Quote:
Originally Posted by stopdog
I do not see the therapist as a teacher in what I am doing with hiring one of them. The way the question is phrased, I tend to agree with ATAT about it sets up an idea that I do find, if not repugnant, then at least off base and unnecessary for me. I was perfectly willing to listen to the woman if she would have explained to me about therapy and what she was doing, and I do let the second one explain it to me. But otherwise I don't really see what the woman could or would instruct me in. I use the woman to sit there, stay back and I say aloud things I don't tell real people. I don't need or expect the woman to do more than sit there and not talk.
And that sometimes exceeds her abilities- if she can't manage that simple job, Why would I task her abilities further.
|
Well, no, SD, I wouldn't expect that you would find the woman had anything useful to say, let alone teach!
Though I am still struggling to see how the original question ("Is there something inherently offensive about the idea that you're struggling because there's something you haven't learned yet? That a T can either provide that missing information or discover it with you or help you find it on your own?")
sets up a broken client/savior therapist approach. I suppose I can see, sort of, how it
leans in that direction--how it could, conceivably, under certain circumstances,
occur with said repugnant approach. But actually
set up? Pave the way for? Necessarily lead to? I'll have to think about that.
Again, I've just never equated needing information with being "broken" or less than, and have never seen possessing and imparting information as putting one in a savior role. (mostly thinking out loud; not trying to start an argument)
Anyway, thanks for your input!