The adversarial nature of the therapist/client relationship.

Don't apologize, Ygrec. I will say outright that I am not an intellectual. I only know what I have experienced both individually and in my own work with children who have experienced their own traumas. .. that said, I am fully aware that my own issues will influence my opinion and/or thoughts about how to proceed when faced with trauma. I do NOT pretend to know about Hegel, Buddhism or any other intellectual pursuit. I am well read but I am definitely NOT , by any definition, an intellectual!
I am a person who relies on my intuition and basic, all American educated, intellect. I do not, by any means, pretend to have "studied" the masters. . or have the intellect to study and/or UNDERSTAND the masters. I have read extensively in the area of psycotherapy. That does not, by any means, make me an expert. I've read because of my own issues and concerns .. . At times, I've read because I work with children and families with psychological issues and I want to help them. . . But I am not so arrogant or self absorbed to believe that what I say or think has any effect or impact. I work to do the best I can with what I have to meet their needs. And personally on this site, I want to understand myself, learn how others see or think they "SEE" themselves and treat themselves, and I want to respond and talk with others about how they feel about their treatment. That's all. No more. No less. And certainly not to promote or elevate others who might not have studied or researched how their thoughts or beliefs might effect others. Take care of you!

As to your comment that "People who have never studied Hegel or Buddhism or the Anglo-American legal system in college should not be false-flagged into this or any other kind of therapy". ... you didn't finish that thought, but I'm thinking that you meant that (excuse me if I'm incorrect) to mean that clients shouldn't be enticed to engaged in any false therapies or legal means of addressing psychological issues without their knowledge.. . I'm sorry if that's not a correct interpretation and I'm sure you'll correct any misconseptions on my part. . . My problem is that the every day person isn't educated in the issues of Hegel, Buddhims or the legal system .... American or not! I sure know that I'm not! I know that I can self-educate, but I also know that other things are priority.

Most of us struggle to just know what is expected of us in our jobs and/or communities. Sad but true. I wish I knew more. I hate how most of us our situation are discriminated againt. I hate how people in my place of employment know (through the grape vine/gossip systsem) what my mental health history is . .. or what they think it is! It is a sad thing. In any case, take care.

I guess what I don't like about what was quoted is the idea that non-adversarial is some novel thing that originated with DBT--that Linehan "altered" the prior adversarial relationship into one of teamwork. As you wrote, hankster, the whole unconditional positive regard thing already has the T not standing in judgment. That came from the humanistic tradition, which arose in the 50s and 60s. If Linehan uses a non-adversarial approach in DBT, that's great. I am glad she is borrowing from successful approaches like the humanistic. (I know she would be the first to say that a non-adversarial approach is not novel to DBT.) There is a lot from other traditions to in DBT--the whole mindfulness/mediation strand, for example. She's a great lady--I had a seminar session from her one time in a class I took and she was fab!

I had an adversarial relationship before with a T or at least i felt i did. He was somewhat of a nincompoop.

Heh, heh - you said poop.

It says Linehan "alter[ed] the adversarial nature of the therapist/client relationship." That means the adversarial relationship isn't accepted anymore, right?

It was altered quite a bit before her. She is of more recent vintage. But she is following in worthy footsteps (in that regard).