[BudFox]

Originally Posted by Favorite Jeans

My understanding is that the recent thread in question was closed because it had become argumentative and because it had devolved into a discussion between a few people that had little to do with the original poster's question (ie it was hijacked).

I do think that they too often close threads where debate becomes spirited. I have a pretty high threshold for spirited debate and generally think it's appropriate as long as it remains respectful. However I think the forum's moderators are somewhat more reluctant to let significant dissent unfold. I suppose that is their prerogative.

I have not found that certain viewpoints are censored more often. There's lots of skepticism about psychotherapy and medication on the forum. I think it's really the tone of the debate that shuts down threads.

There was a recent thread in particular I was thinking of, and the moderators shut it down when useful info was still being shared (in my opinion). I apologize if I am the one who hijacked it, but I also think the vigorous objections to my posts had little to do with the fact that it was slightly off the original topic, but more so the viewpoint expressed.

But it's not just one thread, I see definite patterns across threads.

I'm not saying outright censorship. It's more to do with certain views triggering extreme responses and a feeling of the mob coming after the poster, and that tends to discourage those views.

I see this most with regard to psychiatry. I realize this is the psychotherapy forum but the two go hand in hand often and are discussed together.

Originally Posted by SkyscraperMeow

The trick is, to frame everything in terms of personal experience.

^^^This^^^. Where issues tend to come up is when a poster leaves the realm of personal experience and delves into broad generalizations (on either end of the spectrum-- pro or con; good or bad) that they declare as absolutes. There are very few absolutes when it comes to therapy and psychiatry and medications and mental illness, etc. It just isn't that black and white, and trying to declare any of it in terms of black and white is going to be met with debate from both ends. As a poster one can declare YOUR personal experience as black and white, but when you declare everyone's else's experience black or white based on your experience, that's going to become a problem.

[BudFox]

Originally Posted by vonmoxie

I think perhaps some perceive psychiatry/psychology as entities unto themselves and even as belief systems, as opposed to the complex and still somewhat subjective sciences they represent. Therefore dissent with any element of it is seen as bashing the whole system.

Yes, I agree with you. Belief system is a good way to frame it.

I would also say that bashing the whole system should be allowed, if the poster does so in a respectful and meaningful way. Maybe someone who has had terrible experiences with psychiatry or therapy needs to vent, and needs to seek support in that way.

[atisketatasket]

Originally Posted by missbella

I hope then that "support" includes respect and accommodation for those harmed by therapy as well as those who find it beneficial.

I may not have been here long enough, but where is this happening? Every time I see someone describe a bad therapy experience, there is a good deal of commiseration and virtual hugs. In fact, I would have said that that's a major outpouring of support on here.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[unaluna]

Re meds, i think it WAS decided a while ago that people who ask about meds here should be free to do so without having to constantly defend their choice to take meds or listen to unsolicited recommendations about not taking meds. So if you are wanting to debate that - i think that ship has sailed.

[mcl6136]

Originally Posted by stopdog

I think this kind of thread may be against the rules. But I don't see that dissent is stopped - I am very critical of therapists and know some consider it bashing - they can think that if they want - I of course disagree. But I don't feel shut down just because some other person does not like my opinion or wants to label it bashing. I accept my opinions are not the popular ones here. I still feel free to give them. I block the people I can't tolerate at all.

Yep....I have been very active in the past and really tore into a former T and the very notion of therapy as practiced by that particular nutcase. Then I went on to have brief disastrous therapy with two other incompetent s. Nobody in the group ever treated me badly or unfairly. Some pressed me, asked for details, called for me to be patient with therapy in general. I have found people ...on balance.to be thoughtful and wise.

[stopdog]

For drugs - if someone wants to take them - then sure = no discussion over why they may be undesirable. But often, it seems to me, people are wanting to weigh the pros and cons of doing so.

[missbella]

[QUOTE=atisketatasket;4663240]I may not have been here long enough, but where is this happening? Every time I see someone describe a bad therapy experience, there is a good deal of commiseration and virtual hugs. In fact, I would have said that that's a major outpouring of support on here.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk[/QUOTE

I've seen personal narratives or working through one's own experiences provoke anger from those on the opposite end of the spectrum. Fault and blame are admittedly sensitive subjects to those recovering because often their exploitative therapists blamed them.

[BudFox]

Originally Posted by Leah123

What I asked in the thread you referred to was to start a thread on the side topic that was raised, rather than going so far from the original topic. The topic was whether or not a PTSD diagnosis was surprising to the client and the thread got off topic.

It's debatable whether it was a side topic though. Very closely related. And you yourself participated in this side topic with many posts, before deciding it should be a new thread. I think it was the view I expressed that bothered people not the slight deviation from the OP.

Originally Posted by Leah123

Also, that thread is not locked nor is the lengthy ongoing one about intelligence and therapy or many others with significant disagreements.

Correct, there have been a couple others recently that got closed by a moderator.

[BudFox]

Originally Posted by JustShakey

Speaking only for myself, you were quite insulting to me in the thread in question. You called me cynical about about something that I am quite passionate about and care deeply about because I don't share your opinion.
It's not so much about forbidden topics as it is about being rude. The thread had moved so far away from its original point that it was insulting to the OP too IMNSHO.

Apologies about the cynical comment. However, you said some very harsh and dismissive things about alt cancer treatments, seemingly implying that chemo is all there is, and everything else is a con. Thats pretty provocative and dangerous stuff to say, IMO.

I don't think the thread had moved off topic, other than the posts about cancer, which was not helpful. After that it was very relevant.

In my experience, it usually definitely does, as long as that person sticks to condemning their own personal experiences with therapy and doesn't try to convince others that all therapy is bad.

If you say 'I found having sex with my therapist to be very helpful therapeutically, and I'm thinking of sneaking into his attic and living secretly above his bedroom'

Pretty sure that was the plot of a Nicci French novel.

[BudFox]

Originally Posted by hankster

Re meds, i think it WAS decided a while ago that people who ask about meds here should be free to do so without having to constantly defend their choice to take meds or listen to unsolicited recommendations about not taking meds. So if you are wanting to debate that - i think that ship has sailed.

Where I get pulled in is when I see posts that claim in an absolute way things like "mental illness is caused by a chemical imbalance" or "psych drugs are necessary or required for condition XYZ" or "people on psych drugs commit suicide because the drugs make them well enough to do it".

It seems to be ok to make such claims, but if you make a claim to the contrary -- e.g. there is no evidence for the chemical imbalance theory -- people just will not tolerate it and consider it a personal attack.

[JustShakey]

Originally Posted by BudFox

Apologies about the cynical comment. However, you said some very harsh and dismissive things about alt cancer treatments, seemingly implying that chemo is all there is, and everything else is a con. Thats pretty provocative and dangerous stuff to say, IMO.


I don't think the thread had moved off topic, other than the posts about cancer, which was not helpful. After that it was very relevant.

Even if you only include mainstream therapy chemo is certainly not all there is, especially for early stage treatments (I believe I mentioned frankincense oil in the other thread), but I have seen some very dangerous and non-therapeutic 'treatments' in the alternative health industry. Bear in mind that I currently work in the alternative health industry. There is, for example, a subset of alternative providers who claim that cancer is a fungus. Cancer is not a fungus, it is an error in the cellular replication system that causes cells to grow wildly out of control, forming tumors. I don't say these thing to scare people away from alternative therapies. I just think it's important to be an informed consumer. And I firmly believe that alternative therapies, while very beneficial, are not sufficient to treat most cancers. The disease is just too complicated and aggressive. That's my opinion as a cancer researcher.

Sadly, there is a not insignificant number of conartists moonlighting as alternative providers. It doesn't hurt to be a bit wary.

[Lauliza]

People here are very supportive when posters write about their negative therapy experiences. I think things get contentious when other posters make generalizations about therapy as a profession or of therapists in general. Posts claiming all therapists gossip behind clients backs, aren't as intelligent as other people, or that clients are cultish just isn't very nice, in my opinion. It's the same with the medication debate. It's true that medications have adverse events and some people shouldn't take them. Still, there are other people who are helped immensely. Debate is great, but when the tone becomes judgemental then it's no longer a discussion and becomes an attack.

[missbella]

Originally Posted by Lauliza

People here are very supportive when posters write about their negative therapy experiences. I think things get contentious when other posters make generalizations about therapy as a profession or of therapists in general. Posts claiming all therapists gossip behind clients backs, aren't as intelligent as other people, or that clients are cultish just isn't very nice, in my opinion. It's the same with the medication debate. It's true that medications have adverse events and some people shouldn't take them. Still, there are other people who are helped immensely. Debate is great, but when the tone becomes judgemental then it's no longer a discussion and becomes an attack.

I've been reproached for talking about my experiences personally--my own struggle feels like recovering from a cult; I found my therapists unintelligent; I've read little insight from the profession about harm in therapy.

[vonmoxie]

It seems to me that a variety of statements made on this site which aren't actually sweeping generalizations are often heard as such. The trouble is, when statements are interpreted as being all-encompassing, and people are offended on behalf of not only themselves but of entire populations.. that's a lot to manage. Maybe a more effective way to go about interpreting the statements of others would be not to assume that the motives of those holding different viewpoints are any less noble than one's own; certainly they are not so to them.

I do think framing things from one's own perspective is the best way to go about things, not being overly dogmatic, and I'm a big proponent of that. It's why I try to more frequently use terms like "it seems to me" and "you might want to consider" rather than things like "people should" or other such absolutes. Just including the word "maybe" more often than "is" makes it all so much friendlier, and open (I have to remind myself of that one sometimes). People are just so conditioned to hearing dogma though, in my opinion.

[Ididitmyway]

Originally Posted by missbella

I was diagnosed and name-called just today for talking about how I've tried to overcome my harmful experiences. Rather than admitting that my post ignites their fears, people shoot the messenger.

I hear you because I've had similar experience of having been "diagnosed" just for expressing my not-so-mainstream views on psychotherapy. That said, I think, it's a little bit more complicated than just some people admitting that posts about harmful therapy ignites their fears. While it may be true for some, even for many, for many others hearing that therapy is nothing but fraud and should be unequivocally abolished invalidates their positive experiences with therapy or positive parts of their experiences that they don't want to dismiss or deny. The problem is that we don't want to hear each other. I understand how invalidating it may feel to you when someone diagnoses you for simply telling about your experience and how it shaped your views. This kind of diagnosing is disrespectful and insensitive and, as I said, I know this first hand, as I've been in the same situation. At the same time, please, understand that when you say how your posts ignite fears in others, this is also diagnosing. You may not have realized it so far, but you at times invalidate others the same way you've been invalidated. When you say about someone that your posts ignite their fears you are analyzing them, and, I know, you hate when someone does that to you instead of responding to the substance of your arguments. I hate that too, because, as we both know, analyzing others outside of therapy settings is an ad hominem attack.

By the way, I am not saying your analysis of other people]s motives is incorrect. All I am saying is that it doesn't belong to a serious, intelligent and substantive discussion. That said, I appreciate and agree with many of your points. I just hope you will be able to see that our individual experiences, perceptions and conclusions represent only a small part of a big reality, and that if we want to understand the big picture we all will have no choice but accepting the fact that those who think differently might see other pieces of reality we are unable to see, and vice verse. I really hope that people here and everywhere will have some trust that other people's experiences are meaningful no matter how different they are from our own and that they could teach us something. I think, that's what people call being open-minded..But all I can do is to hope..

[Ididitmyway]

Originally Posted by Lauliza

People here are very supportive when posters write about their negative therapy experiences. I think things get contentious when other posters make generalizations about therapy as a profession or of therapists in general. Posts claiming all therapists gossip behind clients backs, aren't as intelligent as other people, or that clients are cultish just isn't very nice, in my opinion. It's the same with the medication debate. It's true that medications have adverse events and some people shouldn't take them. Still, there are other people who are helped immensely. Debate is great, but when the tone becomes judgemental then it's no longer a discussion and becomes an attack.

The perception of a judgement or an attack is often subjective, and, I am afraid, we will not come to a consensus of what constitutes a judgement or an attack. To me generalizations, as a concept, are not necessarily a destructive thing depending on how one defines them. If we think of generalizations as noticing tendencies or patterns, not only there is nothing wrong in pointing them out but it is the major thing that pushes progress. Establishing patterns is what science is based on. Therefore, saying that the system is flawed and pointing out specific flaws is a very constructive thing to do because it pushes positive changes. This should not be confused with the assumption that every element of the system is flawed. Saying that therapists have certain tendencies of attitude is not the same as saying every therapist has those tendencies or saying that those tendencies are the only ones therapists have and that they don't have anything good to offer. I am sure, we all have certain groups of people we tend to either like or dislike, maybe certain political parties or movements. We like or don't like some general attitudes they share. That doesn't necessarily mean we believe that every member of those groups is the same as everybody else. I mean, c'mon, we all generalize all sorts of people all the time in the sense that we observe some patterns in those groups. That, in and of itself, doesn't make a person judgmental and doesn't make their realistic observation an attack. Not every generalization is a bigotry or an attack. It becomes an attack when it assumes that every group member behaves in the same manner and that the whole group is one uniform mass with no diversity within it. On the other hand, implying that the person is judgmental, or worse, a bigot, only because they observe some very real patterns is one of the ways to suppress the dissenting views.

I do think therapy overall is more harmful than helpful. I see over and over and over people who think they have great therapists harmed by that very therapist, the person they have trusted with extremely painful information about themselves. It is just the nature of the business and it is sad. I have been personally attacked and it used to bother me, but I don't care anymore. It is just more proof to me about how harmful therapy actually can be.

[Ididitmyway]

Originally Posted by puzzle_bug1987

I do think therapy overall is more harmful than helpful. I see over and over and over people who think they have great therapists harmed by that very therapist, the person they have trusted with extremely painful information about themselves. It is just the nature of the business and it is sad. I have been personally attacked and it used to bother me, but I don't care anymore. It is just more proof to me about how harmful therapy actually can be.

I don't care either. At some point, I stopped caring about trying to convince people, to explain myself and to get support. Right now I can validate myself better than anyone else can validate me and I get all support I need from my family. If I feel compelled to express myself publicly, I do so but not with the goal of convincing anyone to accept my views. I just put my thoughts out there and what others do with them is none of my business.

[divine1966]

I think people are very tolerant of opinions and of each other on this forum and subforums. I don't see intolerance.

I do notice though that arguments sometimes start when people speak in absolutes and generalize. Like every therapist is bad, every doctor is a crook, every man is a cheat, everybody has this or that or no one has this or that. "

"Everyone, no one, always and never" are words that often ignite unnecessary confrontation. It just doesn't reflect reality and sometimes might seem to invalidate people's experiences. It's probably not done intentionally ( and I do it at times too! Try not to but are humans!) but it tends to aggravate others.

There is nothing wrong stating one has bad therapist or has certain diagnosis or have certain symptoms. It is when you add word "everyone" to this mix then there is usually when problems start .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Myrto]

Originally Posted by puzzle_bug1987

I do think therapy overall is more harmful than helpful. I see over and over and over people who think they have great therapists harmed by that very therapist, the person they have trusted with extremely painful information about themselves. It is just the nature of the business and it is sad. I have been personally attacked and it used to bother me, but I don't care anymore. It is just more proof to me about how harmful therapy actually can be.

Even when things were good with my therapist, I never took your posts about therapy being often harmful personally. They provided a dissenting opinion and were always interesting imo.
I think people take things way too personally sometimes.

Originally Posted by Myrto

Even when things were good with my therapist, I never took your posts about therapy being often harmful personally. They provided a dissenting opinion and were always interesting imo.
I think people take things way too personally sometimes.

I think this is true. I know I have taken things too personally at times.

[stopdog]

Originally Posted by Lauliza

I think things get contentious when other posters make generalizations about therapy as a profession or of therapists in general. Posts claiming all therapists gossip behind clients backs, aren't as intelligent as other people, or that clients are cultish just isn't very nice, in my opinion. .

I do believe those things about them as a profession. I don't see why my belief in their profession is upsetting. Just write me off as wrong and go on. I don't see how my belief that therapists are morally bereft or harmful dogooders or idiots hurts anyone else.