Psychotherapy inherently flawed?

Fair. Though I believe the majority of clients prefer to know enough about their therapists to feel that they are safe people. I prefer to know the basics of who I am dealing with, and don't mind therapeutic anecdotes when helpful, or small talk while we settle in. But yes, every situation is different.

I do think the majority of clients who get upset by disclosures wouldn't be as upset if the information were disclosed from the beginning. For example, I've heard of clients getting disturbed after finding out their long term therapists are married, or have children. Reality disturbs the fantasy.

For me, I don't get disturbed if the woman decides to tell me something about herself but I am usually baffled as to why she is telling me. I don't really care what she thinks or does in her real life. It does not make me go "oh wow, this person does X so X is okay" or "Wow, this person said X and I now trust her so much" or anything like that. I just think "what was the point of that?"

You're not even curious? Not judging at all, it just makes me reflect on how differently we all do therapy.

My therapist provides a decent amount of guidance, so it's important to me that we work on the same plane.

I am not particularly curious about the woman. She is not that interesting as a therapist. How she is in real life has no bearing on me.

To each their own! I am curious about most people, but more so people that I care about or could eventually care about. You don't sound overly into your therapist, so I get it.

I'm another person who really doesn't want to know much about my therapist other than how she interacts with me in a session. I don't want to know if she's married or not, if she has kids or if she's living with someone or alone. I personally feel those types of things get in the way of my therapy and dealing with my issues. I don't care if she tells me a brief story or antidote about how she "handled" a similar situation, but I don't want to go in depth.

I do, however, want to know her thoughts and feelings about how we interact with each other. I'll freely inquire about her thoughts and feelings about the "present" moment in our session, just as she will check in with me about my thoughts and feelings. I want to know how she "interprets" my thoughts and/or behavior and I'll be pretty blunt and open if I think she's off track. She's very open to my own thoughts about interpretation of my behavior and she genuinely considers them. But I sure don't want to hear about her life (past or present). Get's in the way for me.

I find the topic of therapist self-disclosure to be utterly bizarre. In other close relationships, disclosure and vulnerability and openness arise spontaneously. In therapy the professional seems to be constantly battling to suppress their natural impulses in favor of some highly speculative theoretical model.

The defense of this is that it is an "art" and not a science. Still, it's all so convoluted. Therapy seems often to strangle all normality out of human interaction.

The non-disclosure of most phychotherapists (not CBT) is to encourage the development of transference, to varying degrees.

So that, during therapy, we project our pasts "issues"'on to our therapist and, in the best circumstances; "work through" these issues and enhance our functioning in our current life.

Some us do not want transference to develop, but that is, essentially, the function of non-disclosure, as I understand it.

Some of us are embroiled in various forms of transference in our therapy. Some of us, have no emotional attachment at all to our therapist

We all go to therapy for our own personal reasons. We all respond to our therapists in different ways.

Neither one is right or wrong, simply unique to the client.

My opinion only.

For me, I don't think of it or see it as a close relationship. In fact, for me, it would not work at all if it was any sort of other than hired distant professional situation. I do agree that often therapists seem to be unable to refrain from acting like humans only to find it is upsetting to them when clients expect such a thing to continue.

This is really helpful. Thank you. I wonder if most therapists I've seen have understood it this way, as it seemed they were mostly wanting to keep their lives private than do anything therapeutic by withholding personal information.

I would like to know more about my therapist to gauge how her thinking is about the world and life. (Example: Her own worldview might inform me of how she interprets certain things I bring up that I can't share elsewhere--would she see them as pathological, spiritual, or something else?) As it is, she shares very little and it comes across as hiding. So, your thoughts are interesting to me.

The therapist I saw before this one withheld key things about herself that, had I fully understood, would have helped me decide to look elsewhere. Instead, she moved, and when she moved, she made things public about her practice that she had not before--such as she saw it as a ministry. This was troubling to me and, in hindsight, explained a lot of our disconnect, as we were coming at things from very different worldviews. She could not separate her religious passion from the way she practiced and saw my issues, and yet she never disclosed that to me.

Yes, but when a therapist starts bringing his or her own self--emotions, reactions, etc., into the therapy, it turns into something that is no longer therapy. The key word being reactions because I think reciprocity you are suggestion invites reactions. Perhaps you can't have all the good elements of a relationship without the bad (e.g. reactions).

I think it's the opposite--reciprocating the same as in any other relationship can be damaging or harmful. But it doesn't have to be either or. A therapist who discloses nothing can prevent trust from building in the relationship. Relational psychoanalysis is one where the therapist is spontaneous and genuine at times. But, someone in training to be a psychoanalyst spends years in intense therapy. By the time they are done, all of their transferences are worked through, enabling them to separate their feelings from those of the client. This prevents the reactivity I see happen so much here. (not that this training makes them completely immune from this).

Therapists who did not have years of their own depth therapy, I would argue, are unlikely to be able to do this and risk harming the client.

Edited to add: its the therapist's needs entering the therapy that is most problematic. Reactions being just one example of the expression of a need. The reciprocity you suggest comes with needs.

It's interesting to me that your therapist withheld key things about herself. I would personally hate that! Although I am not interested in knowing personal, intimate information about my therapist's life (ie. is she married, how many, if any, children does she have, where does she live, what does she do on her down time etc.), I am very interested in her world view, thoughts on illness and death, spiritual thoughts etc. Every question that I've asked, she's answered and she is entirely open to hearing my views. It leads to some lively and interesting conversations. We don't always agree, but I respect her view and she respects mine.

I do think that the "old" psychoanalytic therapy and many therapist's practicing psychotherapy that encourages/fosters attachment for "reparenting" purposes, do attempt to accelerate the transference process. I don't see that in my own therapy. She's up front, answers the questions I have and provides a supportive environment to explore my issues. She even points out her own mistakes or failure to "know what the right answer is"--in other words, she's not looking to be put on a pedestal.

The thing I like about her being non-intrusive with her own issues is that I am totally free to focus on my issues. I'm not trying to take care of her or worry about how what I talk about will impact her because of this issue or that issue that is going on in her life. I have no illusions that my therapy comes even close to "real life" interactions. It's a therapeutic situation, but I do know that I will interact with her in a similar fashion to how I interact in a real life situation and therapy gives me the space to examine the way I interact--the pitfalls and the successes. It gives me the change to decide that if I don't like how things are turning out, I can make changes and adjustments. And since my therapist is willing to own her part in the interaction (something I don't see much in real life), it lets me know what I need to own. This is ONLY how my therapy works and I realize that everyone doesn't experience this. I just love it that it works this way in my situation.

I would be distressed to find out the therapist thought of her job as a ministry. Ack. That should be something, for me, that they disclose up front (so I could run very far away from that one).

[QUOTE=ex vivo;4960736]. . . . But, someone in training to be a psychoanalyst spends years in intense therapy. By the time they are done, all of their transferences are worked through, enabling them to separate their feelings from those of the client. This prevents the reactivity I see happen so much here. (not that this training makes them completely immune from this).

I don't necessarily disagree with what you've posted, but I will say that even with years of therapy/psychoanalysis, no therapist is ever going to prevent their reactivity or separate their own emotions from those of their client. I think this is where many therapist fail. They truly believe that what's happening in the session is completely on the client because the emotions flying around the room can't possibly be due to their own personal feelings. It can't possibly be them because they worked through all that. Bullc#@*! The emotions flying around the room are produced by the dyad. Both people have a part in what's happening. Sometimes therapists get a bit arrogant and blinded by the power imbalance and that blindness is injurious to the clients. I find that I much more respect a therapist who says, "Hey, what just happened there? I feel like something shifted. What's your thoughts? I was feeling . . . . " That's honesty in the relationship.

I see a relational psychoanalyst and that's how she works. She isn't a blank slate, but she doesn't let her "outside" personal life contaminate what I'm working on in therapy. But she is very open to talk about what she's thinking and/or feeling when she's interacting with me. It's very refreshing, in my opinion.

. . . .QUOTE]

I am actually very glad that my therapist hasn't ever (and is unlikely to) disclose anything remotely personal (E.g. hasn't said anything about being married or having kids or what she's up to when she cancels sessions etc).

More than anything else, it allows me to keep my opinions of her personal life -- no small thing, given that I have plenty of strong opinions about the lives of all sorts of people! -- outside of the therapy space.

So, I don't have to worry if my conscious or unconscious judgment of her (and I think given my personality, there's likely to be some sort of judgment just about always!) when she reveals personal stuff will in turn influence her efficacy or willingness in functioning as my therapist.

By the same token, I don't tell her -- despite her rather irritated comments about it -- things that I don't think concern the reason I'm in therapy.

So, at least for me, I don't feel like I have to make myself vulnerable in ways or on a timeline that doesn't feel comfortable to me.

Having said all that, sure there's a temptation for me to sometimes let it all hang out and see how she reacts -- at those times, I catch myself feeling like there's a part of me that's 'testing' her.

But, remembering this helps --
a. she's human and may not have the perfect response to my stuff and
b. that if I'm really uncomfortable revealing something and I'll only feel okay if she has the absolutely attuned / perfect response, I clearly shouldn't be revealing it (again, this is just how I function and not a universal prescription).

So, I like feeling as if there's plenty of room to breathe all around.

Thanks for pointing this out. I didn't mean to say that it prevents reactivity 100% of the time. I've seen my therapist be reactive a few times over the years.... I do believe, however, that verbalizing/making all your unconscious needs conscious has a way of being able to push your needs aside to be able to fully focus on another's needs most of the time/when necessary.

Also, I don't think the depth therapy is the only factor here. It takes a lot for a person to be able to get through that kind of therapy, so that reflects on the therapist's inherent traits too. I don't think it's common that someone really messed up could tolerate that kind of therapy, so that has a way of weeding some out.

BudFox, this is the post i was thinking of when i wrote my last response although i quoted another by mistake.

If a therapist lets themselves be vulnerable, which would mean increased intimacy, that comes with needs. Need to be accepted, need to be liked, need to not be rejected, etc.

People are damaged everyday because someone else acted on their impulses. I don't understand how that can help therapy. If you know of a way this can help the therapy, i'd be interested.

I saw two Jungian analysts--the real deal--and the difference between how they behaved and others was immeasurable. I credit their own years of analysis for the ability to keep their own egos and "stuff" in check. They were not immune, but it was clear to me that all those years of their own analysis had made them more conscious of what they brought to therapy. I agree that a therapist with a host of unresolved issues could not tolerate analysis or depth psychology.

For example, if the t has a cold. He complains to client #1, who sympathizes, or not. Then he complains to client #2. Already its getting ridiculous. This is why the t keeps his needs to himself, and just concentrates on the relationship he has developed with each client. To some clients, consoling or even noticing the ts cold may or may not be a priority in that clients therapeutic process. Its very Marxian - to each, according to her needs.

Same here! Yes, the difference is remarkable. I also thought it was worth mentioning as in another thread Bud Fox mentions "weeding out" therapists. This is one thing in the industry (or a small community within the industry) that actually does that.

I don't think it's that crucial for many clients, but I do think it's really important for those with childhood trauma history, especially for those of us who develop these intense attachments.

One thing that matters with trauma patients is the therapist being sucked into their world by interacting with/reacting to the patterns presented by the client as this is what happens in relationships outside of therapy. Sort of like what's happening with Winenot's therapist in another thread. This is very fundamental to those who understand how to implement object relations concepts.

I'm not saying more therapist self-disclosure is better. I'm not saying less would be better. I'm suggesting that it's so difficult to find this elusive balance, not because the therapist is screwed up or is using the wrong approach, but because the whole relationship is so contorted and contrived -- in my experience. My last therapist did not know how to respond to half of what I said because of all the whacked out constraints and rules. Anything said by either of us was scrutinized under the microscope. Every gesture, every facial expression, even the silences were analyzed for their therapeutic meaning.

But is having gone through years of analysis or any sort of therapy a reliable indicator of the therapist's mental and emotional health AND their ability to help someone else with theirs?

Just playing devil's advocate. I don't see having gone through therapy as necessarily a good thing at all. There are many stories of therapy causing significant harm, making people worse. A therapist in training, like the rest of us, could easily be made worse (or just not any better) by bad therapy. Or years of training and analysis might distort their way of relating to others, with excessive focus on theoretical and clinical way of thinking.

It is NOT a reliable indicator of a therapist's mental and emotional health. I think it would a huge red flag to me. How much therapy does a person need to be "healthy?" My thoughts are NONE. Therapy makes people worse in many cases and I think this would apply to therapists as well.

Also transference is just a theory with no basis in any kind of actual fact that it is helpful to people.

I wasn't referring to just self-disclosure, but yes, i totally agree that it can be very difficult to navigate feelings, therapy.

No judgment about your thoughts and feelings about the industry. And if this is how you are grieving, it's just as good as any and it seems to be helping you (as far as i can tell). I also think there are many flaws, but it's really all we have when it comes to therapy.

I do want to tell you though, that I've shared all of my intense feelings with my therapist-including maternal 'erotic' transference, infant-like feelings, and other deep stuff, and he was always steady and accepting of it. There were times when i felt he was rejecting, often just coincidences, but at no time did he EVER react like your therapist did. He had enough experience with this that he knows it dissipates in time as when managed correctly, these intense transference feelings often do. And some therapists are good at containment.

I've had a similiar experience with another therapist who had the same kind of training. So, it's hard for me to see that it's the industry that's mostly at fault. I think your therapist f-ed up, causing you harm. You said something in another post about not wanting to assign blame to her. But maybe she is to blame, BudFox.

I'm just reporting on the difference I saw between the analysts (who are required to undergo their own years of analysis) and therapists (who may or may not have had counseling). I also see analysis as different than therapy. Mainly though, I was commenting on my own experience of the two different types of psychotherapy, based on the practitioner's own level of self examination.

I'm not sure if you've been through Jungian analysis, but it is an entirely different animal. I couldn't hack it. It's hard to explain here, but it wasn't examining facial expressions and minute gestures. It was just very deep work. Very challenging. I'm not promoting it or defending it, and certainly not disagreeing about the very serious flaws in the industry as a whole--just saying that I notice when a practitioner is held accountable to high standards and they have done some work of their own, it has shown in our interactions. I quite liked them and found them to be humane and not the paint by numbers therapy I've seen done by others.

I don't know what my current therapist's experience with therapy has been. She's said she has a therapist, and she doesn't tend to get wrapped up in her own stuff. Whether or not that's as a result of work she's done for herself or just who she is, I can't know. I do know it's a crap shoot to find a good therapist and that the industry does a hideously poor job of monitoring itself.