[ClaireB]

I'm sort of in a weird spot. I just don't have that idealization of therapists anymore. I remember being so impressed with my psychiatrist at first. I thought that everything he said was wonderful and helpful, and then I realized what a screw up he is. I liked that he had a sense of humor and appeared to be somewhat intelligent, but he obviously has a crappy marriage, cheats on his wife, is a pathological liar, etc. I don't know, I'm just not that impressed anymore and it's making therapy difficult.
My therapist, on the other hand, has always appeared to be mentally stable, and I know she is an ethical person. But, I don't know. Maybe part of what allows therapy to work IS that idealization. If there is no idealization, can therapy be helpful?

[soulno7]

Therapy is help. accept the help because it is there, being offered, for you, to help you. it's help. don't judge it instead. it feels like ur giving up on it, but don't you think giving up is just easier than being HELPED? idealization is wrong, and now you realize it's wrong. so get over that, stop idealizing, just accept the help. work with what you got.

[ClaireB]

Thank you for your response. I just got worried that maybe the idealization is part of what made therapy work. I think I have a more realistic view of things now, but I just hope I haven't become too cynical.

[soulno7]

Hey, thanks for taking my reply to thought, i really do hope it gave u a more realistic view of things. i think it's smart of you to cut through the idealization and recognize its influence (albeit through a negative experience, pathological liar giving therapy just cannot be a more bad combo imo, i mean come on, who gave that guy a job?).

idealization when it comes to therapy is like idealization from a student to his/her teacher. in other words...it TOTALLY helps. idealizing (not in extremes of course, moderation is perfection when it comes to many things) can in fact help you on the way to recovery better, just like a student it helps him/her learn more.

don't be cynical, trust instead. it takes a lot of you i know, but you know it's worth it.

The idealization can be a part of therapy, but it does not have to be there to make it work. It depends on the particular person's patterns... Someone might never idealize the therapist... Everyone uses different defence mechansims, everyone experiences transference in different ways. If you used to idealize, but no longer do-- that could be a really significant step in your therapy, in which you are able to see your therapist as a real person-- you are able to see yourself and your therapist more on an equal level.

freud thought that some kind of positive transference was required in order to have a good working relationship. one needs to have some kind of trust in the therapists basic kindness / benevolence etc. idealisation is just one kind of transference, however, and it isn't always something that helps progress along either...

[tranquility]

I think most therapist and psychiatrist either use to see one themselves or still are. I think that's why they get in the field and then know as much as they do. Unfortunately no one is perfect, but then I'd be pretty leary if someone DID appear perfect

Tranquility

analysts are required to do a course of analysis before they are allowed to analyse others.

other therapy orientations don't have that requirement, however.

some therapists see a therapist in a supervisory role where they can process counter-transference issues that arise in response to their caseload etc. more common in psychoanalytic orientations, however.

the majority of therapists (cognitive behaviour therapists and the like) have someone who is in a supervisory role while they are training, and maybe have something like... case supervision once per week.

so, no. i think it is fair to say that the majority of therapists don't see a therapist themselves though they may (or may not) talk to other therapists about their caseload.

psychiatrists who primarily prescribe medications and who don't offer therapy typically don't have therapy either.

[Hopefull]

I think the poster was refering to the fact that it is our own issues that make us want to become Ts. I want to become a T because I feel that my T has and is helping me. I suspect that is a reason that a lot of T's get into the field. I am not sure what the statistics on this is. It would be interesting to see how many Ts had been in therapy in the past. The clinical supervisor to trainee relationship has some aspects similar to a therepeutic relationship (according to my teacher anyways) but it wouldn't be as indepth on that individual trainee's psychological issues whatever they may be.
I don't think I could work with a psychiatrist/therapist who was a patholoical lier because I couldn't trust that person. I believe that therapy relationships on built on trust and honesty between client and mental health provider. Why do you think he is a pathological lier? If you reasons for believing this are sound, I would consider trying a different Pdoc. I just wouldn't comply with doctor's orders if I thought he was a pathological lier. I want to know that my doctor will tell me the side effects of my medication/risks/ any other potential issues.

[sunrise]

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
so, no. i think it is fair to say that the majority of therapists don't see a therapist themselves though they may (or may not) talk to other therapists about their caseload.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">
I think, though, as part of their training, therapists have to be in therapy while they are in grad school. For example, a while back, I was looking at the counseling program offered by my alma mater, which offers counseling programs (e.g. family therapist, mental health therapist, marriage therapist, etc.). It was a requirement of the program (usually a 2 year program beyond the bachelor's degree) that the person be in therapy at that time. I guess this allows them to work out some of their own problems and experience therapy from the other side of the couch. So even if the therapist is not in therapy herself in the present, probably at one time in the past, during her training, she was. (at least at many programs in the U.S.)

some programs do require the person to have a course of therapy while they are training to be a therapist (e.g., psychoanalysis, some councelling programs) while others do not. clinical psychology programs (to the best of my knowledge) do not. psychiatry programs (to the best of my knowledge) do not.

people go into therapy for a variety of reasons. some people do indeed go into therapy because they are attracted to learning about their own issues. some people go into therapy because they want to help people the way they wish they could have been helped / the way they were helped.

some people go into therapy because they wish to act out their pathology.

some people go into therapy because someone who was important to them needed some help. e.g., perhaps their brother or uncle or cousin or father or best friend had experience of mental illness.

some people go into therapy because they felt helpless to help the person at the time and they are attracted to learning to help others in a similar position in order to gain some mastery.

those reasons don't have to be mutually exclusive.

it is controversial whether people should or should not be allowed to be therapists if they have had experience of mental illness. i post sometimes on the student doctor network (under a different name) and i was fairly horrified to read some peoples thoughts on the matter (talking student doctors / student psychologists as well as professional psychiatrists / psychologists here).

some programs purposely screen people OUT of their programs on the basis of mental illness. perhaps not explicitly, but implicitly, certainly. there are restrictions in some states around lisencing to practice and how much dx of mental illness rules out one obtaining a lisence too.

part of the respect that i have for psychoanalytic training programs is that the full program takes a number of years and one has to complete a course of analysis BEFORE one is allowed to complete the course and practice as an analyst. while there are problems in practice, no doubt, the thought is quite nice: namedly, that the person needs to demonstrate that they are psychologically healthy (in the sense that they are able to recognise and accept their limitations and weaknesses and act in the clients best interests rather than unreflectingly acting out their own pathology) and that they are becoming an analyst for the right reasons before being allowed to practice as a lisenced analyst.

[sunrise]

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
alexandra_k said:
part of the respect that i have for psychoanalytic training programs is that the full program takes a number of years and one has to complete a course of analysis BEFORE one is allowed to complete the course and practice as an analyst.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">
That's how it was in the non-psychoanalytic training programs I cited above for counselors. It's very common in the U.S. to have this requirement. However, I don't know to what extent (or if at all) people are screened out of these non-analytical programs if they somehow manifest too great a mental illness in their own course of therapy. Interesting question.

Alex, I found your list of reasons why therapists become therapists really interesting. I think I saw my own T in that list in a few of those reasons. I've been fascinated by why divorce is a major counseling speciality of his (although he does other family therapy too). As I get to know him better, I'm putting a piece together here and there and find some overlap with the reasons on your list.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
some people go into therapy because they wish to act out their pathology

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">
Can you say more about this reason? Give an example? I'm not sure what that would look like. Like if someone suffers from depression, how would becoming a therapist be an acting out of that?

i'm not 100% sure on this... i think that 'councellor' is a trade marked title in the US like how 'psychologist' is a trade marked title in various parts of the world. i guess different training programs have different components that a student has to passed before they are granted completion. i guess different professional organisations (like the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association) have different requirements on what is required for an individual to become a registered member of the association. I am fairly sure that psychologists and psychiatrists do not have to have undertaken a course of therapy before they are granted membership of those professional organisations. It might be that particular programs require more than the organisation requires, however. Students do (of course) have to have supervision on their cases. Part of that involves them talking about their case. Part of that MAY involve them talking about their own personal responses and reactions to the client - but then again it may not. 'Councellor' is not currently a trade marked title in Australasia (though councellors are campaigning for it to be such).

There are probably more reasons for becoming a therapist than those ones that I listed... I'm not sure that I've ever seen a comprehensive list anywhere, however. Those are fairly much off the top of my head suggestions.

With respect to acting out ones pathology... I suppose every therapist has the potential for that with some of their clients. I was thinking in particular of this guy in Queensland who was struck off the register. He was seeing a girl who had issues with S&M. Part of his course of 'treatment' was for her to call him 'Master' and assent to his demands. She was told to bring along a whip and he would whip the couch (and arguably her) if she didn't assent to his demands. He would also (arguably) instruct her to perform sexual acts. He said that this course of therapy was appropriate for building rapport with someone with such severe masochistic pathology. There is no empirical evidence or theoretical models which incorporate any of this, however. Indeed, such techniques would probably not pass ethical approval in order for them to be tested. I think it likely that... He had sadistic traits and was using his client in order to act out his pathology.

'Major league malpractice' (sexual activities with clients) would be another example of acting out ones pathology. One could of course try to justify it as 'helping the client' or being 'what the client really needs in order to get better' but there is simply no evidence that sexual activity with a therapist helps clients and there is a lot of evidence that sexual activity with a therapist harms clients.

Some therapists encourage their clients to be meek and dependent and needy. They can be very supportive and in fact, do too much for their clients when their clients express helplessness. If their clients express independence or assertiveness or anger, then some therapists simply cannot cope, however. Sometimes a therapist can stunt a clients progress because the therapist needs to be needed by the client. This would be another (subtler) case of the therapist acting out their pathology to the detriment of the clients progress.

Some therapists blame the client or otherwise demean them and / or belittle them. Judge them harshly or otherwise blame them for their troubles. This can be blatant or subtle too. In a way subtler versions can be more harmful because they might mimic the clients early environment in such a way that the client thinks that this sort of response is simply inevitable. This could result from narcissistic needs of the therapist to be competent and in control and superior and the like. Acting out their pathology again.

Maybe 'pathology' isn't quite the correct word for the subtler cases of this... Everybody has needs... The crucial thing (IMHO) is whether the therapist has a good insight into the sorts of needs that they have such that they are able to really consider whether they are acting on their needs or whether they are acting in the clients best interests. Being psychologically healthy isn't a matter of not having needs / desires, it is a matter of having an awareness of where those needs / desires come from and having an ability to refrain from acting out from them. When one is a therapist... One needs to be healthy enough and have enough insight such that one can identify urges / responses that are more about oneself than in the interests of the clients progress. Being a good therapist is about having the ability to identify and refrain from expressing / acting out these and instead being able to respond / react / act in the best interests of the client.

It can indeed be hard to be objective about oneself. That is why... It can be important to be in therapy (not for oneself) so much as being in therapy in order to process ones responses / reactions to the client. So that the therapist can help one sort out counter-transference from that which is in the clients best interests. Not many therapists get the chance to have a supervisory analysis, however. Might get a once a week meeting in order to discuss the treatment plan of the trickiest cases is about all...

Sigh...

Funding limitations etc etc etc...

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
soulno7 said:
Therapy is help. accept the help because it is there, being offered, for you, to help you. it's help. don't judge it instead. it feels like ur giving up on it, but don't you think giving up is just easier than being HELPED? idealization is wrong, and now you realize it's wrong. so get over that, stop idealizing, just accept the help. work with what you got.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

Oh this is so true! Well accept for Idealization being wrong, its not wrong, its just a stage we all pass through.

Maybe this will shed a little light on what's been talked about?

I am going for my Master's degree in clinical and counseling psychology.

Once I obtain the Master's, and have 3000 hrs. of post Master's supervised clinical work, I can take the licensure exam.

From there, I will be an LPC-- licensed professional counselor. (fancy name for therapist)

Through all of this, my school does not require therapy; however, states that it is "highly recommended."

I am hoping not to have to take the licensure exam... hoping I will get accepted into doctoral school this fall, and be able to go right in.

And for doctoral school, my school doesn't require therapy. Again, it is "highly recommended."

They like to choose students who have had firsthand experience with therapy.

Hmmm... that should make me a shoo-in!

If you choose to go to either of the two psychoanalysis schools here, and obtain certification in psychoanalysis, you do have to go through some pretty intense analysis yourself.

Certification in psychoanalysis is my backup plan if I don't get into doctoral.

There are many schools that do require therapy. Others don't. It depends on the school. I am very disappointed that my school doesn't. I do not understand how one can fully understand the process-- unless he/she has been through it firsthand.

> I do not understand how one can fully understand the process-- unless he/she has been through it firsthand.

I guess the idea is that one can adequately treat a broken leg even though one has never had one oneself...
One can adequately prescribe xanax and seroquel and lithium even though one has never taken them oneself...
One can successfully treat mental disorder without having experienced one oneself...

I guess that is the thought.

Not sure what I think.

I think... That adequate screening of clinicians is often lacking. I think that often people are excluded who could be great and often people are accepted who would be better being excluded.

I think... That a lot of that depends on the kind of therapy one is doing, however.

Basically... Not too sure what I think.

I'd rather see an analyst for preference, I guess.

I am so airheaded at times. Really. Do you know that I always sit there, wondering if my T has been through therapy? Hello, he is an analyst, of course he has been through therapy. That just hit me. Right now. What is wrong with me???