Do a therapist's personal beliefs actually matter?

redharbor9 said: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?

Of course it can be done. 🤷 Let’s be clear: you cannot predict the outcome of psychotherapy. It is an impossibility. To suggest otherwise is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the work. It isn't a predictable algorithm or a straight line from A to B. Expecting a guaranteed result in this field is like expecting a weather report to dictate exactly how a storm will hit a specific street corner—you can see the clouds gathering, but the chaos of the moment is its own beast. Spot on.Look, if you’re going to propose an intervention, you need more than just a hunch. You have to have a rock-solid vision of the outcome and a high degree of certainty that things will actually turn out well. Without that foundation, you might as well be betting on Yellow Mist. 🤷 Is it Red...? 🤔 It always slips my mind.

Edit:
If a psychologist suggests an intervention that carries a high risk of catastrophic fallout—like advising an abused woman to return to her abusive husband, similar to the scenarios discussed here—they shouldn't just be "hoping for the best." They need to be absolutely certain of the outcome before they even open their mouth. Beyond that, they have a responsibility to implement actual safeguards. We’re talking about arranging discreet security or protection that monitors the situation without the husband ever knowing, and perhaps even without the patient being fully aware of the specifics. It is incredibly reckless for a psychotherapist to gamble with a patient's life on their own whim. 🤷

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.

redharbor9 said: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.

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.

redharbor9 said: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.

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.

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...

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."

redharbor9 said: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."

Not quite.

I’d define an "intervention" simply as any action or move that triggers a meaningful consequence.

In a clinical setting, you could argue that every word out of a therapist's mouth falls under that umbrella. That means the practitioner has to be hyper-aware of their objectives; they need a clear grasp of the specific outcome intended by every individual word they choose to utter.

Dennis Bailey2 said:Not quite.

I’d define an "intervention" simply as any action or move that triggers a meaningful consequence.

In a clinical setting, you could argue that every word out of a therapist's mouth falls under that umbrella. That means the practitioner has to be hyper-aware of their objectives; they need a clear grasp of the specific outcome intended by every individual word they choose to utter.

That's pretty vague when you're talking about a specific situation, right?

In psychotherapy, you could argue that every single word spoken counts as an "intervention." That means a therapist would have to be hyper-aware of their goals and know exactly what outcome every single word will trigger.

I don't buy it. If that were true, they'd have to weigh every possible word perfectly, but in therapy, there are tons of moments where there just isn't time for that... plus you've got those exploratory phases to deal with...

redharbor9 said:That's pretty vague when you're talking about a specific situation, right?

In psychotherapy, you could argue that every single word spoken counts as an "intervention." That means a therapist would have to be hyper-aware of their goals and know exactly what outcome every single word will trigger.

I don't buy it. If that were true, they'd have to weigh every possible word perfectly, but in therapy, there are tons of moments where there just isn't time for that... plus you've got those exploratory phases to deal with...

It isn't vague at all. 🤷

redharbor9 said:That's pretty vague when you're talking about a specific situation, right?

In psychotherapy, you could argue that every single word spoken counts as an "intervention." That means a therapist would have to be hyper-aware of their goals and know exactly what outcome every single word will trigger.

I don't buy it. If that were true, they'd have to weigh every possible word perfectly, but in therapy, there are tons of moments where there just isn't time for that... plus you've got those exploratory phases to deal with...

I say it is. That is literally the job description. Who ever said being a therapist was easy?🤷

Dennis Bailey2 said:It isn't vague at all. 🤷

I say it is. That is literally the job description. Who ever said being a therapist was easy?🤷

I wouldn't necessarily go along with that last part. To me, it's vital to show a client they're accepted exactly as they are within some kind of framework. Regardless of the specific therapeutic work being done—even if you're just sitting there in silence—you are the model. Most pathologies seem to stem from some level of self-rejection or a lack of self-respect anyway. Personally, it makes my skin crawl when I see therapists trying to sell this idea of being superhuman or acting like machines. It sends a pretty shitty message to the client.

Quentin Tarantino

Dennis Bailey2 said:It isn't vague at all. 🤷

I say it is. That is literally the job description. Who ever said being a therapist was easy?🤷

It’s too vague. There’s zero definition here about what actually counts as an action that triggers specific consequences and what doesn't. It's just undefined.

Quentin Tarantino

I say yeah, because that's literally his job. Who ever said being a psychotherapist was easy? 🤷

Nobody said anything, but let's be real: theory is one thing, and actually doing the work is another. 🙂

darksailor98 said:I wouldn't necessarily go along with that last part. To me, it's vital to show a client they're accepted exactly as they are within some kind of framework. Regardless of the specific therapeutic work being done—even if you're just sitting there in silence—you are the model. Most pathologies seem to stem from some level of self-rejection or a lack of self-respect anyway. Personally, it makes my skin crawl when I see therapists trying to sell this idea of being superhuman or acting like machines. It sends a pretty shitty message to the client.

I'm digging this... This is probably why clients are always itching to know more about their therapist. Some folks feel safer going to someone still grinding through their training because they see that person is just as stressed out as they are. Others dig the idea that they're learning together. I even know a mediocre therapist who clients actually prefer simply because he isn't perfect, just like them. Etc. etc.

A therapist is basically a model whose mere presence and existence impacts the client alongside the actual work... it's that whole circularity thing... the core concept behind Cybernetic Psychotherapy as a field...

redharbor9 said:I'm digging this... This is probably why clients are always itching to know more about their therapist. Some folks feel safer going to someone still grinding through their training because they see that person is just as stressed out as they are. Others dig the idea that they're learning together. I even know a mediocre therapist who clients actually prefer simply because he isn't perfect, just like them. Etc. etc.

A therapist is basically a model whose mere presence and existence impacts the client alongside the actual work... it's that whole circularity thing... the core concept behind Cybernetic Psychotherapy as a field...

I agree. That comment about the therapist with poor vision being liked because they aren't perfect? It just highlights how many therapists send the wrong message by implying that a visible disability is their only imperfection. 🙄

redharbor9 said: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.

...you're putting words in my mouth...
.....I never said it had to be 100% guaranteed...but it does have to be something that makes sense through logic and basic common sense....like, any decent therapist should be able to predict that an abuser isn't going to suddenly flip a switch and change their entire personality overnight, or just drop all their old habits out of nowhere....

redharbor9 said: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...

I was asking around the forum to see what everyone thinks about transparency in this field. Specifically, should a psychotherapist be completely open with the public about their personal stances? I mean, things like whether they hold religious views, or if they have any homophobic biases—like, do they actually view homosexuality as some kind of sickness or abnormality? Or even more practically, would they be willing to work with people from different backgrounds, races, or genders? It’s one of those big questions that really gets people talking.

I was thinking about this scenario earlier—this little girl walks into her therapist's office and opens up about wanting to end her life, right? And instead of actually helping her through that darkness, the therapist starts throwing religious guilt in her face. Talking about God, sinning, all that stuff... it just felt so wrong to me. Think about it this way: if she grew up in a deeply religious household and she’s standing there telling a professional she wants to die, she already knows exactly what her faith says about it. She knows the "sin" aspect better than anyone. So, at that moment, she’s either already stepped away from those beliefs, or—and this is the part that hits harder—her pain has become so massive that any kind of spiritual punishment feels completely insignificant compared to the weight of what she's carrying. Using fear as a tool when someone is that vulnerable? It just doesn't sit right with me.
It’s also just fundamentally unethical. Honestly, I think there’s even a criminal element to it—forcing a child who is already suffering to face even more violence. It feels wrong to weaponize fear against them, whether you're threatening them with sin, telling them they'll be cast out from the church, or scaring them with the idea of eternal suffering in the afterlife. It's just not right.

Look, if you just look at the examples we've been discussing... it’s pretty obvious that some therapists simply lack the emotional maturity needed for this kind of work. Because of that, the current setup just isn't enough. We need a different way to actually protect the client. It shouldn't be about expecting every therapist to be some kind of flawless superhero. That's just not realistic. It's more about having actual regulations in place. We need to make sure clients understand from the jump that their therapist isn't a god or a perfect being. They need to know there's a system—that one person might be held accountable for the therapy, while another might not be, depending on how things are structured. It’s about accountability and safety, not perfection.

Rebecca Scott3 said:...you're putting words in my mouth...
.....I never said it had to be 100% guaranteed...but it does have to be something that makes sense through logic and basic common sense....like, any decent therapist should be able to predict that an abuser isn't going to suddenly flip a switch and change their entire personality overnight, or just drop all their old habits out of nowhere....

So you hate it when people put words in your mouth, right? But when you do it to everyone else, suddenly it's fine.🙂

Rebecca Scott3 said:I was asking around the forum to see what everyone thinks about transparency in this field. Specifically, should a psychotherapist be completely open with the public about their personal stances? I mean, things like whether they hold religious views, or if they have any homophobic biases—like, do they actually view homosexuality as some kind of sickness or abnormality? Or even more practically, would they be willing to work with people from different backgrounds, races, or genders? It’s one of those big questions that really gets people talking.

I was thinking about this scenario earlier—this little girl walks into her therapist's office and opens up about wanting to end her life, right? And instead of actually helping her through that darkness, the therapist starts throwing religious guilt in her face. Talking about God, sinning, all that stuff... it just felt so wrong to me. Think about it this way: if she grew up in a deeply religious household and she’s standing there telling a professional she wants to die, she already knows exactly what her faith says about it. She knows the "sin" aspect better than anyone. So, at that moment, she’s either already stepped away from those beliefs, or—and this is the part that hits harder—her pain has become so massive that any kind of spiritual punishment feels completely insignificant compared to the weight of what she's carrying. Using fear as a tool when someone is that vulnerable? It just doesn't sit right with me.
It’s also just fundamentally unethical. Honestly, I think there’s even a criminal element to it—forcing a child who is already suffering to face even more violence. It feels wrong to weaponize fear against them, whether you're threatening them with sin, telling them they'll be cast out from the church, or scaring them with the idea of eternal suffering in the afterlife. It's just not right.

Look, if you just look at the examples we've been discussing... it’s pretty obvious that some therapists simply lack the emotional maturity needed for this kind of work. Because of that, the current setup just isn't enough. We need a different way to actually protect the client. It shouldn't be about expecting every therapist to be some kind of flawless superhero. That's just not realistic. It's more about having actual regulations in place. We need to make sure clients understand from the jump that their therapist isn't a god or a perfect being. They need to know there's a system—that one person might be held accountable for the therapy, while another might not be, depending on how things are structured. It’s about accountability and safety, not perfection.

So you got hit with some alternative perspectives that tried to justify his behavior, but since they didn't line up with your view, you just shut down and trashed the whole conversation.

Rebecca Scott3 said:I was asking around the forum to see what everyone thinks about transparency in this field. Specifically, should a psychotherapist be completely open with the public about their personal stances? I mean, things like whether they hold religious views, or if they have any homophobic biases—like, do they actually view homosexuality as some kind of sickness or abnormality? Or even more practically, would they be willing to work with people from different backgrounds, races, or genders? It’s one of those big questions that really gets people talking.

I was thinking about this scenario earlier—this little girl walks into her therapist's office and opens up about wanting to end her life, right? And instead of actually helping her through that darkness, the therapist starts throwing religious guilt in her face. Talking about God, sinning, all that stuff... it just felt so wrong to me. Think about it this way: if she grew up in a deeply religious household and she’s standing there telling a professional she wants to die, she already knows exactly what her faith says about it. She knows the "sin" aspect better than anyone. So, at that moment, she’s either already stepped away from those beliefs, or—and this is the part that hits harder—her pain has become so massive that any kind of spiritual punishment feels completely insignificant compared to the weight of what she's carrying. Using fear as a tool when someone is that vulnerable? It just doesn't sit right with me.
It’s also just fundamentally unethical. Honestly, I think there’s even a criminal element to it—forcing a child who is already suffering to face even more violence. It feels wrong to weaponize fear against them, whether you're threatening them with sin, telling them they'll be cast out from the church, or scaring them with the idea of eternal suffering in the afterlife. It's just not right.

Look, if you just look at the examples we've been discussing... it’s pretty obvious that some therapists simply lack the emotional maturity needed for this kind of work. Because of that, the current setup just isn't enough. We need a different way to actually protect the client. It shouldn't be about expecting every therapist to be some kind of flawless superhero. That's just not realistic. It's more about having actual regulations in place. We need to make sure clients understand from the jump that their therapist isn't a god or a perfect being. They need to know there's a system—that one person might be held accountable for the therapy, while another might not be, depending on how things are structured. It’s about accountability and safety, not perfection.

I'll just stick to this one point; I agree the rest of it is pure madness. Look, the medical profession's mandate is to prevent suicide, and the American healthcare system operates under that exact principle. So, really, you aren't debating the concept of treatment—you're arguing about values. To talk about how doctors handle suicidal patients as if there's some perfect manual is pretty arrogant—unless you have a magic formula for preventing suicide (which I'm sure every psychiatrist in the country would love to have, given how much they struggle with it). You're basically saying you'd follow the standard protocols, then start counting how many people died or how many families sued you afterward. A little constructive criticism goes a long way, but maybe try stepping into their shoes for a second. Consider the culture, the legalities, and how an American hospital actually functions.

redharbor9 said:So you hate it when people put words in your mouth, right? But when you do it to everyone else, suddenly it's fine.🙂

....Quincy....go find someone else to play therapist for you....I'm definitely not an expert here....🤷

darksailor98 said:I'll just stick to this one point; I agree the rest of it is pure madness. Look, the medical profession's mandate is to prevent suicide, and the American healthcare system operates under that exact principle. So, really, you aren't debating the concept of treatment—you're arguing about values. To talk about how doctors handle suicidal patients as if there's some perfect manual is pretty arrogant—unless you have a magic formula for preventing suicide (which I'm sure every psychiatrist in the country would love to have, given how much they struggle with it). You're basically saying you'd follow the standard protocols, then start counting how many people died or how many families sued you afterward. A little constructive criticism goes a long way, but maybe try stepping into their shoes for a second. Consider the culture, the legalities, and how an American hospital actually functions.

...okay....maybe that's just how things work over there....maybe in your neck of the woods, patients/clients just have to do whatever a psychologist or doctor wants them to do.....
....but I really hope you aren't actually in the field....or at least don't have anything to do with the profession...
....by your logic, I guess shackling someone up is probably fine too, since then they won't be able to kill themselves.....etc.....it's honestly no wonder the whole country goes to hell when it's run by people who view another human being as nothing more than an object to make money off of.....
......I'm out of words.....it just seems like we're living in two completely different worlds....and clearly, we're never going to see eye to eye on this....