Is Therapy a Crock?


Robert Baratheon

Recommended Posts

To clarify - I'm not questioning whether there is a potential for a therapist to help a patient. I'm sure sometimes the process offers value. What I'm questioning is whether the therapist's claim (explicit or implicit) of possessing special problem-solving skills and insight into the human experience is a legitimate one, or whether it's really just a smokescreen for the true value of having another human being - any human being - actively listen in a socially acceptable setting.

Approaching this scientifically - if we took 100 professional therapists and matched them one-on-one with patients; then took 100 people from random professions, placed them in the therapist role, and matched them one-on-one with patients; would there by any significant difference in outcomes between the two groups? Could the therapists group actually perform worse because they've deluded themselves into believing they possess skills and expertise they don't actually have? For example, I'd be perfectly comfortable telling someone I don't know a solution to their problem, but a therapist might be less likely to give such a candid response.

We can't perform the experiment I described, but I am interested in hearing about personal experiences to determine what specifically it is that makes the successful cases successful. I also want to learn how common successful outcomes actually are compared with the therapist's confidence that they are offering value to their patients most of the time - a claim of which I am skeptical at this point.

I’m a little uncomfortable with the terminology of this discussion as we haven’t explicitly defined what is meant by “therapy.” However, based on the context so far, I’m assuming we are not talking about abnormal brain chemistry, mental illness, mental disorder, suicidal tendencies, or any of that such.

That said, active listening is just a small part of therapy. If all you need is someone to listen to you, then yes absolutely go talk to a friend or a family member. Or a stranger, for that matter.

A therapist should (explicitly) possess special problem-solving skills and insight into human experience in addition to his active listening skills. It is a legitimate claim for the profession. It may not be legitimate for all individuals who practice the profession. Furthermore, because of the nature of the therapeutic relationship, a therapist may not be able to apply his skills and insight in an equal measure across all cases.

As for personal experience, if your interest goes beyond simple curiosity and you think I can actually be of help to you, then I will PM you. Otherwise, suffice it to say that I have considerable experience, and my results have been at times negative, at times neutral, but most recently quite good. I could make the same statement about my experience with getting a haircut, though. I've had good haircuts, mediocre haircuts, but most recently fantastic haircuts. Because I understand that not all hairstylists are created equal, that the hair salon experience (for women, anyway) is not trivial, and that you have to try out a few before settling with the perfect match. :-) Same goes for therapy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 78
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

No, you didn't. I was assuming that therapists know what causes pain to their clients and explores those issues, being careful to avoid causing that same pain except for explicit therapeutic reasons.

Good swoop. Now it is STEP one-two-three, Turn one-two-three....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, you didn't. I was assuming that therapists know what causes pain to their clients and explores those issues, being careful to avoid causing that same pain except for explicit therapeutic reasons.

NB was very supportive of his clients.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PDS, your post helped me achieve a seminal insight, I almost dare to call it an Integration.

I have a standing therapy appointment every Saturday night! And sometimes weekday lunchtimes, in emergencies.

My inner resources are greater than I knew, and while the zero-sum balance proceeds with the outer resources, I will continue my therapy as long as I can afford it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert B, there is actually a serious point buried in the banter here. Distraction, focus and reinforcement of pleasure are basics of cognitive therapy. I know it is very effective, but not having had it or studied up on it, my impressions are very subjective and may be wrong (maybe Dennis H or Sharon P who are therapists might look in and correct me)

Most of us use these techniques without realizing they are therapeutic: Resolutely we set our minds to a positive reassuring truth to fight the dark spiral of suppositional self-doubt and its deceptive supporting examples. Or we deliberately disengage to a soothing impersonal mind game, alphabet challenges or making up Jeopardy categories and questions, or whatever. We allow ourselves to breathe, to regroup, because depression is so exhausting that without help we will eventually get too tired to fight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm enjoying this discussion, thank you Robert for starting it. My only experience with therapy was Nathaniel in 1977 when I was 28-29. I had a very positive life changing experience due to the insights gained. Nathaniel is a very kind man but he didn't sugar coat his observations in the group so I did have my feelings hurt at least once. But I learned an important lesson about how I come off to others and it has served me well since. My therapy of choice now is exercise which is better than any drug for anxiety. Amazing what a run or a walk in the woods will do if done regularly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm enjoying this discussion, thank you Robert for starting it. My only experience with therapy was Nathaniel in 1977 when I was 28-29. I had a very positive life changing experience due to the insights gained. Nathaniel is a very kind man but he didn't sugar coat his observations in the group so I did have my feelings hurt at least once. But I learned an important lesson about how I come off to others and it has served me well since. My therapy of choice now is exercise which is better than any drug for anxiety. Amazing what a run or a walk in the woods will do if done regularly.

If you exert yourself to the point of exhaustion to avoid your inner self you've got yourself something of a temporary fix. If you exercise for and to the point of better mental clarity to get the thinking going, that's another kettle of fish.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mikee, was your experience all in group therapy? I had been thinking just of one-on-one, I do not know the differences,

NB never did "group therapy," but individual therapy in a group context. It was in his "Intensives" starting in February 1977 (in Washington, DC--he "opened out of town," not in Los Angeles), then formally in March in LA (his wife, Patrecia, died tragically shortly after in a drowning accident), that he came closest to "group therapy" and that went on for several years. I took them in Washington, once, LA, once, and most of those in NYC. I remember one of the Intensives thusly: I arrived early and was sitting surrounded by empty seats and Nathaniel came to the podium looking kind of down and distracted looking through his papers. Mimicking his feelings I said to him in a downer voice, "Good morning." Startled, he broke into a smile, turned to me, nodded, and repeated my greeting in a cheerful voice and that smile.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mikee, was your experience all in group therapy? I had been thinking just of one-on-one, I do not know the differences,

Just a few of NB's intensives, they were group sessions. It was really helpful to me to see other people's work. Learning about other people's lives and thoughts helped me to actually see people, strangers, for perhaps the first time in my life. I didn't feel so alienated. Quite different after, got better jobs and relationships, switched to distance running and yoga more than my martial arts training though I didn't completely give that up until in my forties. I didn't feel like hurting anyone anymore.

Brant, just saw your post. My first "intensive" in LA was in Dec 1976. I think he'd been doing them for awhile because I knew about them before signing up. His wife died between my first and second session (I moved to Santa Monica after the first one to continue going to them), I never knew about his wife then, but he was different. I was not perceptive enough then to figure out why and I didn't talk to people much or at all. I liked him very much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant, I never thought that NB was less than supportive of his patients.

I do not think that button-pushing "Tough Love" therapists if there are any, can maintain much of a clientele

Tough love isn't for a therapist. Nor is love per se. Seeing the client is. Actually seeing someone is a cut deeper than love. Do you see your loved one? Does he know it? Are you looking at him? Right in the eyes?

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm enjoying this discussion, thank you Robert for starting it. My only experience with therapy was Nathaniel in 1977 when I was 28-29. I had a very positive life changing experience due to the insights gained. Nathaniel is a very kind man but he didn't sugar coat his observations in the group so I did have my feelings hurt at least once. But I learned an important lesson about how I come off to others and it has served me well since. My therapy of choice now is exercise which is better than any drug for anxiety. Amazing what a run or a walk in the woods will do if done regularly.

If you exert yourself to the point of exhaustion to avoid your inner self you've got yourself something of a temporary fix. If you exercise for and to the point of better mental clarity to get the thinking going, that's another kettle of fish.

--Brant

Exercise makes you smarter. Smarter fixes everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they're so dumb, why are they rich?

The 0.001% of jocks who make it into professional sports are rich because the other 99.999% idolize them and pay to watch them throw rubber things around a field of grass.

You think engineers are dumb too. I take it you have no aptitude for engineering and suck at sports.

I never said engineers are dumb. In fact, I know most of them are very intelligent. Please don't fabricate. What I said is that the engineering field generally offers little room for creativity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm suspicious of all such "studies" and "research," probably reported by people who don't know suspicious or how to be suspicious.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they're so dumb, why are they rich?

The 0.001% of jocks who make it into professional sports are rich because the other 99.999% idolize them and pay to watch them throw rubber things around a field of grass.

You think engineers are dumb too. I take it you have no aptitude for engineering and suck at sports.

I never said engineers are dumb. In fact, I know most of them are very intelligent. Please don't fabricate. What I said is that the engineering field generally offers little room for creativity.

That reminds me of the statement "everything that can be invented has been invented", supposedly by the guy running the patent office a hundred years ago. Obviously someone's imagination is limited and they probably shouldn't be in engineering. I think the law profession has plenty of room for limited imaginations and inflated egos.

Regarding sports and the ".01%": reaction time is correlated with intelligence. Show me an elite athlete with slow reaction times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now