T as detective

oh she's a detective alright! very good at hearing what i don't say. also hearing stuff i don't even realize i'm saying, especially when i talk to myself while i'm doing a sand tray, oh the things she has learned during those times because she pays attention....

Looks like Freud was a detective. lol

If my therapists had stuck to just what I "wanted" them to know, we wouldn't have gotten anywhere.

Of course therapists will take in all input about a client and start piecing together the information. Honestly, we ALL do that in all of our interactions with people. We take what we hear, what we observe, even what we don't hear and don't observe, and we draw conclusions and work from there. Does that make us all detectives? Or does that just make us observant and thoughtful people capable of drawing inferences? But as a reading teacher, I know that I teach my students that they have to be careful about their inferences. What evidence is there to support those inferences? Can you check in some way to be sure the inference is founded in fact before you go on a tangent about a character or event making unfounded claims? Therapists have to know how to check their inferences/conclusions and not go off on a wild tangent.

I do think therapists have to be careful not to lead clients toward conclusions that might not be real. Clients in a vulnerable state can be led into false memories, false conclusions, etc. if a therapist leads too much with his/her own agenda. There is a danger there. My therapist talked about that a few times. There is/was a train of thought in the therapy community at one time (and he said unfortunately it still persists more than it should) that clients should be pressed to go over and over traumatizing events as a way of desensitizing them to the trauma. But he said evidence showed that often led to further retraumatization and false memories as clients felt coerced into coming up with more and more traumatic memories. His personal opinion was that that approach was more voyeuristic than therapeutic (it was pretty clear he had very strong feelings about that approach).

I think most professionals you hire to fix a problem end up doing some metaphorical "detective work" to figure out the nature of the problem. I'm thinking doctors, computer repair techs, car mechanics...

I'm not sure. Sometimes he notices my feelings, sometimes not. Sometimes he notices my feelings everyone else ignored all my life. Not as detective, but as mind reader.

Seems he thinks I'm doing better than I am. Maybe it's not very good.

I see Laurie's point, that therapy can mean very different things depending on type of therapy, reason for going, and so on.
Even so, I think many good Ts will be trained in more than one approach, and therefore they need to use their knowledge and observation and questioning (detective work), in addition to what the client says to them when they first come, in order to formulate what the goal of the therapy will be and what approach they will be taking. This is most obvious at the beginning. I think they should keep on doing it, and sharing with the client, throughout the therapy, to make sure everyone is on the same page.

Just adding, to CE's original question - in my opinion the T would and should use all of their knowledge and understanding, including what the client has said AND other things like maybe things T has noticed that client does not seem to be aware of. The way I see it, we hire them for their expertise and training and ability to know how to help,and those things could be relevant. BUT I think the T should always share with the client. I don't think they should have a secret agenda they haven't told the client. And where the client is paying then they get to choose. If the client and T can't agree on an agenda or approach for therapy, the client can say no thank you and maybe find another T.

I would have said something very similar to that myself before I met my pdoc.

Previously I have ran circles round my T's, avoidance, misdirection and distraction. All things I did to keep them thinking they were productive and helpful when not one of them could have told you anything pertinent to my issues.

If my pdoc wasn't Sherlock to my Moriarty we would get nowhere.
I am and always will be incapable of simply letting someone in.
I can discuss the most horrific events of my past without it even raising my heart rate.
Because I am not there.
If my pdoc was not super perceptive and able to spot my tactics, and is able to confront my avoidance, or distractions then I would still be sitting throwing biscuits to another new T saying ,
"good T well done."

Don't get me wrong it's not an easy relationship, but it works for me.

At best, I consider therapists moriarty to my sherlock, although they are usually more lestrade. Sometimes I consider them to be Mrs. Hudson.

While it is Mycroft I have sought (in vain) all along.

Spoiler alert:

You mean...

So relevant here!!!

Hey, I didn't name the thread.

There could be another thread: What character in Sherlock (Holmes) would your therapist be?

I wasnt being negative. I meant like how amazing it all led this way.

I do somatic experiencing with one of my therapists, so I am paying her to observe and relay what is going on non-verbally. However, all observations are offered as just that - her observations - and any "interventions" are always thoroughly described (what and why we're going to do) and always just offered as options.