first new age guru you meet, some snake oil salesman, or someone who took a three-month course in some quasi-therapeutic school. But will they actually help us?

Okay, so what’s your alternative? That everyone just follows a cookie-cutter manual?

Quincy Jones:

So, has psychotherapy served as nothing more than an excuse for many to claim their condition is unchangeable, just so they can maintain the status quo and their relative comfort, without truly wanting to change? Or am I wrong?

It all comes down to how much the therapist makes you aware of your own toxic patterns, and whether you're actually willing to admit they're wrong and fix them. And yeah, that takes a lot of time... there's no such thing as an instant fix, at least not in my book...

fadedbear92 said:It really depends on how ill or unstable they are... a therapist has to find their own way to reach the client. It doesn't always happen during that first session—though I know people who bail immediately—but ideally, they should research how a specific type of practice works beforehand...
Quincy Jones:

For many therapists—if not most—intentionally provocative stances or creating "incidents" serve as a way to more quickly develop methods for handling specific clients.

Sure, that happens, but that doesn't mean that kind of approach is actually going to work for the client...

Quincy Jones:

I know a colleague—a total authority and top-tier expert here in the States for certain disorders—who would tell female clients (even those who weren't exactly his type 🙂) things like, "Well, you're a total bombshell, what else could you possibly need in life?" Many women felt this was basically workplace harassment and left immediately, even though I know for a fact he never actually crossed any lines.

To me, that’s already crossing a major line, unless you've known them through therapy for a very long time, of course...

Quincy Jones:

I usually hear from people deciding on therapy: "I just clicked with my therapist right away." Or they didn't. But what does it even mean to "click"? You can "click" with the first new age guru you meet, some snake oil salesman, or someone who took a three-month course in some quasi-therapeutic school. But will they actually help us?

Okay, so what’s your alternative? That everyone just follows a cookie-cutter manual?

Quincy Jones:

So, has psychotherapy served as nothing more than an excuse for many to claim their condition is unchangeable, just so they can maintain the status quo and their relative comfort, without truly wanting to change? Or am I wrong?

It all comes down to how much the therapist makes you aware of your own toxic patterns, and whether you're actually willing to admit they're wrong and fix them. And yeah, that takes a lot of time... there's no such thing as an instant fix, at least not in my book...

Andrew Doyle said:I have to admit, I am absolutely floored by these kinds of proposals. So, you are actually suggesting that a psychotherapist should be required to disclose their own psychotherapy history, their political leanings, or their religious beliefs—and that this should be codified into law so potential patients can access it? Frankly, I find this idea terrifying. From a moral and ethical standpoint, not to mention the practical reality, this is a direct assault on the sanctity of the therapeutic relationship.

Yes, I firmly believe it is their fundamental job to act with total impartiality and professionalism. If a practitioner lacks the capacity for that, or if they harbor doubts about their own ability to remain objective, then in my view, the only logical course of action is for that individual to step down from their position or, depending on the specific circumstances, refer the client to another therapist. The latter happens quite frequently. For instance, it is not uncommon for romantic or physical attraction to develop between a patient and a therapist; in such cases, attempting to continue therapy would be incredibly difficult. Therefore, it is a sign of maturity and professional integrity when a therapist decides to hand a patient over to a colleague if they feel those feelings will impede the healing process.

Harold King8 said:What is the point of having someone struggling with mental health issues be the one to judge whether a professional is qualified to treat them?
If a patient takes the initiative to seek help through therapy, I believe the therapist needs to rise above those kinds of biases.
For instance, if someone harbors resentment toward a specific group because of historical grievances or past trauma, they shouldn't let those prejudices cloud their judgment of a provider.
It’s just like how we have specialists trained specifically to work with addiction recovery, while others might focus more on traditional religious counseling or other niche areas.

Best regards!

Rebecca Scott3 said:...maybe that's supposed to be part of the job...but some people just don't have what it takes to do it right...besides...if someone is a client and they're paying top dollar for therapy...and we're talking $240 for a 50-minute session...that is definitely not pocket change...so surely the client has a right to not be treated by someone who's chauvinistic, racist, sexist, or just lacks the awareness to see how problematic that behavior is...

...and honestly, I'm curious how a narcissistic therapist is supposed to help anyone...other than helping themselves dig themselves out of a hole...
......and no...it isn't right that a client has to pay through several hours of therapy just to realize that their therapist can't actually help them because of religious, nationalistic, or whatever other prejudices they hold...while still being able to reach right into the client's pocket for cash...
....it's like when you order dinner at a restaurant and they serve you stale bread with a side of spoiled butter....and then when you complain...they tell you...fine...you can go eat at a different restaurant...but you still have to pay for the meal you just had...
.....

Michelle Evans said:That's exactly why supervision exists.

driftinggull21 said:No one is forced to see a therapist or pay for their sessions. No one is required to dine at a restaurant.
If someone wants to, and can afford to, they are free to do either.

Quincy Jones:

....so here is a woman going through a divorce.... she has a small baby.... and she was physically and mentally abused by her husband... in front of the baby... she sought therapy to get help..... and her GP sent her to a specific therapist because he (or the clinic?) has some kind of arrangement to refer patients there.....

If that wasn't working for her, she could have simply thanked them for their time and found a different therapist if she felt she needed one.
It’s quite straightforward: if I pay a hairstylist $133 and I'm unhappy with the result, I just go to a different salon until I find someone I like. The same goes for a restaurant. The same goes for a therapist. Whether the stylist, the chef, or the therapist is a member of the Republican Party or the Democrats, straight or gay, Catholic or Buddhist, is none of my business.

I honestly feel like you shouldn't mess with the life of a young woman or a mother. It’s just not the same thing. I mean, sure, we all have those days where our hair looks like a total disaster, or we end up with a dinner that tastes absolutely revolting. Those are annoying, sure, but they aren't life-altering. It’s a completely different ballgame when someone you actually trusted—someone you leaned on because they were supposed to be the expert—completely drops the ball and leaves you in a state of chaos. When that happens, it doesn't just cause a headache; it adds a whole new layer of pain to an already difficult life.

Maybe it’s better to look at it this way... I mean, should you really be expected to be "transparent" about taking your kid to a certain pediatrician if that doctor is actually abusive? Like, if he’s one of those guys who gets rough with kids, or if he’s hitting crying toddlers just to shut them up because he thinks physical discipline is perfectly fine? Or even worse—what if he’s a predator? It’s a different conversation entirely when you're talking about safety and basic decency.
Is it really as simple as just turning around and walking out to find another pediatrician? I mean, sometimes you just feel that vibe is off, right? Like, if you aren't clicking with them, why stay? It’s kind of like when you go to a mechanic in Chicago and they give you this look that makes you think they're trying to overcharge you for a simple oil change—you don't have to stick around and argue about it. You can just grab your keys and head to the next shop down the street. If the trust isn't there from the jump, it’s hard to feel comfortable bringing your kid into the exam room.

When you’re looking into psychotherapy, it gets even trickier to figure out who actually wants to help versus who is actually capable of doing the job. It’s a tough distinction to make. In therapy, you aren't just sitting there in a vacuum; you're essentially walking straight into a collision course with the therapist's own world—their personal biases, their specific outlook on life, what they know, and even their own baggage. It's like trying to navigate a map that's constantly being reshaped by the person holding it.
I honestly think there’s something incredibly arrogant about dropping ten hours' worth of therapy fees on someone, only to realize they’re either totally out of their depth or just can't see past their own narrow cultural bubble. It's like hiring a high-end specialist in New York to fix a problem, only to find out they don't actually understand the context of your life, or worse, they're just fundamentally unqualified for the task. You expect expertise, but instead, you end up paying for someone's lack of insight.
Even if the client is the one having the issue... honestly, we're talking about a straight-up scam here. I truly believe it’s incredibly easy to cheat people in this field. It happens all the time—you see folks running practices for ten, fifteen years without ever actually stepping foot in a psychology program. It makes you wonder: where was the supervision? Who was actually overseeing their work? It just goes to show how much unchecked ignorance is out there.

...perhaps it would be more appropriate to ask... should you be required to disclose everything when bringing a child to a pediatrician if that doctor is abusive toward kids—hitting crying children just to quiet them because he believes physical punishment is acceptable... or if he happens to be a pedophile...
...is it not enough to simply turn around and walk out to find another pediatrician?

driftinggull21 said:

...perhaps it would be more appropriate to ask... should you be required to disclose everything when bringing a child to a pediatrician if that doctor is abusive toward kids—hitting crying children just to quiet them because he believes physical punishment is acceptable... or if he happens to be a pedophile...
...is it not enough to simply turn around and walk out to find another pediatrician?

Whether my child's pediatrician hits his own children at home is something I don't know, nor can I ever know. However, if he strikes my child during an exam, there are three consequences: first, the Department of Justice would launch an investigation; second, I would file a private lawsuit; and third, disciplinary proceedings would follow. Therefore, I doubt any pediatrician would dare hit a child while on duty. As for being a pedophile, that isn't written on their forehead or displayed on the office door.
In short, if I am dissatisfied with a pediatrician, I would switch doctors immediately. I would notice any issues long before a tenth visit.

A psychotherapist provides a service, much like a hairstylist, and the pricing is comparable.😁 That is why I drew that comparison. Psychotherapists are human beings entitled to their own opinions, personal struggles, and problems, provided they know how to leave them at the office door. Naturally, the reverse applies: once the session is over, the therapist must leave the work at the workplace.
A psychotherapist needs to know a client's private information to provide effective help, just as a client might ask their therapist something personal; the level of detail in the response will depend entirely on the individual therapist.
For instance, in my own home, I don't keep a single photo of my family, my house... anything that could compromise my privacy or intimacy. I don't even have a Facebook profile for that exact reason.
Furthermore, it is unthinkable to me that I should have to answer questions regarding my sexual orientation, my voting preferences, or whether I am homophobic...

Individuals who claim to be psychotherapists but lack psychiatric degrees and formal psychotherapy training are committing the crime of practicing medicine without a license under current laws.

Rebecca Scott3 said:...look, I'm definitely no expert here... so I don't really get what "supervision" actually entails in this context... is it just someone keeping an eye on the therapy sessions?
....and I can't help but wonder how that whole setup works... who is this supervisor person anyway? Like, is it someone appointed by the government, or the hospital, or some other agency???

Kyle Lee7 said:It’s about time someone else on this forum finally spoke up and agreed with me on this.

Rebecca Scott3 said: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?.....

redharbor9 said: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.

Dennis Jackson38 said: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.

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?

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. 😁

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.

redharbor9 said:Right now in America? It won't happen. There's a huge list of psychiatrists and therapists over here who still think homosexuality is a disease and try to "fix" it. And it's not just the treatment—they straight-up terrorize clients, telling them they're going to hell or blackmailing kids by threatening to tell their parents everything.

Take Gruden, for example. He was constantly on TV bragging about how he could "cure" it. After a massive wave of backlash and complaints, he finally shut his mouth about it in public. But the way these people operate in private? It’s a total horror show, like something straight out of Monty Python.

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.

driftinggull21 said:

...perhaps it would be more appropriate to ask... should you be required to disclose everything when bringing a child to a pediatrician if that doctor is abusive toward kids—hitting crying children just to quiet them because he believes physical punishment is acceptable... or if he happens to be a pedophile...
...is it not enough to simply turn around and walk out to find another pediatrician?

Whether my child's pediatrician hits his own children at home is something I don't know, nor can I ever know. However, if he strikes my child during an exam, there are three consequences: first, the Department of Justice would launch an investigation; second, I would file a private lawsuit; and third, disciplinary proceedings would follow. Therefore, I doubt any pediatrician would dare hit a child while on duty. As for being a pedophile, that isn't written on their forehead or displayed on the office door.
In short, if I am dissatisfied with a pediatrician, I would switch doctors immediately. I would notice any issues long before a tenth visit.

A psychotherapist provides a service, much like a hairstylist, and the pricing is comparable.😁 That is why I drew that comparison. Psychotherapists are human beings entitled to their own opinions, personal struggles, and problems, provided they know how to leave them at the office door. Naturally, the reverse applies: once the session is over, the therapist must leave the work at the workplace.
A psychotherapist needs to know a client's private information to provide effective help, just as a client might ask their therapist something personal; the level of detail in the response will depend entirely on the individual therapist.
For instance, in my own home, I don't keep a single photo of my family, my house... anything that could compromise my privacy or intimacy. I don't even have a Facebook profile for that exact reason.
Furthermore, it is unthinkable to me that I should have to answer questions regarding my sexual orientation, my voting preferences, or whether I am homophobic...

Individuals who claim to be psychotherapists but lack psychiatric degrees and formal psychotherapy training are committing the crime of practicing medicine without a license under current laws.

Rebecca Scott3 said:....morning everyone.....you all were busy typing while I was catching some Z's.......the world keeps spinning, doesn't it?....

...most people just assume that a therapist should be this perfectly open-minded vessel where their own personal beliefs don't bleed into the session.....but honestly.....from what I've seen in my own life.....that isn't always the reality. Not everyone walking into a clinic is a saint with an unbiased mind. No matter how hard someone tries to shove their personal biases, their little paranoias, or their deep-seated fears into a box under the bed.....it’s impossible. You can try to suppress it, sure.....but eventually, those things are going to float right back to the surface....

...so, I actually think it would be incredibly helpful if clients had the right to know even the most basic stuff about their therapist beforehand.....things like....did they go to a religious college or a seminary? (like a Catholic or Jewish institution)....
....do they hold really traditional, patriarchal views on family and roles?....
....are they registered members of a specific political party?....
....have they ever been in therapy themselves, and if so, what was it for? (honestly, that could be a huge asset or a major red flag, depending on the person)....
....are they actually comfortable discussing topics like homosexuality?....
......and what kind of client profile do they actually gravitate toward? (Are they specialists in depression, PTSD, anxiety, social skills, etc.)?....
.....
....at the end of the day....don't you think a person has every right to know who the individual is that they're supposed to trust with their mental health?....

Andrew Doyle said:As a patient, this idea of things "floating to the surface" doesn't bother me one bit, provided that those moments are properly worked through during supervision.
Furthermore, as a client, I couldn't care less about the laundry list of details you mention later—whether she belongs to a specific political party, why she’s seeking therapy, and so on. In fact, I believe knowing those things would actually hinder my own progress, because it would trigger all sorts of psychological processes, like projections, that we'd just have to spend more time untangling later.

My therapist is meant to be a "blank slate." It’s my job to "color" her over time. Any attempt on her part to add color prematurely is completely unnecessary to me. In fact, she once hinted at certain life convictions she holds, and even though I share similar beliefs, I found it incredibly unwelcome to have that territory explored. For some reason, it’s much easier for me if those things remain unaddressed, and I made sure to let her know that. At least, that's how it stands for now. I’ve heard plenty of stories about clients being intensely curious about their therapists, but I haven't hit that stage yet.

A psychiatrist-psychotherapist who is schizophrenic? I have honestly never heard of such a thing, and frankly, I highly doubt someone suffering from psychosis would ever pass the screening to become a therapist. Correct me if I'm wrong.
And personally, I see absolutely zero connection between a schizophrenic therapist and a gay gynecologist, even in the broadest possible context of this discussion.

placidwolf2 said:So here's my question: How is a mentally unstable client actually supposed to realistically assess a psychotherapist's values or level of openness?

For many therapists, if not most, intentionally provocative stances and creating friction can serve as a way to more quickly develop specific methods for handling certain clients. I know a colleague—a total authority and top-tier specialist in the US for specific disorders—who would say things like to his patients (even the less attractive 🙂 ones): "You're a total bombshell, what's wrong with your life?" Many experienced this as borderline workplace harassment and left immediately, even though I know for a fact he never crossed professional boundaries. Once many clients realized his method of working and his undeniable success rate—especially after being disappointed by other therapists—they tried to come back to him, but he simply couldn't take them anymore. Not because he didn't want to, but because he was just too busy.

I often hear from people deciding on therapy: "I clicked with my therapist right away." Or, "I didn't." But what does "clicking" even mean? You can "click" with the first new age guru you meet, a snake oil salesman, or some three-month graduate of a quasi-therapeutic course. But will they actually help us?

Recently, I briefly described how Schema therapy works regarding a certain personality disorder. Everyone was appalled and gave long-winded responses about how they'd never dream of trying "something like that." And yet, while Schema therapy shows success rates as high as 52% for that specific disorder, everyone would rather stick to psychoanalysis, spiritual healing, etc.—methods that have a success rate of zero percent for this condition—just because it's more comfortable. A terrifyingly large number of patients, when starting therapy, get the impression that their "ideal self" is far too distant from their "actual self," making everything feel futile, leading them to look for an excuse to quit (pre)emptively.

So, is psychotherapy merely serving as an excuse for many to claim their condition is unchangeable, just so they can preserve the status quo and a sense of relative comfort instead of truly wanting to change? Or am I mistaken?

Rebecca Scott3 said:....so here’s a scenario: there’s this woman going through a messy divorce. she has a tiny baby... and her husband has been physically and emotionally abusive toward her, even right in front of the child. she went to therapy looking for some actual support... and her primary care doctor at the local clinic sent her straight to a specific therapist—someone he apparently has a referral arrangement with...
....and then she runs into this guy who isn't just unhelpful, but actually suggests she should just make peace with her husband. he’s basically telling her to just play along and cater to him so they can reach some sort of settlement on how to split things up without a full legal separation... suggesting a setup where she stays home while he works to provide for her and the kid... and then implies her family—her dad, mom, and brother—should step in to handle the control side of things, like they should be the ones sitting down with her husband to hash out the disagreements...
....honestly, it's just nonsense. he actually feels entitled to suggest to a married woman that she stay in a situation involving violence and drag her parents and brother into the middle of it all...
....the whole thing felt incredibly off, especially considering the guy is originally from an Asian country, finished his studies there, and then moved here to get his credentials to practice therapy...
....anyway, she eventually realized what was happening and walked away after about ten sessions. but she had already paid for them... she burned through her savings because, from the start, it was never clear where this "therapy" was actually headed. everything was just a series of subtle hints that she didn't fully grasp until the very end... she just couldn't believe where he was actually trying to take her...

....
.

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.

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.