Where does the idea that psychotherapy is inherently flawed come from? Personal experiences or research? A real question, not rhetorical.

The evidence shows that people benefit from therapy overall regardless. It is simply better to go than not.

People go for different reasons, go to different kinds of Ts, have different expectations, have different backgrounds.

Modern approaches do not assume that the T is in charge or an expert. So many of the newer ways put the client first as the expert, work with positive aspects (strengths, resources, abilities).

I personally have seen a number of Ts, all different in approaches, personality, level of experience, but I have had overall good results even with difficulties within the therapy. There is a concept of rupture and repair, pretty standard now. Ts are human, make mistakes. All my Ts have been open in either seeing the mistakes themselves or listening to me when I point them out. That has led to a strengthening rather than a problem.

Therapy is about getting stronger. The job of a T is to make themselves obsolete, a weird goal in a profession, but that is really what they have to do. The job of the T is to empower the client to function in a way that makes their own personal situation better so that they do not need to go to therapy any longer.

Why else go? why pay or have insurance pay? Doesn't make sense to go if you actually think it is "inherently flawed" across the board or that your money and time are for nothing. Basic trust and belief in the process is undermined by such ideas. And I still don't understand where they come from.