Too Much Emphasis on "Getting Therapy" for every little thing?

[acurtis75]

:iagree: And I'll agree with your agree.

 

:iagree: too...

[annandatje]

Geez, for those of us who are Mental Health Therapists, this is starting to remind me of the Pastor thread. I guess all those years dh has spent in school learning his craft and waking up in the middle of the night and racing to a hospital trying to help people have been wasted.

 

But wouldn't your husband be rushing to hospital only for a crisis such as suicidal patient, not for a relatively minor issue like a shyness in a child?

[JennyD]

I grew up with a mentally ill sibling back in the day when there weren't all of these therapies and treatments, much less IEPs at school or anything like that, and problems like my brother's were generally considered to be a parenting issue and/or just something a child would grow out of. Just thinking about how radically different his life -- all of our lives -- could have been if he had been born thirty years later sometimes makes me want to cry. Maybe the therapy hammer sometimes makes everything look like a nail, but I for one have no nostalgia for the good old days.

Edited January 3, 2012 by JennyD

[simka2]

I am sure I probably am one who recommends it pretty easily. That said, I have only had positive experiences from qualified Psychologists. Now, dh's family I am sure thought horrible things about the counselor's, as they gave him the skills and information to draw better boundaries. As a result they flipped out on dh, but he stuck to the healthier boundaries.

4 years later they are finally respecting them and we are starting to build some new relationships with them.

 

There are some very unskilled people out there who present themselves as therapists, but there are are also some wonderful, well educated, professionals who are invaluable in helping individuals and families.

 

A couple things come to mind when I hear of negative experiences with therapy. 1. Unqualified professional. 2. patient was not really on board. 3. the healing process was more difficult than the patient could handle and it was easier to remain with the unhealthy patterns. (I think there are cases where an individual can make a deliberate choice to live with a certain amount of dysfunction, in exchange for stability or some other pay off)

[Crissy]

A couple things come to mind when I hear of negative experiences with therapy. 1. Unqualified professional. 2. patient was not really on board. 3. the healing process was more difficult than the patient could handle and it was easier to remain with the unhealthy patterns. (I think there are cases where an individual can make a deliberate choice to live with a certain amount of dysfunction, in exchange for stability or some other pay off)

 

I suspect that the list of reasons counseling or therapy may not work for an individual is much, much longer.

[simka2]

I suspect that the list of reasons counseling or therapy may not work for an individual is much, much longer.

Yes, those were just the top 3 that came to mind. I tried to make the third rather broad. :D

[JennyD]

That is awesome. I wish I could say the same for my sister (living a more or less normal life). She had therapy as a child and it didn't do squat. Sometimes things are mostly chemical imbalances though and all the therapy in the world won't change it. So you can't say for sure if that would have helped, etc. In some weird way I'm trying to make you feel better (and probably failing miserably...;)). :grouphug:

 

Honestly, I don't know if therapy alone would have done much -- by the time he got treated, it was the combination of the right medication and therapy that helped so much -- but who knows? Maybe if he had gotten treated at age 5 instead of age 25 he wouldn't have needed medication, which he will likely have to be on for the rest of his life. In any event, pretty much anything would have been better than what was available to my parents at the time, which was nothing (if you don't count criticism for being bad parents).

 

I'm sorry that your sister still struggles, if I'm gathering that correctly from your post.

[Denisemomof4]

I agree with you. Even pediatricians jump to suggest therapy too often IMO.

[Renee in NC]

Hi Renee, it was me who mentioned 'navel-gazing'. I also said that professional help can be wonderful; I know that from experience :001_smile:. I think this thread is more about the tendency to pathologise every small human frailty. I do believe there is an important place for therapy and therapists in our lives, I also feel that some people just take it to extremes.

 

I'm very glad that you're finding your therapist beneficial, we only have one life and it's good to learn how to live it to the full.

 

Best wishes

 

Cassy

 

I didn't know who wrote the "navel gazing" I just remember seeing it as I was scanning through the thread and thought it was a good description of what some were talking about. Sorry to single you out!

 

Anyone who knows me in real life will attest to the fact that I need professional help...:tongue_smilie:

[Scarlett]

I didn't know who wrote the "navel gazing" I just remember seeing it as I was scanning through the thread and thought it was a good description of what some were talking about. Sorry to single you out!

 

Anyone who knows me in real life will attest to the fact that I need professional help...:tongue_smilie:

 

 

 

I used that term too I think.

 

 

ITA that there is a big difference from minor issues that we can probably deal with on our own and the BIG issues that need a professional.

 

My problem is when something is close to that line.

[Cassy]

Anyone who knows me in real life will attest to the fact that I need professional help...:tongue_smilie:

 

Ah, in the nicest possible way, I'm sure. To this person who knows you in cyberspace, you seem pretty cool and sorted.

 

Cassy

[Cassy]

The cool and sorted are the worst kind. :lol: (I'm kidding!!)

 

:lol: Not so, but the 'quirky' are probably the best, I think.

 

Cassy

[Scarlett]

Ah, in the nicest possible way, I'm sure. To this person who knows you in cyberspace, you seem pretty cool and sorted.

 

Cassy

 

Smart. Don't forget smart. I don't know how many times I've had a financial or tax question and thought, 'I wish I could ask Renee in FL!' (and I am not kidding)

[cathmom]

Smart. Don't forget smart. I don't know how many times I've had a financial or tax question and thought, 'I wish I could ask Renee in FL!' (and I am not kidding)

 

I'm so blessed to have her on speed-dial!

[ma23peas]

flame retardant suit donning...

 

For one quarter in my 5 years in my undergraduate studies (I changed major, changed it back..graduated with 70 more hours than I needed, ugh) I took 5 psychology courses in one quarter...just to knock it out...made straight A's in courses where the 'majors' were visibly struggling and constantly complaining how hard it was...but what was more..was that out of 20 students (upper level classes) I think I would pinpoint one as being 'with it'....the others had either no common sense or were far below the intellectual peers I had experienced in my other classes (Chemistry, Calculus, Physics etc.)...And all I could think about was that THESE people were going to be offering therapy/solutions for others?

 

Now there are those outstanding ones, but from my limited experience...the ones with the problems seemed to gravitate towards that major. I jumped out of that as quickly as I could.

 

I think if you come from grounded parents (aka not foster children backgrounds for the most part) and they came from grounded parents, you are highly likely to be able to have better coping skills and therefore not need a referral for therapy.

[ChristineW]

ITA that there is a big difference from minor issues that we can probably deal with on our own and the BIG issues that need a professional.

 

My problem is when something is close to that line.

 

:iagree: And sometimes an evaluation can help you find that line. In the fall, I saw my two year old doing some physical activities that my 4 1/2 year old hadn't mastered. We have good insurance so I sought out OT/PT evaluation. Although she didn't qualify for PT, the evaluation was so very helpful. We were encouraged to seek out activities that strengthen DD's core and develop her vestibular system. After three months of TKD, she's a much more confident child at the playground and isn't falling as often.

 

OT has been a blessing as well. MIL thinks we're crazy for taking kid who is just clumsy to therapy. MIL is right to an extent--DD would be fine without OT (I had many of the same issues at her age). However, if I can help my daughter feel more confident and competent then I'll do it. OT makes her happy and I can afford it. It's an easy choice.

 

Christine

[In2why]

Crud I have to walk out the door for a b-ball game and just saw this thread, and I assume I am a catalyst sine I said in the shy thread that if my 6-7 year old was unable to say hello when spoken to, or thank you that I would think that was a problem and look into therapies. I was thinking behavioral, in much the same way my aspie Goddaughter had to learn not to hug and kiss every friend through a therapy. But only if it presents a problem, which for many parents here it is not, for me I would want an evaluation to see.

 

Okay have to run......will read more later

[justamouse]

A couple things come to mind when I hear of negative experiences with therapy. 1. Unqualified professional.

 

I had such qualified professionals.:glare: Really qualified. Pffft. The experiences left such a wretched taste in my mouth.

 

I wish I could go back and ask what the hell they were thinking.

 

Now you can't get in anywhere. I had a crisis a while back that I thought i would need some help with, and I make tons of calls to everyone in the county that helped with that subject and everyone's practice was closed. I was astounded. There are A LOT of people in therapy.

Edited January 3, 2012 by justamouse

[Catwoman]

Crud I have to walk out the door for a b-ball game and just saw this thread, and I assume I am a catalyst sine I said in the shy thread that if my 6-7 year old was unable to say hello when spoken to, or thank you that I would think that was a problem and look into therapies.

 

Don't worry -- it honestly wasn't you! :001_smile: I just used the shyness thread as an example, but I was really thinking of some others that seemed quite extreme to me. I didn't want to get specific about them because I didn't want the people who were very rabid about someone needing therapy to feel as though they were being targeted or criticized. (They are entitled to their opinions, and I didn't want them to think I was trying to get people to gang up on them.)

 

So apparently I targeted you, instead. :blushing:

 

Sorry about that! :001_smile:

[Ester Maria]

In my more gentle moments (:)), I think that it is simply a natural desire to err on the safe side when your child is concerned. People tend to think, okay, I am doing the best I can be doing, but maybe there is somebody out there who could help another little bit, who would point another trick or two to me that I have not thought of, so perhaps it is a worth a try. After all, it is a child we are talking about, our child, so of course that we wish to do whatever possible to help, to knock on whatever door possible, to exhaust all options, even if we are unsure whether it is something that we should simply let be. After all, the regret of not having done something which, in hindsight, you might have done or should have done, is typically stronger than a regret of having tried something, even if it was unnecessary or it did not work. So, from that perspective, it is understandable.

In my more "normal", more fiery and "harsher" moments (:D), I tend to think that a great many people have lost some common sense and have become in many ways "handicapped" by the plethora of opportunities we experience today - rather than use them wisely, if needed, but to think first whether they need them in the first place. Throughout human history, people have managed to cope through family support, community support, or even - gasp! - sorting out things in their own head. In my parents' generation it was virtually unheard of to go to a therapist - and yet people lived, loved, cared about each other, cracked under the burden of life, rebuilt their life again, sorted out their thoughts, outgrew bad habits, without any kind of professional guidance through... life?

Furthermore, I think there is a trend of labeling "humanity", if you get what I mean. Some people are shy, some people are introverts, some people are social butterflies, some people are more emotional, some are more prone to blues, some are easier to anger than others, some are louder than others... It is all humanity. There is not necessarily something "pathological" about any of those traits per se, something which would require a professional treatment. People are different, and sometimes they simply should be let live and learn through their own life, growing at their own pace and in their own directions. I do see a certain "violence", for lack of a better expression, in intervening professionally into every little thing which, really, does not interfere with "normal life" (what is that anyway?) all that much.

IMO, children especially are typically best left alone, without reading into their traits too much, especially at a young age, without labeling them or possibly blowing things out of proportions. This was the attitude typically taken even when raising my generation - but with our kids' generation, there really seems to be a tendency to wish to intervene into everything and an average child has probably seen an expert of some kind at some point in their childhood (whereas when we were kids, it was basically restricted to the extreme cases and an average child was considered to be better off if just left alone to grow up without being dragged to experts, therapies, etc.). I say leave kids alone if nothing is physically wrong with them (of course that nobody is going to claim that an obviously autistic child does not need therapy, or that a child who has obvious speech issues which do not go away does not benefit from professional intervention with regard to that, etc.) and if there has not been a major life trauma that the child cannot process on their own or with the non-professional support of those around them.

Also, keep in mind that people are "self-aware" nowadays like at no time in history before, so as a result of that increased preoccupation with the self, we quite often tend to overthink our issues or even blow them out of proportions, thinking that it must be a horrible problem if we perceive it as such, even if, in reality, what we face is a perfectly normal thing that a perfectly normal number of people face as a perfectly normal human trait (e.g. shyness) and still LIVE with it as a normal part of their disposition.

This is NOT to say that councelors do not have their right and helpful place in many people's lives, but IMO, it should not be a "mainstream service" that it is rapidly becoming. Not that I have anything "against" it - obviously there is a supply because there is a demand for this kind of service, and people are free to invest their time and money as they see fit - but personally, I rarely recommend it when people ask about their problems. Maybe it has something to do with my tendency to typically picture things as light rather than grave (and this format of communication leaves a lot to imagination as it is possible to convey only a snapshot of the relevant information, so various people will get various impressions of how "serious" things are). But then again, any advice must always be taken with a grain of salt.

[Joanne]

No. Not at all.

 

I think that people should consider the range of therapeutic professionals as resources and options throughout the lifespan.

 

I would not presume to decide if someone is "bad enough" to seek therapy. I think that offering support for therapy for those people/families/situations that are "bad enough" is dangerous. Many situations would benefit from therapy earlier in the situation.

 

I didn't recommend therapy in the "shy" thread, and in fact see "shy" on a wide range of normal continuum.

 

I *don't* see "get therapy" as over-suggested, or over used, but then I don't have a stigma towards therapy or a bias against it. It is therefore not on my radar to be alert to therapy being suggested.

 

Someone mentioned that insurance (not too long ago) didn't pay for it; that defense is meaningless to me - there have been a lot of changes to insurance over the decades and I don't make decisions about validity based on it. There have been changes in circumcision, chiropractic, homebirth, support for breastfeeding, AIDS treatment, cancer treatment......

 

While I don't want to assert that people are not getting help that should, I do think that some thinking around therapy can and does limit people from getting better, or getting support.

 

I am, however, particular about training and licensing.

[cathmom]

The problem with a "hands off" approach is that something that a little therapy might have nipped in the bud can become a huge problem if not addressed! If you can look in your crystal ball and see that all will turn out fine without therapy, then, yes, let's just wait and see. Of course, you could end up with a 12 year old who can't write, or a 5.5 year old who speaks like 2.5 year old, or twins who have been in speech therapy for 3 years because you blithely decided at their 2 year old checkup that they were making progress and didn't need help. :tongue_smilie: Just speaking from personal experience here.

 

My attitude now is that if I see even a tiny little area that MIGHT need help, I'm jumping on it right now for all I'm worth!!

[zaichiki]

I do wonder what will happen when all of the quirkiness is gone from humanity. When all of the therapies fix everyone so we are all normal.

 

:lol:

 

I'm with the OP. Therapy is not my default setting.

[Ester Maria]

The problem with a "hands off" approach is that something that a little therapy might have nipped in the bud can become a huge problem if not addressed! If you can look in your crystal ball and see that all will turn out fine without therapy, then, yes, let's just wait and see. Of course, you could end up with a 12 year old who can't write, or a 5.5 year old who speaks like 2.5 year old, or twins who have been in speech therapy for 3 years because you blithely decided at their 2 year old checkup that they were making progress and didn't need help. :tongue_smilie: Just speaking from personal experience here.

 

My attitude now is that if I see even a tiny little area that MIGHT need help, I'm jumping on it right now for all I'm worth!!

:grouphug:

 

Yes, if we are to be honest, the possibility of NOT nipping some problems in the bud is there. However, I hope you allow that there is a continuum in these situations too - not reacting at slight speech problems of a 2 year old does not necessarily mean waking up one day with a severely speech delayed 8 year old who has never been treated for the problem, for example. There is quite some time in that span for observation and comparison with other children and with "charts" made for an "ideal child" while you are effectively hands off, and quite some time to decide that what you are seeing is, in fact, a problematic anomaly rather than a child who simply develops at their own, slightly slower, pace. This is not to say that well-meaning people cannot fall into the trap of waiting for too long - but yes, that is one of the risks one accepts if one has a "hands off unless what I am seeing is fairly extreme" policy. Also, a lot of people are NOT hands off when it comes to physical problems such as speech which are a lot more "concrete", so to speak, more tangible, but choose to be more hands off or "treat" on their own what are, essentially, the matters of character or disposition, not necessarily pathological or greatly interfering with the quality of life.

 

However, there is a flip side in jumping at everything too. I think that too much dragging to specialists can bring about a feeling for the child that they are "broken" and ought to be "fixed"; also, sometimes too active focusing on some problems can actually exacerbate them so normal things which would have mellowed out or dissolved naturally stick because they are constantly in the centre of attention, the child constantly "battles" them and "works" on them, the child identifies with having this problem, and sometimes precisely this identification creates a problem, etc. It is a mixed bag, too, sometimes to the point that it becomes a chicken and egg question - you find yourself not being able to tell whether the problem even existed initially or you imagined it, but for whatever focus and energy was invested in it, it was certainly created or exacerbated, and even if it was gone, maybe it was gone because it would have been gone anyway, not because of therapy. That is why I believe in careful consideration before opting for therapy for average people who are not battling some really serious issues that obviously need professional involvement.

 

Of course, opting for any approach will have its good sides and its risks.

I hope your kids are doing fine. :)

Edited January 4, 2012 by Ester Maria

[Melissa in Australia]

OK, I'm wearing my flameproof suit, so I'm ready to ask my question. :tongue_smilie:

 

I have noticed quite frequently on this forum (and elsewhere) that as soon as someone mentions that they or their children have a problem, there are many people who suggest therapy as the only viable solution.

 

Am I the only one who thinks that therapy is not the be-all and end-all way to handle your problems?

 

.

 

I always thought it was an American phenomenon.

reminds me of Crocodile Dundee :D

[Beth in OH]

Now, dh's family I am sure thought horrible things about the counselor's, as they gave him the skills and information to draw better boundaries.

 

:iagree: My observation about therapy is that its "usefulness" and "success" are really best measured by the patient and the therapist. Everyone else has their own agendas, and sometimes they don't like the results of another person's therapy. Live and let live.

[Renee in NC]

Smart. Don't forget smart. I don't know how many times I've had a financial or tax question and thought, 'I wish I could ask Renee in FL!' (and I am not kidding)

 

:lol: Thanks, but one thing I have learned over the last month or so of CPA exam studying is that I didn't know NEAR as much as I thought I did!:tongue_smilie: That, and, I have been freer to give advice because I am not licensed yet. That means less liable. There are others on this board who know a LOT more than I do, but they keep it to themselves.;)

 

I'm so blessed to have her on speed-dial!

 

I'm so blessed that I can just say your name and my phone calls you!:lol:

 

The problem with a "hands off" approach is that something that a little therapy might have nipped in the bud can become a huge problem if not addressed! If you can look in your crystal ball and see that all will turn out fine without therapy, then, yes, let's just wait and see. Of course, you could end up with a 12 year old who can't write, or a 5.5 year old who speaks like 2.5 year old, or twins who have been in speech therapy for 3 years because you blithely decided at their 2 year old checkup that they were making progress and didn't need help. :tongue_smilie: Just speaking from personal experience here.

 

My attitude now is that if I see even a tiny little area that MIGHT need help, I'm jumping on it right now for all I'm worth!!

 

And, I am quoting you again. Yes. This. Oh my - the things we could have avoided if certain of my dc had gotten help for their language issues much, much younger. That's why, when I went for a ST referral and the doctor started the "it may be fine, boys develop later" spiel I made it very clear that I would NEVER listen to that advice again. I'd rather have an over-therapied 2yo than a 9yo who is still at the 5th percentile for language (K level) despite a couple of years of therapy.

 

:iagree: My observation about therapy is that its "usefulness" and "success" are really best measured by the patient and the therapist. Everyone else has their own agendas, and sometimes they don't like the results of another person's therapy. Live and let live.

 

This is definitely true. It isn't always the one getting the therapy that has the issues - sometimes they are there to get help to deal with someone else's.:D

 

Now, back to studying. I am less than 36 hours from the Regulation exam.:001_huh:

[In2why]

Don't worry -- it honestly wasn't you! :001_smile: I just used the shyness thread as an example, but I was really thinking of some others that seemed quite extreme to me. I didn't want to get specific about them because I didn't want the people who were very rabid about someone needing therapy to feel as though they were being targeted or criticized. (They are entitled to their opinions, and I didn't want them to think I was trying to get people to gang up on them.)

 

So apparently I targeted you, instead. :blushing:

 

Sorry about that! :001_smile:

 

 

No problem lol....maybe I need therapy for narcism since I think things are ALL about me. :lol: (totally tongue in cheek)

[Deb in NZ]

OK, I'm wearing my flameproof suit, so I'm ready to ask my question. :tongue_smilie:

 

I have noticed quite frequently on this forum (and elsewhere) that as soon as someone mentions that they or their children have a problem, there are many people who suggest therapy as the only viable solution.

 

Am I the only one who thinks that therapy is not the be-all and end-all way to handle your problems?

 

Does anyone else think that, while there are certainly wonderful and qualified mental health professionals out there, that there are also a lot of therapists who end up doing more harm than good? (It's not as though all therapists have advanced degrees, certifications, and years of experience, nor is common sense necessarily a requirement for becoming a therapist.)

 

I am not trying to start a battle here, but I'm truly wondering how many people rush right off to a therapist for every little thing. I'm not talking about having witnessed a murder or having been r*ped, or something extreme; I'm thinking of things like the current thread where therapy was suggested for a shy 6 year-old who was uncomfortable talking to strangers. (Or something like that -- I can't remember the details.)

 

It seems like sometimes people post a new thread asking for some advice on what they should do about something that's upsetting them or how to deal with some relatively minor incident involving their child, and several people essentially say that the parents aren't qualified to help their own children through a particular situation, and that they must, must, must see a therapist about it.

 

I'm not pointing to any specific threads or people here, and I only mentioned the shyness thread because it was what reminded me of the whole "see a therapist" thing, not because it was anything more than a very mild example of what I'm talking about.

 

I do want to point out that I know therapy has its place, and that it is very helpful to many people. I'm just curious as to how many people here really rush off to "the professionals" when there's a problem, and how many feel that they can handle things on their own using compassion and common sense.

 

I have a few specific threads that keep coming to mind, but I don't want to embarrass anyone, so I'll be vague. I have seen people recommend (and insist upon) therapy for children who haven't actually been molested by anyone, but who may have once seen something they shouldn't have seen, or who have had someone once make suggestive comments to them. They were immediately viewed as "victims" who needed immediate professional help, even when the moms said they could handle it on their own and that the kids didn't seem particularly upset at all. Some threads seem to end up bashing the moms if they don't agree that therapy is the only option, and I'm wondering if I'm the only one who has a problem with that. (And again, I'm not talking about situations where something truly awful has occurred and it seems that the parents are oblivious.)

 

I'm probably going to get myself into trouble with this thread, but I felt I had to ask about this.

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

 

I'm with the OP. Therapy is not my default setting.

 

:iagree:

 

(Of course this opinion in no way reflects on physical therapy necessary for the body to recover from physical injury. I do believe that can be very necessary and useful.)

[OH_Homeschooler]

For one quarter in my 5 years in my undergraduate studies (I changed major, changed it back..graduated with 70 more hours than I needed, ugh) I took 5 psychology courses in one quarter...just to knock it out...made straight A's in courses where the 'majors' were visibly struggling and constantly complaining how hard it was...but what was more..was that out of 20 students (upper level classes) I think I would pinpoint one as being 'with it'....the others had either no common sense or were far below the intellectual peers I had experienced in my other classes (Chemistry, Calculus, Physics etc.)...And all I could think about was that THESE people were going to be offering therapy/solutions for others?

 

While I'm generally not a fan of therapy, I know that when I was in college and looking into various graduate programs, clinical psychology PhD programs were considered more competitive than even medical schools to get into. So while you may have found the psychology majors in your classes less than intelligent, it is likely that only the truly intelligent students were the ones who were able to get into clinical programs. Psychology is one of those areas that many people find interesting and easy, but you cannot even be called a psychologist until you have completed a PhD. If you do not pursue psychology through to the PhD, it is basically like having a general studies college degree because with a Bachelor's you are just not prepared for a career in psychology, except as maybe an aid in a mental health facility or something similar. (Can you guess what my major was? But I was never interested in the therapy side of things, I was more into the research side. And I never found the classes difficult...)

[Joanne]

While I'm generally not a fan of therapy, I know that when I was in college and looking into various graduate programs, clinical psychology PhD programs were considered more competitive than even medical schools to get into. So while you may have found the psychology majors in your classes less than intelligent, it is likely that only the truly intelligent students were the ones who were able to get into clinical programs. Psychology is one of those areas that many people find interesting and easy, but you cannot even be called a psychologist until you have completed a PhD. If you do not pursue psychology through to the PhD, it is basically like having a general studies college degree because with a Bachelor's you are just not prepared for a career in psychology, except as maybe an aid in a mental health facility or something similar. (Can you guess what my major was? But I was never interested in the therapy side of things, I was more into the research side. And I never found the classes difficult...)

 

:iagree: I graduated with a Masters in a related discipline, summa cum laude. (My undergraduate degrees are similarly credentialed). I have been published, a guest lecturer, and taught professionally. It was still recommended that I apply to 15+ clinical psych Ph. D. programs. University of Houston, for example, gets more than 300 applicants and takes between 1 and 5 students, depending on Professor needs/availability.

[Liz CA]

Therapy, which I understand as counseling, is one tool in the tool chest. It can be useful BUT I think one has to search for a counselor who is well educated in the specific matter you wish to address. IOW, a child behavior specialist may not help much with counseling adults for addiction. I think, most counselors - if they are honest - end up gravitating toward one thing or another and should state this area of preference / competence clearly. This does not mean they do not know anything about other areas but it likely means there are other counselors who are better equipped to handle those clients.

[eternalknot]

Therapy/Counseling isn't very common in my culture, so it's my opinion that people here (in the States) do seem to turn to it as a default. I say, whatever works - go for it.

 

I do find it interesting from a sociological perspective, though. The American society seems to thrive on this mindset of independence ... for each person, at every stage of his development ... independence is viewed as the end goal. The default, if you will.

 

What interests me, then, is that at some point the individual realizes independence whole hog isn't necessarily a great thing. From my cultural POV it seems as though a person is socially expected to isolate himself from a naturally built-in and biological or communal support system but is now willing to PAY for that very support via therapy/counseling. One can even shop around for a therapist that will pander to one's own beliefs (not suggesting this breach of ethics is commonplace amongst therapists, just that the person seeking therapy can wield a consumer approach to the experience.) If you don't like what your family tells you, what can you do? If you don't like what your therapist is telling you, it's easy to move along to the next one on the list.

 

Then there is the whole rise of the professed (sometimes self-professed) "Expert" or "Professional" class that plays into it, but ... that's another can of worms, for another time and another thread. It's relevant here, in part, though; we've certainly a glut of it. There's a time and place for a professional, but much of what I see as referring behavior/feelings for therapy could be initially or fully addressed at home or among a community support system (friends/family) ... if we hadn't bought into the need for the elevated Expert/Professional class, and lost our self-confidence and -trust in the process.

[swellmomma]

Catwoman I really think you should think about speaking to a therapist about this strange aversion you have to them. It seems like there really must be a deeper reason and talking about it with a professional just might help you unearth that reason and resolve it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:lol::lol::lol:

[Ester Maria]

While I'm generally not a fan of therapy, I know that when I was in college and looking into various graduate programs, clinical psychology PhD programs were considered more competitive than even medical schools to get into. So while you may have found the psychology majors in your classes less than intelligent, it is likely that only the truly intelligent students were the ones who were able to get into clinical programs. Psychology is one of those areas that many people find interesting and easy, but you cannot even be called a psychologist until you have completed a PhD. If you do not pursue psychology through to the PhD, it is basically like having a general studies college degree because with a Bachelor's you are just not prepared for a career in psychology, except as maybe an aid in a mental health facility or something similar. (Can you guess what my major was? But I was never interested in the therapy side of things, I was more into the research side. And I never found the classes difficult...)

There are two things I would like to say, but let me precede this by saying that I would really appreciate if you (and other psychologists who might read this :)) read it with an open mind as a personal experience, and thoughts accumulated over many years as a result of that experience, rather than as field bashing or an attempt to paint with a wide brush many of its varied aspects and varied people who are in it professionally.

 

The first thing I would like to say.

Several of my very extended family members have what we call "hobby degrees" in Psychology. "Hobby degrees" are real, academically valid degrees, obtained at recognized European universities, after a full academic load and all the prescribed exams one must take to obtain them - but they are called "hobby degrees" because one pursued them as a result of one's intellectual curiosity, personal academic enrichment or simply too much free time in one's life, or at best as a "plan B" for one's career, rather than one's serious professional ambitions in the field. These people's "actual" fields are law, letters, economics, and hard sciences; they studied Psychology as an additional course of study (NOT dual major, NOT a complementary part of their degree - something entirely external), whether during their primary academic formation or slightly after it. Some of them even specialized / got certified in some specific therapies or approaches, but I do not know the specifics of that. The bottomline is, they underwent an academic preparation of a typical psychologist in spite of opting for a career in their other field. From the classes dealing with the biological basis of the work, with anthropology and genetics; to the statistics and sociological aspect of the work; to the personality theories, psychology of education, of work; then their own practical work - internship - volunteering opportunities that verge professional; to military and war psychology, developmental issues, history of the field - you name it, they have probably studied it, had an exam on it, known somebody who does research in it. These people are NOT amateurs, in spite of not having a PhD in that very field because by the time one reaches that level of education, one does not even enter a PhD program if one is not "serious" about it. And they were not, in spite of being excellent and recognized students, because they committed to other fields and left that behind them. *I* am an amateur - I read a bit of this, a bit of that, dabbled in what I found interesting, tied this or that to culture theories or literature, but without any system behind it - but they are NOT.

 

ALL of them, without an exception, confirmed to me that Psychology, as an academic field, was their intellectually less demanding one. They also confirmed to me the PP's experience: their classmates could have been described - in the overwhelmingly vast majority - as average students (not the bottom third, but definitely not the most brilliant minds either), with an average intellectual passion, with an average intellectual skill and capacity for discernment of fine points, with an average interest in what they studied. Now you may be thinking, but of course, the same can be said about all fields, right?

Well, according to them, there is still something more average to these people than to people in their other degrees. They claim the climate of mediocrity was felt more; the brilliant insights were fewer; the exceptional individuals were fewer - and even those that were, typically "went hardcore scientific", which in their jargon basically meant going medical (cognitive science, switching to med schools, etc.), rather than becoming counselors. It may all be one big coincidence, but this is those people's perspective.

 

My own experiences with psychologists - psychologists of profession, who hold degrees and work with them - have been remarkably similar. I have known about a dozen, dozen and a half of them. With one exception, these were people whom I would characterize as average minds, average constitutions, of average personality "strength", with average life experiences; some of them I know from my childhood and for all I have witnessed how they react, how they think, how they fare intellectually, what are their cultural habits. Not that I would not characterize most of my colleagues as such! Not that I would not characterize most people as such! But, my colleagues, and most people, do not "guide" through life, in a way, other people. They do not give life advice that can be considered 'professional'. They do not pretend to help people grow with themselves, their societies, in their relationships (I am talking counseling here, not consulting a psychologist for intelligence tests / developmental disorders therapy / etc.). They do not take on, professionally vested, this incredibly courageous and interesting, but also incredibly dangerous and responsible role that includes some form of "mentorship". And because of that, they can be forgiven for all of their intellectual - and otherwise - mediocrity, for all of their good intentions gone wrong, for all of their personal limitations that did not allow them to grasp the other person's situation better, for all of their lack of life experience and personal emotional growth relevant to the situations other people ask help about, etc. Because the intricacies of the human psyche are not their "trade" nor do they specifically help other people due to having that "trade" - but due to simply sharing a part of life with other people.

 

Which brings me to the second thing I would like to say.

I think we underestimate the importance of that "sharing a part of life" aspect. I think we overestimate an academic course of studies for the matters of practical help in life. *Ideally*, of course, one would have BOTH - the professional familiarity with the field AND the familiarity with the person they wish to help, their socio-cultural context, their own selves with their own personal growth in the relevant areas, as well as a rich personal life experience, moral firmness, a strong personality that others can "feed off" a little to get some strength themselves, a rich cultural background with the understanding of the literary and artistic canon which conveys much of the nuances of human soul... I do not doubt for a second that these people *exist* and that there are very successful "matches" of a counselor and a person. *My own* personal experience has been lacking in that camp though. And, as such, I hope I am allowed to say this: I find the latter set of qualities to be MUCH, MUCH more important ones in somebody who is helping me to grow than the first quality. Many psychologists are be good and well-meaning people in addition to their degrees, but there has to be a particular combination... which also takes into account sociological and cultural factors... for it to work.

Edited January 7, 2012 by Ester Maria
fixed tenses

[Ester Maria]

It aids a little if you know what my generalized problem is and if you have some professional experience with it. It aids a LOT if you know where I come from in general, which context produced me (intellectually, socially, emotionally), what is my net of mental associations as a result of that context - which then ends up with "speaking the same language" with me... and some of those things cannot be "learned". It especially cannot be learned if I struggle with issues, or with nuances of the issues (because it is all interconnected), that are for you merely theoretical observations. You may know about some particular types of trauma or national issues, theoretically; but you may not know, personally, experientally, about carrying a baggage of an entire people and family, of growing up in politically messed up circumstances, of having a messed up relationship with one's conflicting national identities, of having to reconcile a huge disparity in one's dual culture, with personal angst over that, with personal concrete trauma in lands in conflict and nightmares of some terrible experiences, terrible realizations, terrible guilt and terrible victimhood combined... If you do not have that intimate experience of that, a family baggage or experience of that, for you these are empty notions and an intellectual "game" of trying to understand me. You cannot connect. You will never be able to connect. The chances are, you would not have been able to help me with something much "easier", like my eating disorder, either, because you would have lacked a complete cultural context of it, sociological knowledge, appreciation of one particular educational context. Nor would you have been able to help me with my "blues" because you would lack too many pieces of a picture and fail to understand just why am I so troubled. Nor would you have been able to help with a horrible feeling of under-accomplishment, the guilt of betraying entire generations of people, the crushing expectations of some of the last remnants of an old kind upbringing that is for most people a pure theoretical construct and something they have not experienced, nor would you understand my intellectual struggles and struggles with intellectual honesty as to how to lead my life, if you had not shared some of that context. You would have no idea, either, today, how to help me understand my daughters, how to cope with raising them give all above (+ moving / wandering and additional cultural stuff), without all of that context - and that context is a mere intellectualization for you, not a living culture. My reasoning, the nuances of my soul, the inner logic of my parenting and my close relationships, would be an enigma to you. An intellectually interesting enigma, perhaps, but largely impenetrable nonetheless. And the chances are, you would not be helpful, in spite of the fact that helping people is your "trade".

People who are helpful the most, to my shocking realization at some point in my life, are those who know you more personally, more intimately, who know other people and what they think about you, who have had very rich lives full of personal growth themselves that they can share because their growth is relevant to you, who are largely compatible with you in terms of that context which produced you and intellectually... and for whom it is typically quite irrelevant what is their professional background. The ones with intimate knowledge of literature, art, or religious scholarship tend to be a bit better due to the ability to "extract" much of the useful stuff from the field, but past that, it really does not matter. They can be as "simple people" as you are and still be far more capable of helping you than PhDs in Psychology specializing in your issues, as long as they are intellectually up to the task, capable of verbalizing and concreticizing much of those elusive nuances they, too, feel.

 

And that is the core of my issue with psychologists. As one of those "hobby degreed" once told me, "If you want to understand a human brain, biologically, materially, go to a medical doctor who preferably deals with it. If you want to understand the intricacies of the mind and subjective psychological reality, and thus 'help' yourself to the extent to which it is possible, go to people who have had rich lives, much personal and intellectual growth, yet who come from the similar context as you." Psychology, *to me as a layperson* (read: do not take me very seriously), has always seemed like a particularly unsuccessful attempt at juggling the two - but without the scientific rigor of medicine, of neurology, of "hardcore science" that studies the brain, necessary for the first approach, and essentially a gamble as regards the second. A gamble, because you can learn knowledge and theories, but to work with people you need more than dry knowledge, you need also that personal connection, warmth, that unspoken link and "shared language" - and whether you have it will always depend on the other person and their background. With some you will click, with some not. Yet for those of us on the other side, you need to understand that it can be a hurtful, expensive, and potentially emotionally fatal gamble, if the fit is bad and we do not realize it - rather than helped, we may often end up more closed than ever before. At the end of the day, you are a stranger. But your "trade" is to deal with our innermost. It can truly be an experience that leaves a bitter flavor in our mouth. With other professions you can somehow separate the two, but not with this one. And yet you are a person too. But we cannot "forgive" you the way that we can to those for whom this is not a "trade", not a livelihood, not an intellectual interest, but a deeply personal involvement. Not sixty minutes of chattering about abstraction, but living culture, living touch, in real time with real emotional investment.

 

Before the emergence of the massive scale alienation of people, that is how people helped each other through life - not via a professional counselor, an artificial "life situation coach" that is a stranger to the actual passage of that life - but via real people, simple people, like us, who share that reality, and who are limited, but also very, very real.

 

This is such a dangerous trade. I am not sure I would ever dare to practice it. In a way I admire those who attempt at it, if they are personally up to the task are reasonably successful at it, and make a positive difference in people's lives, but I imagine it must come at a very high price too - the burden of responsibility, especially the one you charge, seems to me enormous.

 

I hope you (or other psychologists here) do not take any of this as a personal attack (even though you said you are into research, not therapy). I just thought it might be useful to present, or at least try to, just why do some people, like me, prefer to take it "to the village" than to a counselor and have a hard to verbalize, but very viscerally felt "aversion", for lack of a better expression, to professional counseling. I recognize that it has its place, that there are people who are not blessed with a good "village" or prefer an annonymous approach and a distance, that many people's lives were changed for the better thanks to counseling and that just because I personally do not "like" something or have not found it helpful, it does not mean that it is discredited as a potential source of comfort and a positive change for others. I just felt the need to present the other side, too. :)

Edited January 7, 2012 by Ester Maria
cut some info

[gingersmom]

:banghead::cursing:

 

Why spend money on therapy when you can have a 16 year old who can't stand the texture of most foods or a child who at 20 can only wear stretch waistband pants because they can't stand the texture of waistbands or a 10 year old who can't be understood by anyone outside their family and even they have trouble understanding them.

 

Of course, therapy is totally overrated. I mean why spend money on therapy when it can be used on vacations or a new car.

[Hedgehog]

Yes.

Had I continued counseling when my husband and I were in a very bad place in our marriage, I would have probably ended up leaving him.

Dredging up and rehashing every minuscule offense from our past in order to 'work through' the current issue only caused building resentment. What I wanted (and finally found) was a way to forgive and move on. That was not what I received from counseling.

 

:iagree: That is SO true.

 

Catwoman.. I agree with you (as I often do!). Therapy has it's place for sure. But just as many of us have taken on the education of our children, despite the fact that some believe that education should be "left to the professionals", so also many times we do - and should - take on the "counselling of" and "listening to" our kids.

[Liz CA]

I think you nailed it. We were never meant to exist on an "island." We are supposed to have fellowship, communication and support of either family or community. In today's world it's vanishing fast for one reason or another which is probably why more and more are turning to a "professional" listener.

Some horrific experiences, however, are best dealt with professionally, IMHO.

[Joanne]

I think you nailed it. We were never meant to exist on an "island." We are supposed to have fellowship, communication and support of either family or community. In today's world it's vanishing fast for one reason or another which is probably why more and more are turning to a "professional" listener.

Some horrific experiences, however, are best dealt with professionally, IMHO.

 

Every single therapist I know would agree that having, finding, or building community (or healthy family) is important.

 

"Professional listeners" work with the client to create quality of life.