Reliance on any psychoanalytic term is psychobabble. Reliance on any psychological explanation (even when not outright psychoanalytic) whenever common sense or basic understanding of people would explain the situation better is psychobabble. Reliance on any unproven psychological theory is psychobabble.

And yes, often a discussion on what might be happening, without ever connecting to visceral gut feelings on what's actually happening, is psychobabble. If it leads to navel gazing instead of actually being in the present and seeing the actual situation and being able to make decisions and taking action on it.

I had this concern before that I wasn't sure whether it's ever justified to do therapy trying to go deep, dig inside, all that, in rearranging things inside before you can even do anything in the real world if too much gets in your way of functioning. Like all that navel gazing I mention. And - in more complex cases - to dig as deep as possible, even very vague or speculative methods like free associating or dream analysis in psychoanalysis could be needed, to get your subconscious moving to work with options and possibilities to eventually have an incubation to actual insight that fits reality.

So, I am not convinced - actually am very skeptical - if the above is the existing best way to support your own subconscious to get to actual useful insight.

I've considered that external support, decreasing stress, making the environment positive and supportive - including community support - for natural recovery and healing where you let the mind do the work on its own could be enough. Nutritional supplementing or perhaps medication as well if needed to jump start things if chemical changes in the brain have gone too far. But your lifestyle and your choice of activities can achieve an improvement in those chemical changes too, supplementing or medication might just speed up progress.

I don't know. Both methods obviously do require external support, just very different ones. I know in some countries they've tried the latter even on mental illnesses as severe as schizophrenia.

My personal opinion is that the latter approach could do less harm than the former approach if we try to use too many half-baked theories for the former. Maybe one day psychology gets far enough with understanding to avoid causing so much harm. In medicine, it's a basic principle too, do no harm*.

*: "The “do no harm” principle requires that healthcare providers weigh the risk that a given course of action will hurt a patient against its potential to improve the patient's condition." Of course, to apply this principle effectively, we would have to first expose how much harm therapy and psychology can do and has done already. Which will not happen without enough supervision and objective feedback!! Is there any other profession where objective feedback is not utilised simply because the professionals would potentially feel offended by it?!