[ruh roh]

I find pc to be hostile at times, when all I was doing was sharing what was true for me. The barbs have come when I've been suicidal, but since I don't share those hard times due to feeling unsafe here, it can feel especially cruel, when in fact people might not be as hurtful if they knew (maybe). A few have always been kind, so I focus on them. It's a strange place.

[missbella]

When a stranger injects herself into my self-reporting to diagnose and name call, that tells me, at minimum, my experience has evoked some strong emotion to impel her to assault someone she doesn't know. Though, since this communication "mimics" a therapist's style, perhaps the person believes their scalding evaluation is "for my own good."

The preponderance of generalizations I've read here support therapy and struck me as reproachful in the other direction. I've read many posts firmly expounding on how life or therapy work.

Originally Posted by Ididitmyway

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.

Originally Posted by stopdog

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.

But see, this is where I get confused about this entire argument about the pro-therapy group shutting down or bashing the wary-therapy group (wasn't sure what to name the opposite group because anti-therapy group seemed wrong). If someone says something negative about therapy or therapists and I jump in and post why I think this might be a generalization from my own experience, why am I shutting anyone down? Why isn't the other poster able to simply see me as disagreeing, not bashing or attempting to shut him/her down? I've been disagreed with on threads and sometimes I come back and respond a few more times, but if there is no agreement, I usually just walk away, realizing that we won't be able to reach a compromise and that's okay in my book. Each to his own.

I've often see the opposite type of posting: an individual posts about how great their therapist is or how wonderful therapy is. And sometimes, someone comes along and mentions how awful their experience was in therapy and he/she might warn the person to be "careful" or not be surprised if things turn south. I don't think either type of post is wrong. I think they are simply how each person perceives therapy and all interpretations can be welcome. Perhaps if everyone was a little less thin skinned or aware that if they feel a surge of anger or resentment, it might not be a good time to post. Just a thought.

[atisketatasket]

Originally Posted by stopdog

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.

I think people react more to longer, apparently more vitriolic posts than yours (or what is seen as longer and more vitriolic - I am not saying these posts actually are such, only that they are seen as such). Your posts critical of therapy tend to be short and also, not personal to anyone (except maybe against your therapists). Brevity and impersonality go far towards keeping discourse at least feeling civil. You do get reactions but not ones like some other posters get.

[unaluna]

Originally Posted by missbella

When a stranger injects herself into my self-reporting to diagnose and name call, that tells me, at minimum, my experience has evoked some strong emotion to impel her to assault someone she doesn't know. Though, since this communication "mimics" a therapist's style, perhaps the person believes their scalding evaluation is "for my own good."

Or maybe the person at the time couldnt distinguish between your self reporting and a tantalizing story problem. Maybe things are different now. Maybe shes sorry. Maybe shes learned her lesson. Will you ever forgive her? Is she still doing it? Can people learn and change?

[stopdog]

Originally Posted by Jaybird57

But see, this is where I get confused about this entire argument about the pro-therapy group shutting down or bashing the wary-therapy group (wasn't sure what to name the opposite group because anti-therapy group seemed wrong). If someone says something negative about therapy or therapists and I jump in and post why I think this might be a generalization from my own experience, why am I shutting anyone down? Why isn't the other poster able to simply see me as disagreeing, not bashing or attempting to shut him/her down? I've been disagreed with on threads and sometimes I come back and respond a few more times, but if there is no agreement, I usually just walk away, realizing that we won't be able to reach a compromise and that's okay in my book. Each to his own.

I've often see the opposite type of posting: an individual posts about how great their therapist is or how wonderful therapy is. And sometimes, someone comes along and mentions how awful their experience was in therapy and he/she might warn the person to be "careful" or not be surprised if things turn south. I don't think either type of post is wrong. I think they are simply how each person perceives therapy and all interpretations can be welcome. Perhaps if everyone was a little less thin skinned or aware that if they feel a surge of anger or resentment, it might not be a good time to post. Just a thought.

I agree that each side is to each their own. I don't particularly find anything bashing about the pro or wary (I like that) groups. Admittedly I don't find anything wrong with bashing a profession or defending it if one feels so moved. If one's experiences are different from mine and that leads to a different conclusion -so be it and have at it. Whether I believe it or not. Things can be true or not regardless of the status of my belief in them.

[missbella]

I was an extreme gung-ho therapy supporter until treatment went off rails. I don't wish it on anyone, but it's a club one can involuntarily join quite unexpectedly. PC-ers have told me they were grateful for my skeptical perspective when they found themselves harmed by a therapist.

Unraveling harmful therapy has been far more complicated for me than growing past an abusive family. We had reasons for entering therapy, so exploitative therapy throws us a double load. My discussion is no mere venting, it's an active exploration and search for understanding and perspective, just as most of us do with our childhoods. I needed to talk myself down from seeing my therapist as divinity. I think a more realistic perspective would have left the worst of it far less damaging.

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.

You make a generalization about people being very supportive of posters writing about negative experiences. I did not find this to be true. I see a lot of people who try to write about negative experiences run off the board which is why a private board was created.

I also see many, many generalizations about how therapist WILL help with this or that. "Just talk to your therapist. He will help you through it." I see statements like this all the time. Those are generalizations which are never disputed. Fine for one "side," but not the other "side." It's become merely interesting to me. I don't care nearly as much as I used to. I have my firm opinion that therapy is harmful and others have firm opinions that it helps. We are allowed that. Leave it up to the moderators what gets deleted. I think it's wrong when we try to police each other. (which i am sort of doing right now. LOL. But I do think it's just best to report stuff you think goes against guidelines and let them decide.)

[missbella]

I definitely forgive a theoretical person who is sorry for something said. I believe people can be sincerely sorry and change and that bad hair things can happen on bad hair days. I'd use one of those heart-y flashing emoticons, but don't think the theoretical parties involved are the type. With appreciation and belated condolences for a recent loss.

Someone else who didn't like what I wrote play-therapist ad hominemed fiercely, but with a different diagnosis this time. So much for a second opinion.

I've had some almost comical things happen on my blog, particularly when a class from New Zealand descended upon me. Elsewhere a former APA prez used ad hominem commentary in attempt to nullify mine. I'm out there with an unpopular opinion and I'm far--franker--with my reaction to ad hominem rejoinders.

Originally Posted by hankster

Or maybe the person at the time couldnt distinguish between your self reporting and a tantalizing story problem. Maybe things are different now. Maybe shes sorry. Maybe shes learned her lesson. Will you ever forgive her? Is she still doing it? Can people learn and change?

[amandalouise]

my own opinion is that I leave all the administrative stuff ( what topics can be discussed, what threads get locked and why, who gets messages from the moderators for their posts...)up to the moderators. when I do have a problem because I noticed a thread was locked I will send a moderator of that forum to ask if they can tell me why that thread was locked. as for getting messages from the moderators about my posts...well I welcome that, I am a perfectionist at heart. i take their critiques of my posts as an opportunity to better my postings here. I never take it as negative thing.

my suggestion is if you have a problem with closed threads have a private discussion on them with a moderator who can explain why a particular thread was locked. theres usually a good reason why they have the rules that they do and usually a good reason why a thread got locked down.

[Ididitmyway]

Originally Posted by missbella

When a stranger injects herself into my self-reporting to diagnose and name call, that tells me, at minimum, my experience has evoked some strong emotion to impel her to assault someone she doesn't know. Though, since this communication "mimics" a therapist's style, perhaps the person believes their scalding evaluation is "for my own good."

The preponderance of generalizations I've read here support therapy and struck me as reproachful in the other direction. I've read many posts firmly expounding on how life or therapy work.

This is all correct and I never disputed what you've just said. My point was different. My point is that you, at times, do the same thing you hate others doing to you - diagnosing. If you give yourself the right to publicly share your insights on what emotions your therapy experience evokes in others, then give those others the same right to share their insights on where your emotions come from. If you find it appropriate and acceptable for yourself to analyze others, apply this rule across the board and give others the same right to analyze you. Vice versa, if you find it unacceptable for others to analyze you instead of responding to the substance of your arguments, again, apply this rule across the board and don't analyze others instead of responding to the substance of their arguments. All I am saying is follow the same rules of respectful discussion you want others to follow, otherwise, your position becomes hypocritical.

[stopdog]

I would imagine everyone does things at some point or other that they dislike in others. i find it fun to see where people fall on the scale.

[Ididitmyway]

Originally Posted by puzzle_bug1987

But I do think it's just best to report stuff you think goes against guidelines and let them decide.)

That's what I do. The last thing I need is to police anyone without being officially designated to do so. Thank you very much, I have life and other things to do. Not going to spend any of my energy on trying to improve this forum. I have my personal freedom to ignore anyone I want to ignore here, to select which post to respond to, not to visit this forum for a while or to visit as often as I want to. People will always think and say what they want, so let them. If they want to have an intelligent respectful conversation with me they will. If they don't want to, I can't make them and so I don't sweat it.

[BudFox]

Originally Posted by ruh roh

I find pc to be hostile at times, when all I was doing was sharing what was true for me. The barbs have come when I've been suicidal, but since I don't share those hard times due to feeling unsafe here, it can feel especially cruel, when in fact people might not be as hurtful if they knew (maybe). A few have always been kind, so I focus on them. It's a strange place.

This is in part what motivated me to start the thread. I have sensed a background hostility, at times, to posts or threads that are critical of the system.

I asked whether there are "forbidden" topics. That was overstating things (except I still maintain that challenging psych drugs is treacherous). It's more subtle.

I agree, strange place. Very clique-y too. I think anonymity breads bad behavior at times.

[missbella]

I've seen huge acrimony among professionals themselves around modalities and medication. And Freud's writing on "negative therapeutic reaction," --as I understand it--was all blame the patient.

[SaraNoia]

There isn't anything heated about it. Psychiatry is in its infancy. PERIOD.

I also believe that psychotherapy might have fundamental flaws and I subsequently use
it as a venue to rant or vent as opposed to being a burden to my friends.

I don't think anyone should have their opinions censored.

These aren't the Freud days any longer. We all have been finding out that our MI is a brain malfunction and you only have your fmri (fMRI) which is a functional neuroimaging procedure using MRI technology that measures brain activity by detecting associated changes in blood flow. This technique relies on the fact that cerebral blood flow and neuronal activation are coupled.

or your pet scans and DNA!

We all should be looking forward to the progress of Neuroscientist.

"Neuroscience is a highly interdisciplinary field encompassing study in fields such as biology, chemistry, biochemistry, pharmacology, medicine, psychiatry, psychology, engineering, and mathematics."

I do believe that therapy can try to guide you in coping with MI to a certain degree because it can be really rough and some people do not have support systems which therapy provides.

Some MI can be very frightening and one would need a certain kind of support. So to me it does serve a purpose.

Just my quick opinion.

[Lauliza]

Originally Posted by Ididitmyway

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 agree with much of what you're saying and respect where you and many other posters are coming from. I know that a lot of people have been hurt by therapy and many of the accounts I've read on PC are horrific. My own experience as a consumer has not been particularly good either. With the exception of the T I saw up until the last year, I've never had any I've liked. There are a lot of therapists out there and I would guess that there more there are of anything, the harder it is to find one that's actually good.

We all make generalizations, I understand that. But this is a psychotherapy forum with many posters who have been helped. When you are in a dark place and someone helps you out of it, you tend to see that person as pretty important part of your life. It might even look a little like blind devotion and maybe it is - who knows? So long as the client feelstheir life is better, isn't really up for someone here to judge. So it bothers me when posters on the other end of the spectrum who've had pretty awful experiences, invalidate these positive ones. Similar to the way some believe mental health professionals label or invalidate them, there is an implication in some posts that satisfied clients must be delusional or brainwashed. Everyone experiences therapy differently and while I'll agree that there are a lot of people on this forum who've had horrific experiences, that is not the norm.

And like I've said before, with the advent of the Internet it is now possible for any hack to write an article or an ebook. I would take much of what is read in blogs or on websites with a grain of salt and not view them as representative of the general T population.

[stopdog]

I don't think "what the norm is" is known. Therapists don't keep track of why people leave them. It is hard to study clients who are gone. Some of the ones who study therapy say the number of people who return even for a second appointment is very low. I think horrific is more common than is comfortable to think about.

[atisketatasket]

Originally Posted by stopdog

I don't think "what the norm is" is known. Therapists don't keep track of why people leave them. It is hard to study clients who are gone. Some of the ones whomstudy therapy say the number of people who return even for a second appointment is very low. I think horrific is more common than is comfortable to think about.

I think I read somewhere that only 25% of clients keep a second appointment. The number drops further after that, this article claimed, especially as "deep stuff" (still not totally clear what that is) comes up. I am not sure we can say this is all due to horrific therapists, although three of the ones I've tried over the decades were so bad at the first appointment that I did not keep the second one.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[BudFox]

Originally Posted by Lauliza

People here are very supportive when posters write about their negative therapy experiences.

My experience is that it's very mixed. Some are for sure. And sometimes the majority are in a given a thread.

But there can be invalidation in the face of criticism of therapy. For example, in one thread I said I experienced a pattern of feeling demeaned in therapy and asked if anyone could relate, and also suggested that perhaps the structure of therapy inflicts this. Some could relate and said so. Others suggested it was not really to do with therapy, it was all about me. That's not supportive. It was pretty insulting. And it mirrors what therapists do sometimes -- deflect back to the client no matter what. Not the end of the world, just what I observed.

[Lauliza]

Originally Posted by atisketatasket

I think I read somewhere that only 25% of clients keep a second appointment. The number drops further after that, this article claimed, especially as "deep stuff" (still not totally clear what that is) comes up. I am not sure we can say this is all due to horrific therapists, although three of the ones I've tried over the decades were so bad at the first appointment that I did not keep the second one.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yes it is pretty well know within the field that most clients don't show up for the second appointment. And it is true that no one really knows why since clients who quit therapy are hard to track. I think it is probably due to some horrific therapists but mostly due to general ambivalence. Time and money are precious, so there has to be something compelling there for a client to return.

[missbella]

Originally Posted by Lauliza

Similar to the way some believe mental health professionals label or invalidate them, there is an implication in some posts that satisfied clients must be delusional or brainwashed.

However, I hope I will be granted latitude to admit I was deluded and brainwashed in my therapy experience. I'm not commenting on anyone else.

[growlycat]

Glad but amazed that PC has allowed the open discussion on this thread without shutting it down. Very refreshing.

[Lauliza]

Originally Posted by missbella

However, I hope I will be granted latitude to admit I was deluded and brainwashed in my therapy experience. I'm not commenting on anyone else.

That wasn't meant as a commentary on anyone's personal experience.

[PeeJay]

Originally Posted by SkyscraperMeow

Well, I've had posts removed both for saying therapy sucks, and for saying that I think people bash therapy. (Over the course of months, I've had several changes of mind re: therapy, etc.)

So, if PsychCentral is anything, it's an equal opportunity censorship. You can't tell people that they're bashing therapy, and you can't bash therapy. It's a very fine linguistic line you must dance.

The trick is, to frame everything in terms of personal experience. 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', you'll be fine.

You can also say 'I think therapy is worthless and I go out of my way to treat my therapist in a way I wouldn't treat a dog. I like to be cold, derisive and dismissive. My therapist is useless in all possible ways, but it's nice to have someone to throw cash at once a week,' - that is also fine.

If you judge either of the comments above in a negative light, your post will be removed faster than you can say 'SSRIs are sometimes implicated in less than ideal outcomes'. Of course, you're always free to judge positively, because propping up the ideas of others is always a good idea, no matter what they are. That's called 'support'.

The rules according to Psych Central!

Literally just laughed out loud in public!!!