[BudFox]

Originally Posted by Rive.

My issue is thus solely about pre-judging a whole group of people and a whole profession. I can't even explain how disturbing I find such behaviour. That's all I was trying to say.

Agree, such absolutes are not helpful. But there are some posters who've had enough experience with the system to begin to form some legitimate generalizations or suppositions.

For example, of the 15 or so therapists I've had face to face contact with, I was impressed with maybe 2, and the rest were either mediocre or not very good, and 1 did real and lasting damage. I would feel confident generalizing to some extent based on this.

[vonmoxie]

Personally, I don't think I've ever seen anyone make a statement as derogatory or all-encompassing as all therapists or all meds are horrible (we could call this a meta-generalization -- a generalization about generalizations); however, upon seeing someone make such a logic-defying generalization, I'm pretty sure my only instinct would be to feel concern and empathy, for whatever trauma would have caused them to develop such a vehement reaction. To be honest, I'm not even sure why a therapist doing right by their own clients would likewise be anything but empathetic, knowing it couldn't be them they were talking about.

What makes a psychological injury received at the hands of a practitioner any less deserving of open-minded empathy than any other psychological injury? The viewpoints and concerns of those who have come to question what good can come of industry therapy (and I think most have likely formed their opinion from considerable experience, and not out of thin air) are no less viable, no less human, no less deserving of respect. At least that's my opinion about it. Instead of leaning towards only being supportive of the attitudes and ideas you might share about the industry, doesn't being supportive of everyone, without judgment, allow for a much greater collective intelligence? Besides just being fair.

Clearly different solutions work for different people, and part of that reality is that some methods will work badly, will be detrimental for some. When I made my last decision to try therapy, after having lost both my husband and my best friend of 25 years within the space of just a couple of years, I wish someone had been there to question my decision, because the therapy I got took what was an awful situation and made it cripplingly worse and more complicated. For me, the better advice would have been to wait the depression out without seeing a therapist who was going to insist I take antidepressants, which I still haven't recovered from, and turn out to have no clue how to treat me. So it's all pretty subjective. It's not as though I go around telling anyone what they should or shouldn't do. But doesn't my experience represent as significant a unit of the collective human experience as any other person? (Rhetorical.)

Peace.

[missbella]

Originally Posted by BudFox

Agree, such absolutes are not helpful. But there are some posters who've had enough experience with the system to begin to form some legitimate generalizations or suppositions.

For example, of the 15 or so therapists I've had face to face contact with, I was impressed with maybe 2, and the rest were either mediocre or not very good, and 1 did real and lasting damage. I would feel confident generalizing to some extent based on this.

My explorations are less about individual therapists than many foundational assumptions in therapy. I found harm in what is marketed as curative. I've read literature with which I strongly disagree and find little about those adversely effected by therapy. This is despite research that my segment represents a significant percentage of therapy consumers. I learned with dismay that all my treatments were speculative and eventually fell out of favor.

Since a many come to PC to question their treatment or discuss harm, I hope that there also is room to ask broader questions about treatment.

This has nothing to do with impugning someone's character or honesty. I believe the therapists who sold me poor interventions did so in adherence to their training and with the best of intentions.

[DocJohn]

So I'm going to respond to the OP first, but also gently remind people that calling out other members in a thread of this nature is not okay.

Seems to me that it is not ok to bring up certain topics or viewpoints on PC:

- Any forceful assertions that psychotherapy might have fundamental flaws or might be lacking in credibility or legitimacy.

Well, as a rule, this content is not found anywhere within our community guidelines as inappropriate topics. So of course members are welcomed to share their viewpoint that psychotherapy is "fundamentally flawed." But I also hope that they have an answer to why we have something like 50+ years of research demonstrating otherwise. (And millions of people who've been helped by it.) Of course, not everyone benefits from psychotherapy -- and that viewpoint is welcomed. But it doesn't mean everyone is going to be harmed or not helped by it either.

Nobody has ever said psychotherapy/meds/alternative treatment is going to work for everyone. It won't and it doesn't. But since this is the psychotherapy forum, by its very nature, folks are here to generally talk about the positives of psychotherapy and how it has helped them more than anything. There are no lack of anti-psychotherapy and anti-psychology communities online, so if someone really wanted to explore these areas of discussion, I'd recommend one of those...

- Personal accounts of therapy that talk openly about significant harm or that criticize the therapist in strong terms.

Well, it's hard to say where the line is between constructive criticism and anger/venting is. We're pretty open to anything, as long as you're not libeling another person. But also understand, since nobody else here knows your therapist, it's unlikely you can get much real understanding from others (since their therapist and their experiences may offer completely different viewpoints).

- Challenges to biological psychiatry and psych drugs. This one in particular has brought out angry attacking and the feeling of being chased away by a sectarian mob.

Yup, absolutes tend to do that. I'm not sure any member here would say meds are for everyone, or are needed in all situations. But what benefit is there to degrading different forms of treatment? I'm not sure I understand, since this is a support community first and foremost, not a debate club. Honestly, we're not here for intellectual discussions about everything, we're here to give and get emotional support -- our primary purpose.

In another thread I was told by a frequent poster that I was "once again bashing the mental health system". It was a distortion, but also the message was clear: dissent is not tolerated.

And yet your thread and opinions were tolerated, even though others didn't agree with them. That's the nature of many folks here -- we're tolerant and open to other viewpoints. But playing the same tune, over and over again, about how horrible X, Y, or Z treatment is will pretty much wear out most people's welcome (even when it's well-meaning or well-intended).

Just FYI, for future reference, issues involving what you see as community or meta-issues really belong in our Community Support forum -- that's what it's there for. So I'm going to move this thread there with a re-direct.

Best,
DocJohn

[DocJohn]

In terms of when we close threads, we try not to. We prefer not to. Yet when a thread goes so off-base from the OP's original question or topic (and usually, we've asked people to stick to the OP's topic), there may be little choice.

[BudFox]

Originally Posted by SallyBrown

It's a little strange to me that you started this thread about how dissent on certain topics is not "allowed" here, but then you are upset about dissent on your own thread. If you're arguing that people should be allowed to feel that the therapy structure creates problems, why should they not also be allowed to question whether the issue comes from you rather than therapy? I didn't read that thread and I think direct insults are always out of line, so if there were direct insults then that's not fair to you and it's not ok.

The posts that I objected to in the other thread were not so much dissent as unsolicited interpretation. They were not directly insulting, but they were still insulting. I acknowledged in the thread that my feeling demeaned was likely about therapy and about me.

[(JD)]

While I enjoy a good discussion, imo it shouldn't be allowed in all the forums... too many members here NEED a safe place to post and if at any particular post or thread they could be blindsided by a debate, then PsychCentral would lose some of that ambiance.

And this site has always had at its crux the promulgation of support for those struggling mentally.

However, just this morning I was wishing there was a way for members who aren't getting along together to work it out here. (The threads about blocking and putting members on ignore instigated such thinking.) On another website I am actually a mediator for those having troubles with members or posting! Yet here, well, I am hardly considered that. I'd like for members to be able to discuss animatedly here, personally, but it's tough enough on a regular website and what with all many of the members here deal with (meds, moods etc) though people are the same all over I've found, the mindset is different here...it might not work. (I think most think admin or otherwise staff would have to help work things out, as usually done in a private chat?)

Yeah, it takes a bit to figure the rules out here... but at least admin gives you several "second chances" to do so!

[BudFox]

Originally Posted by DocJohn

Nobody has ever said psychotherapy/meds/alternative treatment is going to work for everyone. It won't and it doesn't. But since this is the psychotherapy forum, by its very nature, folks are here to generally talk about the positives of psychotherapy and how it has helped them more than anything. There are no lack of anti-psychotherapy and anti-psychology communities online, so if someone really wanted to explore these areas of discussion, I'd recommend one of those...

DocJohn, thanks for responding. Is what you say above formally described somewhere? I was not aware at all that this forum was intended for talking only about the positives of therapy, and that critical debate is considered undesirable. For some people being able to challenge and question and even criticize is a form of vital support.

It's a shame that the therapy biz divides us into pro and anti, and makes sure the anti's are kept out of sight. I for one am both. I do not write off the whole thing, and have continued to seek a new therapist despite horrible or merely benign therapy experiences.

Originally Posted by DocJohn

And yet your thread and opinions were tolerated, even though others didn't agree with them. That's the nature of many folks here -- we're tolerant and open to other viewpoints. But playing the same tune, over and over again, about how horrible X, Y, or Z treatment is will pretty much wear out most people's welcome (even when it's well-meaning or well-intended).

To be honest, and with all due respect, your response seems to point to the very bias I was referring to. I wasn't tolerated in that thread. I was made to feel unwelcome and was told I was "bashing" the system, a pejorative judgement and an exaggeration. I was slightly off topic, I have acknowledged that, and have learned from that mistake.

As the owner of this forum I'd be concerned if some areas of discussion were entirely one sided. If a new person comes along and, for example, engages in a discussion about psych meds and there is not a single voice to counter the torrent of "you need to be on drugs" posts, then wow that is dangerous. Or likewise, if a new person asks about the risks of therapy, and there is nobody there to offer a firsthand account of what happens when things go badly, that would be concerning.

And now, I feel unwelcome on PC.

[ruh roh]

BudFox, you are not off base in your perceptions. I have seen you receive a very unwelcome welcome. But you are not unwelcome by all, if that helps.

[Pennster]

Originally Posted by DocJohn

Nobody has ever said psychotherapy/meds/alternative treatment is going to work for everyone. It won't and it doesn't. But since this is the psychotherapy forum, by its very nature, folks are here to generally talk about the positives of psychotherapy and how it has helped them more than anything. There are no lack of anti-psychotherapy and anti-psychology communities online, so if someone really wanted to explore these areas of discussion, I'd recommend one of those

I am a little confused by this statement. I've been lurking on this board for years, and it has never seemed to me that people are here to generally talk about the positives of psychotherapy. Even now on the board there are plenty of threads about very painful situations people are experiencing with their therapists. To me, the great thing about the psychotherapy board is in the vast breadth of people's experiences (which range from amazingly positive to disturbingly negative), and another great aspect is the support that so many people give and get in dealing with the negatives of psychotherapy.

I would hope that this board will continue to be a place where people will feel free to to get that kind of support, and that people can still feel welcomed even if their experience hasn't been that it has helped them more than anything. I speak as someone who has had a mix of positive and negative experiences and who loves my current therapist - I'd hate to think about someone like me coming for support during difficult times and finding no welcome.

[sabby]

If I may BudFox,

if a new person asks about the risks of therapy, and there is nobody there to offer a firsthand account of what happens when things go badly, that would be concerning.

I agree with your statement above but I must add something. This site is about personal experiences, what to expect when delving into psychotherapy or medications. When members respond in a way that does not state specifically something along the lines of "In my experience", "My experience was....", "I remember feeling...." and bestows only negative generalizations about a subject, then there will be dissent among the membership.

I (notice I'm using an I statement) have almost always found that when "I statements" are used, the message being delivered is much more acceptable than sounding like one is the only authority on that one side of the equation.

Basically, what it all comes down to is, how the message is delivered and that it stays on topic.

[DocJohn]

Sorry, my point -- badly explained -- was is that we don't dictate topics on the forums here; members do by what they post. We have very few content restrictions in our community guidelines, and that's on purpose. Most topics are okay and appropriate to discuss on the forums, as long as it is done respectfully (and is relevant to either that forum, or the thread that one is posting to).

The fact that we are not a debate community is addressed in our community guidelines: "These forums are primarily for mutual emotional support and information sharing" and "This is, first and foremost, a self-help support community. That means if your message (post or PM) isn't about offering support to another person or asking for it, it's potentially not appropriate for our community." Too many places online are about arguing the finer points on a topic and we are not such a place (with the exception of the News and Current Events forum, which we grapple with on a near daily basis).

Best,
DocJohn

[BudFox]

Originally Posted by vonmoxie

What makes a psychological injury received at the hands of a practitioner any less deserving of open-minded empathy than any other psychological injury?

Fair question. I would also add--who could possibly need support more than such a person?

The author (a psychologist) of an xlnt book on harmful therapy ruptures says it's not uncommon for clients to feel a sense of "murderous rage" after a rupture (not to mention grief, shame, hopelessness, betrayal). Given that the client might now be without a therapist, has been left alone with the rage etc, and may well have no other outlet… maybe some of the angry or critical posts here begin to seem entirely reasonable.

[BudFox]

Originally Posted by sabby

This site is about personal experiences, what to expect when delving into psychotherapy or medications. When members respond in a way that does not state specifically something along the lines of "In my experience", "My experience was....", "I remember feeling...." and bestows only negative generalizations about a subject, then there will be dissent among the membership.

Yes understood. I think this point has been made by prior posters. Seems you are implying something but not certain.

Originally Posted by sabby

I (notice I'm using an I statement) have almost always found that when "I statements" are used, the message being delivered is much more acceptable than sounding like one is the only authority on that one side of the equation.

I find this quite patronizing (notice I am using an I statement).

[sabby]

Sorry about sounding patronizing, it wasn't my intent. I should have put a wink after what I said so you would know that I was trying to be silly and lighten the moment. Thanks for letting me know how it made you feel. I'll be more careful in the future!

[BudFox]

Originally Posted by sabby

Sorry about sounding patronizing, it wasn't my intent. I should have put a wink after what I said so you would know that I was trying to be silly and lighten the moment. Thanks for letting me know how it made you feel. I'll be more careful in the future!

I was actually thinking of your whole reply, though I appreciate you trying to lighten things up.

Also I am troubled by this comment: "and bestows only negative generalizations about a subject, then there will be dissent among the membership". My original point was that including the voices of those who've had harmful therapy experiences might be better than only hearing about beneficial experiences. Not sure why this warrants a comment about the dangers of negative generalizations.

[BudFox]

Originally Posted by krminnj

If you have had a bad experience with therapy/meds, you certainly have a right to tell people about it and get support for it. But it can be disastrous for a person in crisis to hear that their options (therapy, meds) are shot.

I missed this before. I guess you are saying that a person in crisis has only two options--meds and therapy. If so, I would consider that an extreme statement. Seems there are many other ways to heal.

This sort of position is considered acceptable. Nobody bats an eye.

But if someone asserts a similarly extreme position on the other end of the spectrum (e.g. do not enter the mental health system, it is much too dangerous), that person will likely be torn to pieces. Even if they deliver that message with sensitivity.

[ruh roh]

It also seems to be that the psychotherapy forum is particularly unkind and volatile, and that on occasion there are posters who feel comfortable taking on a new poster's comments and challenging until they give up and leave. I have been under a different name just to get away from those who go after someone who has a different viewpoint that someone feels threatening to them (even if the poster was only giving their personal opinion or sharing a personal experience).

[DocJohn]

Most generalizations are harmful if stated as an absolute, whether positive or negative. For example, "All therapy sucks" or "Meds never helped anyone."

Instead, we'd ask a member to say, "I've never experienced good therapy with any of the therapists I've tried" or "I've yet to find a med that's worked for me."

People react more to negative generalizations than positive ones, but they can as readily react to positive generalizations in the same way. I'd counsel folks to try and avoid the use of any generalizations whenever possible online, in any forum.

You, like any member here, are welcomed to offer any advice you'd like to anyone you'd like. But we can't control other members' reactions, if they are expressed in a manner in keeping with the community guidelines. If you feel someone's response to another member fails to live up to the community guidelines, we ask that you use the report function to report it to the community support team so that action may be taken.

I'm not sure how much more we can answer the OP's original question/concern. As I've always said, the community -- or a specific forum -- is what the members choose to make of it. We only provide a safe and supportive structure to do so, and then enforce that structure through the community guidelines.

DocJohn

[eeyorestail]

Originally Posted by BudFox

I missed this before. I guess you are saying that a person in crisis has only two options--meds and therapy. If so, I would consider that an extreme statement. Seems there are many other ways to heal.

This sort of position is considered acceptable. Nobody bats an eye.

But if someone asserts a similarly extreme position on the other end of the spectrum (e.g. do not enter the mental health system, it is much too dangerous), that person will likely be torn to pieces. Even if they deliver that message with sensitivity.

Actually, because of the way the mental health system works in the U.S., often a person in crisis does only have those two options--meds and/or therapy.

Certainly there may be alternative treatments. But consider this:

1. Insurance in the U.S. generally does not cover alternative treatments such as supplements, acupuncture, etc.

2. Some treatments such as ECT are only covered by insurance and/or approved by doctors if meds and therapy options have been exhausted.

3. Some options aren't appropriate for the severity of the illness (a person with mild depression, for example, may benefit from a self-help book or yoga, but this is less likely to be helpful for a paranoid schizophrenic experiencing psychosis).

I'm not saying this is right. It's not even really a "position," as you call it. It's the reality of the mental health system currently.

[lizardlady]

Originally Posted by krminnj

I'm not saying this is right. It's not even really a "position," as you call it. It's the reality of the mental health system currently.

krminnj, I believe you said it very well.

[DocJohn]

Since, to the best of our ability, we've answered the OP's question, and we now seem to be delving into topics where it can be handled by reporting the post or thread that is in violation of the community guidelines, I'm going to go ahead and close this thread. Thank you.