Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennster
I think it's good to remember that therapists are likely to be as diverse as any people who might share an occupation. Like I'm sure some therapists would consider that reasonable, while others would not.
I don't say this in defense of therapists, mind you, but more as a way of keeping in mind the variabilities inherent in all human endeavors. And I do think there are therapists who would highlight some of the same issues that you do in critiquing their own profession. And then some who actively work in a very different way.
|
Agree, therapists are going to be diverse in their views. But I think you are being disingenuous here. We all know the transference construct is pervasive. Find a paper or book or client forum where this and related concepts are not dominant. Impossible.
As for the "malignant" thing. I did a quick google search and found at least 5 papers or books from different professional authors that mentioned this. These sorts of ideas are well established an accepted.
That a particular therapist does not subscribe to such things doesn't, in my opinion, change anything. I don't see any of them publicly and openly denouncing such horrors as "malignant erotic transference" so they are complicit.
Also, even if a therapist claims to bring their true self, it's a con. They are NEVER going to show up with all their needs, aversions, judgements, neuroses... because then it would not be therapy anymore.
Re: your other post, I have not done any buddhist-based therapy, though I did do a study on my own of buddhism and was practicing for a short time. I'm not looking for a therapist or a teacher though. I'd rather just be around peers and have free exchange of ideas without payment, hierarchy, etc. Have not heard of Paul Gilbert, thanks will look him up.