Psychology useless? (interview, ethic, insurance, party)

[Aylalou]

You're welcome not to be sure. The pain that brought them there in the first place must have been bad enough to want the patient to get rid of it. Avoidance of pain creates only long-term pain. You can't go through life without pain, and it's better to work through it so at least you have a life that can be much better. Courage.

[artsyguy]

So it is the fault of the client now?? Hmmm ok that is very therapeutic.

Some people go through trauma being ostracized in high school or bullied at work. Or people are sexually molested or a loved one passes away. Let's be real.

You see things in a very non-empathic point of view , as in it is all the fault of the client. That is a lot of weight to carry on ones shoulders.

Originally Posted by Aylalou

You're welcome not to be sure. The pain that brought them there in the first place must have been bad enough. Avoidance of pain can create long-term pain. Go for the pain to at least have the rest of your life pain-lessened.

[Ellis Bell]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aylalou
You're welcome not to be sure. The pain that brought them there in the first place must have been bad enough. Avoidance of pain can create long-term pain. Go for the pain to at least have the rest of your life pain-lessened.

Originally Posted by artsyguy

So it is the fault of the client now?? Hmmm ok that is very therapeutic.

Some people go through trauma being ostracized in high school or bullied at work. Or people are sexually molested or a loved one passes away. Let's be real.

You see things in a very non-empathic point of view , as in it is all the fault of the client. That is a lot of weight to carry on ones shoulders.

I would re-read aylalou's statements and print a retraction if I were you.

The way I read it, aylalou meant the client's pain caused by outside sources, will have them to seek help, so as to learn to manage their pain.

[Tricky D]

Originally Posted by artsyguy

You see things in a very non-empathic point of view , as in it is all the fault of the client.

The truth of the matter is that if the client doesn't wish to talk about his pain (or traumatic experience) no amount of talking will help.

I don't see how talking about your problems is useless.
Granted you could talk to friends instead of pay strangers to listen, but friends aren't always discrete.
Or talking about your problems with friends could ruin the friendship.

[artsyguy]

Oh right.

Originally Posted by actonbell

I would re-read aylalou's statements and print a retraction if I were you.

The way I read it, aylalou meant the client's pain caused by outside sources, will have them to seek help, so as to learn to manage their pain.

[Aylalou]

Originally Posted by artsyguy

So it is the fault of the client now?? Hmmm ok that is very therapeutic.

Some people go through trauma being ostracized in high school or bullied at work. Or people are sexually molested or a loved one passes away. Let's be real.

You see things in a very non-empathic point of view , as in it is all the fault of the client. That is a lot of weight to carry on ones shoulders.

I have no idea how you came to that conclusion in what I said. You seem to be bringing a lot of issues into this when what I said seems pretty clear-cut. I don't get how you read into it that there is "fault" of any kind. People are in pain and they need help and the therapist's job is to help them find ways to ease this pain.

[Fred314X]

Originally Posted by artsyguy

And why do people need to pay $80 per session for that lol. Also from what I read a lot of it doesn't even work.

It's like many other things in life. It can work when you want it to work...or when you believe that it works. Just trusting in it blindly, because someone thinks you should, isn't the greatest decision one could make.

[stycotl]

though it has already been said, i will reiterate that psychology and psychotherapy are different ball games. sure they are related, but so are baseball and football as far as ball games go...

therapy is only as effective as the patient makes it. it is also only as effective as the counselor makes it, but the initiative rides on the shoulders of the patient. going in the first place is a good start, but that is only the beginning.

if you haven't found success in your sessions, something needs to change: either the therapist, or the way you are approaching the situation.

psychology is still a new discipline in many aspects, and there are still unanswered questions. with all of that though, there is much that we do understand, and much that we can correct and heal. but it does take the ability to become aware of the issues, and some people--for whatever reasons--cannot see the issues that affect them in their lives, even with professional help.

aaron out.

[Redisca]

Originally Posted by artsyguy

That sounds very cliche when you say the person must face the pain? How much more pain must a depressed or anxious person go through? I'm not sure you understand what "therapeutic" means.


Therapy is a cure or to heal.

Actually, this is debatable. It's a long-standing model that people who, for example, have been through a major disaster or suffered a tremendous loss should be encouraged to talk about it as soon as possible afterwards, and at length. However, latest studies show (and sorry, I don't have a link, so feel free not to believe me) that disaster survivors who have not been through "debriefing" and have not received therapy actually do better in the long run -- that they recover from depression faster, have lower incidences of PTSD, and lower rates of suicide. (And this also suggests that possible overdiagnosis of PTSD may actually cause people who didn't have it before to develop it.) "Facing one's pain" sounds very heroic, but I don't think it's necessarily therapeutic. If the natural tendency of the human mind is to repress, perhaps there is a good reason for it. It certainly appears that the mind needs time to process certain unpleasant things, sometimes a very long time. Whether psychotherapy helps that process or messes it up by reopening fresh wounds is an open question as far as I am concerned. I am dubious, however, since people who are in therapy, seem remain in therapy forever and rarely make any significant progress.

I also see a problem with excessive medicalization of life's vagaries. Undergoing a great deal of suffering and emotional challenge is one thing, but calling it an actual pathology and slapping a label on it only makes things worse -- because once you call something a disease (and let's face it, calling it a "disorder" or "syndrome" will not alter the perception that it is a disease), you signal to the "patient" that he may never recover, and that his problems are now fully internalized, as opposed to being a function solely of external phenomena. Thus, while I am sure plenty of combat soldiers are deeply scarred by their experiences, I suspect that telling them that they suffer from a mental disorder that is incurable and that will affect them for the rest of their lives acts as a self-fulfilling prophecy -- that a lot of people don't recover simply because they have been told they never will, and that's without taking into account the cases in which the diagnosis provides an excuse to manipulate others and disregard boundaries. To this extent, I also suspect that psychotherapy is, in many instances, not so much about helping people overcome what they need to overcome, but about indoctrinating them with the idea that they are sick and will never be healthy again.

[Tracysherm]

I've worked in behavioral health for 16 years. Yes there are many practices and practitioners that can be empirically called "useless." But those of use who actually do good, effective work don't like those, as they give all of us a bad name.

Many of you seem to be talking about long term counseling, and I agree that at best, it's just supportive (meaning it doesn't actually change anything, but just helps the person by validating them and letting them process things. If someone wants to pay out of pocket for that, thaty's on them, but I don't want my tax dollars going to it, or my insurance premiums going up as a result.

You also don't really acknowledge the people who have serious mental illnesses. Medications can be life-changing for such problems, but they don't do the whole job. Meds can act as a catalyst, but it's what the person learns in good, evidence-based therapy that helps the person sustain the positive changes and learn new skills.

In my field there is much talk now of "evidence based practices" which is basically an intervention that has been shown in repeated research to work, to cause improvement in a statistically significant number of clients.

The clinicians who reject evidence based practices tend to be those who let people sit and talk, session after session, sometimes for years. Those of us who actually want to be effective want our clients to get to the point where they no longer need us.

As for psychology vs. psychotherapy. Psychology the very general science that studies thinking, learning, feeling, etc. Although a "new" science, tons of research has been done and much has been learned about how the brain and mind operate and interact with the body. Psychopathology is just one little branch of psychology, just like developmental theory, learning theory, intelligence, etc, etc.

Psychotherapy is really the application of certain theoretical knowledge to some type of psychopathology. If the intervention is grounded in sound theory, backed up by evidence, then the intervention can be very, very effective. If it's not grounded in theory, or loosely grounded or loosely delivered, then it's less effective, non-effective, and in some cases, harmful.

Also, I agree with the last poster that many in my field do (with or without meaning to) enable people to become and stay dependent on services/meds/therapy. But there are many like me who believe in helping the person get to their highest potential with regard to independence. There is too much pathologizing of "normal" life stress and feelings. There are people with really severe problems out there! I don't know why we have to add to that by making whole groups of "normal" people "sick."