Are You Real In Therapy?

I don't know. I can't answer that with an unequivocal yes. In therapy different things exist than what exists outside of the therapy room. They don't feel "real" to me when I am not in the room with t. Often they feel like lies. I don't connect to those feelings or those stories that are told. So it that sense I definitely do not feel like "I" am real in therapy.
But those things are real in and of themselves. They are not lies. They are real feelings about real things that happened. But they don't exist in the non therapy room world.... for me.
So I don't know. I end with T next week and start to see a new T. Part of me is glad to finish and doesn't want to see the other T. That part of me is relieved to be done with T and to be able to focus on the "real" world.
But other parts of me are screaming out in despair because they don't think they'll ever get to tell their stories. They don't want to be shut off and forgotten for years and years.
So what is "real"??

I am myself in therapy. And I'm completely honest. Though, it takes me some time to process things, so even though I'm fairly open, I'm not open right away. Luckily, I'm allowed to email, so usually I inform her of things I processed that way.

I try to be as real as I can. But when I was 14- I wasn't ready for therapy or change- I lied at that meeting and told her that that I was actually okay. It was easier to run from the truth the to face it.

I try to be as real as I possibly can, but I am somewhat scared of the intensity of emotion that has built around the events that brought me to therapy. So, I tend to skim over stuff that I should really talk about, in order to be able to bring this stuff to the surface.

Yup. Pretty real, but I tend to be that way. What you see is what you get.

I'm not sure who the "real" me is. I know that I build walls to hide behind in my job which involves lots of speaking in front of people and me being evaluated based on my presented intellect. I know that I'd rather hide inside my bedroom than even venture into my yard. So even going out of the house feels like somewhat of a facade. I know I am too anxious in T, I think in part because I don't build up walls and in part because I am still hiding.

OP - this has been a great question that you posed and lots of interesting responses.

With my previous T I tried to be real, with my words. This means that I always forced myself to say the truth. But I acted like I was cold. Because of social anxiety I don't want others to see my emotions. So I act like the "cold rational one". I was never able to show her my emotions, or my playful side. With people very close to me I'm really playful and joke a lot. I have a different tone of voice, different movements etc. But in therapy I wasn't able to show these traits. My tone of voice was the same, I never cried and so on. It's also because I didn't feel really comfortable with her. I didn't want a female T because I know that I'm a lot more anxious around females.

Thanks everyone.There's way too many replies to answer them individually,but I do appreciate it.

Lots of interesting and thought provoking responses here.I enjoyed reading each one.

"Remember: a therapist is always a stranger to a client, no matter how well the client claims to know the therapist." -- Jeffrey Masson

That is the basic context within which clients have to decide how real to be. There is no getting around this.

I guess I mostly see this as Argonautomobile has explained. Every moment, every self-state, is real regardless of how it is characterized. Becoming self-conscious (not in a necessarily negative way) is part of human development. To lack self-consciousness would be contrary to the "norm" and would be to remain a child. The Romantics may have fetishized the child state as inherently innocent and pure, but that view hadn't been and isn't universal. I don't equate "realness" particularly with honesty, vulnerability, authenticity or as essentially positive or negative. And interaction of self with the environment is fluid, probably more so than we can be aware of. I don't think that fluidity is necessarily defense driven.

But I also reject the notion of "parts" in human psychology. For me, a self is a whole capable of endless variation of feeling, so how would I be able to judge my experience of one moment as more or less "real"? There may be some distinction between the degrees of perception and the extent to which those are consciously manipulated--the folks that are "bragging" sound like they were making a choice to present certain aspects of themselves and not others--but they're still all "real."

Alternatively, folks may be experiencing it just how they described their experience

Exactly--whose perception is more "real"?

Interesting--this just popped into my e-mail inbox from the Brit Psychological Soc:
https://digest.bps.org.uk/2017/08/22...gical-concept/

Hmm. No, not exactly. You can't claim to know what others' perceptions are/what's in their head. If I am craving chocolate, you can't say no, you were actually craving wine.

I'm not trying to dispute your philosophy or your idea of sense of self/realness as we all have a different take on it obviously. My concept of true self is more spiritual (not religious) than psychological because of past experiences with various dissociative states, synesthesia, and OBEs--which are semi-separate from my conscious. Kind of like sleep is a different state of conscious. The way I would describe it would be my soul. As a child, I was closer to my soul being.

When I think of a related but not identical concept (psychologically as opposed to spiritually), I think of sense of self. I view true self is different than sense of self.

Is there a philosopher around? RubyRae, your threads are very thought provoking?

I don't understand your post #36--I read it as, "the braggers think they were faking and fooled the T, but the T may very well have seen that (or else, who the braggers were presenting themselves to be really is how they are and the T sees it as not duplicitous)?" Did I misread?

I don't think anyone can claim to know whether someone is presenting a "true" or "false" self because I don't believe in the distinction. I think astute hearers can pick up on discomfort or incongruity, but that's different from T/F.

I would hear "sense of self" as perception; and "true" self, for those that want to use the term, as related to identity, which is broader than sense of self.

Maybe just a miscommunication? Most of post 36 was a quote..but I thought you were (rightly or wrongly) defining others' experiences.

I don't believe in that concept of true vs false self either (Winnicott?) but some of my ideas about this topic might be unconventional.

Anyway, thanks for asking for clarification.

So?

I'm not looking to date my therapist or have a personal relationship. I like it better that it's a professional relationship. It sounds like you have a problem with the imbalance because of incompetent therapists. It's a valid concern, but does not negate competent therapy which is built on this strange arrangement.

I have a problem with this arrangement because of its basic nature, not because of incompetent therapists. Therapists urge the client to bring their authentic self, but in return they give a staged performance (in varying degrees), while at the same time suggesting they are modeling healthy behavior. That is wicked hypocrisy. I get that it works in some cases, but I don't see how a client can figure out how real to be without first recognizing this reality.

I don't agree that it's staged. You see it that way, and it may be for a number of them (hard for me to say how great that number is), but I see it as a professional role the same as how I am in my work, where there is often a similar imbalance, only it's the flip side of the one I have in therapy. People I work with know a lot less about me than I know about them, but I am not behaving in a staged manner. It's more that my personal self is not the focus when we are interacting, whereas theirs is.

The arrangement works really well for me, for my own purposes. I trust what I know in my real life more than what I read online, and I will leave it at that.

Oh--no, I'm not defining their experiences as real or not. It's the OP who characterized their descriptions of their therapies as bragging, and the OP who said they admitted to her that they were "faking" in therapy. I'm just taking her description of the situation at face value. Sorry that wasn't clear.

Maybe Winnicott; can't really remember--it's been a long time since I read him!

I think I'm about as real as I can be in therapy, more real than what I tend to portray in the so called 'real world' where I tend to put up an I don't really care attitude.
However I think it is going to be a slow process with actually expressing certain feelings, fears, emotions, simply because it's something I avoided doing throughout my whole life through fear of showing any weakness in life!
Is my T real? I hope so, I understand she comes in with a job to do and part of that means maybe not expressing her own thoughts/issues, and I respect that but I think as far as being 'real' with mr, I'm pretty sure it's not so much of an act, she comes across as a nice and understanding person, and I believe she is that, and if I thought otherwise I wouldn't have continued.

Therapy is FOR the client, so the client brings (if s/he wishes) all the info on the table to get help. If it was symmetrical, it would not be therapy.

100% real to both t and pdoc.

I am not entirely sure what "real" means in this context in general terms but have my own view... I am myself, which includes that I am guarded to a certain extent but very open an interactive. I think I would never end up collapsing or falling apart in a therapy session, cry uncontrollably, become hysterical or excessively angry (those would be out of character for me)... unless something I have never experienced before happens. I tend to be very open and expressive discussing my issues though, but not overly and unpredictably emotional. Also fairly strategical and don't tend to just reveal everything suddenly, at once. Just like in most situations of my everyday life. So I think I am my usual self - in this sense real, including that I am relatively realistic and composed but verbally very expressive.

I tend to be most highly personal, vulnerable and emotional in close intimate one-on-one relationships - I like to keep it there and don't think it belongs to therapy for me.

I also share the views that being real and authentic does not necessarily equate with baring one's soul, showing raw emotions, or even honesty for everyone. It's more presenting our usual selves and behaviors, including not knowing what this "self" is, for those that have that tendency.

I am so real in therapy. No one has done more pondering, researching, and obsessing about all my shyt than me. So I tell the whole story. This last t session, she told me to think more positive thoughts.

Of course, I know that would help. The thing is, when I go down the well, I'm hurting so deeply, I don't want to make myself think positive, I want to jump in to the abyss.

Is that real enough for you?

For me, being real means being honest with myself about who I am, what I want, and how things are presently working out for me. It doesn't really require anything from my T, real or not. I'm not in therapy to learn about my T or to change him in some way. He's really a sounding board for me in a space created so I can be honest with myself. Although I think he is real with me in the sense that his responses seem genuine and not contrived, it's really more important that what he says rather than the underlying intent that is helpful. Or sometimes it isn't, and being able to say that and work out what would be more so is good to explore.