Of course! I think my point was more that the implication ATAT talked about--"That one needs to see a therapist to learn this task that everyone else seems to have mastered just fine"--can hardly be considered "the heart of mental health care" when we take into account all of the clients whose problems exceed the "normal" range of severity and could therefore benefit from specialist instruction/skills/information.

There is nothing "wrong" with you if you never learned how to deal with traumatic flashbacks on your own and could benefit from some instruction in this area. It's not as though everybody else learned this in Life 101 and you just weren't paying attention--traumatic flashbacks are an extraordinary challenge arising from an extraordinary event or situation. It makes sense you might need some "extra" instruction in addition to the "ordinary" skills you and everybody else already learned.

Again, I just don't buy that the implication is that something's "wrong" with the client. What's "wrong" is the environment, the traumatic history, the chemical make-up of the brain, whatever. The client is simply an ordinary person trying to use his/her ordinary skills and information to tackle extraordinary difficulties. It makes sense that there'd be a gap there. To me, that gap--that mismatch of ordinary skill vs extraordinary difficulty--is what therapy-as-instruction is trying to address, not the "wrongness" or "brokenness" of the client.