Quote:
Originally Posted by BudFox
I find it helpful to try to establish the true nature of therapy, independent of the effects. But if you're suggesting that the dodgy approach to so called "boundaries" is justified by a smattering of anecdotal successes, i'd disagree, not least because it's easy to find abject failures and outright disasters. Also ends don't necessarily justify dubious means. Someone could say... my therapist beat me regularly and look at me, i'm healed! Not denying good outcomes, just trying to cut thru the tidal wave of bulls**t on this topic (and to support myself and hopefully others who feel similarly).
|
That's the thing - I'm not convinced at all that you are in any way establishing the true nature of therapy. You are just focussing on some details you personally have bad experiences with and try to generalise them to the whole concept of psychotherapy without any logical chain of arguments. At least you don't present such logical chain of argument (the argument that all your therapists were bad doesn't really count as evidence that psychotherapy is inherently bad or dangerous). I'm sure you disagree with me but I'm fine with that.
Also, I don't think the successes are anecdotal. Surely, the successes are probably more rarely talked about for obvious reasons - if everything goes well what's there to talk about?
I understand the motivation to support yourself and others who feel similarly but I don't see how you will achieve this support by trying to make generalisations that clearly aren't true.