Apologies in advance for the length of this post - I'm working through my thoughts here...

I’ve been really interested in the recent posts (in different threads) about transference and whether or not talk therapy is effective. I have been in therapy, on and off, for most of my adult life – most of it ineffective and some of it quite harmful. About 6 months ago, I terminated with my therapist who I had been seeing for 5 years. When I first started seeing him, I was in a very bad place – I had recently moved to a new state, became a single parent, was working a very high stress job, and was dealing with pretty severe PTSD symptoms (including anxiety and major depression with unremitting suicidal ideation).

My therapist was a very kind and empathetic man and I would go into my session with a good deal of anxiety and leave feeling better. This feeling would last any where from a couple of hours to a day or two, and then the anxiety and depression would return. We never really “worked” on my symptoms, but I definitely felt heard and supported. And he was very clear that he was not an expert in working with trauma. Eventually, I was able to pull it together enough to supplement my therapy with things that actually addressed my symptoms: I did a full program of DBT, started a yoga practice, found a trauma specialist who was trained in somatic experiencing, etc.

Through all of this, I had a sense that continuing to see the talk therapist was similar to an addiction. I know there was a lot of transference going on…or maybe not…I didn’t have romantic feelings and it wasn’t paternal. We had similar political and spiritual leanings – and I would generally feel heard and validated – but I was also very much aware that this was a “professional” relationship (and, honestly, if I gave it any thought, I don’t think we would be friends or lovers even if we had met outside the office).

But I spent a lot of time and energy trying to understand why I kept going back, why it seemed like a drug. I tried talking to him about it and he told me he had clients he had been seeing for 15-20 years, just for “support”, which horrified me. Eventually, I realized I needed to just stop going, which I did. I know he was confused, but I knew if I went in for a termination visit, I’d get sucked back in.

During the time I’ve been away from therapy, I’ve been trying to sort out what happened and it occurred to me that, at least in my case, much of the feeling better without actually getting better (at least with this mode of therapy) may have been due to biochemistry. I believe that going in each week, feeling heard and loved, released oxytocin in my brain – which is why the “feeling better” never lasted very long.

I recently heard a TED talk by a researcher who claims that everything is biochemistry – which can turn into a huge rabbit hole if I think about it too much. And I'm sure it's much more complicated than a simple burst of chemicals, but, to me, this makes sense.

I'm curious if anyone has any thoughts on this.

[SalingerEsme]

I am drawn to this post, and the kind of thinking that takes a step back. I am inexplicably addicted to therapy too, and it eclipses my real life relationships in impact and preoccupying force. Besides Oxytocin in relationships, I wonder about dopamine in addiction. One particular part of the brain habituates its dopamine release to a stimulus, and correspondingly reduces dopamine in response to normal/ common things. For some reason, my T is more influential on my brain than anyone else, and I do feel some kind of neurobiology must be involved. I am very interested in your thoughts and quest.

Originally Posted by SalingerEsme

I am drawn to this post, and the kind of thinking that takes a step back. I am inexplicably addicted to therapy too, and it eclipses my real life relationships in impact and preoccupying force. Besides Oxytocin in relationships, I wonder about dopamine in addiction. One particular part of the brain habituates its dopamine release to a stimulus, and correspondingly reduces dopamine in response to normal/ common things. For some reason, my T is more influential on my brain than anyone else, and I do feel some kind of neurobiology must be involved. I am very interested in your thoughts and quest.

I am not a biochemist, but I do work in the pharmaceutical industry and am familiar with some of the research on brain chemicals and mood disorders. I suspect there's a "cascade" effect going on.

From what I've read as well, trauma changes the brain, and I wonder if folks with trauma or even "attachment" issues are more affected by this...maybe because the experience of being biochemically soothed is not something they experienced in the past.

[rainbow8]

Thanks for starting this thread. I can relate but cant respond right now.

[peaches100]

My dad has always had addiction issues (drinking and gambling). Many of my relatives on my dad's side of the family have issues with both alcohol and drugs. In the past, I realized that I have a tendency toward addiction too, so I stopped drinking.

Makes me wonder if a biochemical predisposition toward addictions would make therapy addiction more likely?

[ListenMoreTalkLess]

There are a lot of interesting points in your post, and my reflections are both similar to and different than yours.

Although I have been in therapy, about eight years now, I came with some serious trauma resolved and some not. In this round, when my youngest child reaches the age I was when I was abused, I knew I needed to go back to therapy that I ended 15 years earlier. In this round of therapy, I have worked directly on the traumas themselves. I don't know what it means to work on symptoms like anxiety and depression, except I usually raise them as part of my agenda for session. I don't see my therapist is. doing anything directly, but I find it useful to talk about things that make me more anxious or depressed and what I can do to feel less. This works pretty well for me.

Like you, I have engaged in a lot of body therapies, including now a five or six year Tai Chi practice. I also do massage therapy at the same rate I now do therapy, every other week. I think I do them both for what you are calling support, I call it self-care. I don't see what's wrong, if that's what you're saying, in using therapy for support. I have good friends and I do receive a lot of support from them, but there still things I want to discuss with my therapist in addition to or instead of my friends. Maybe this would be different if I hadn't had the traumatic experiences I've had, because daily life is full of symbolic reminders of what happened to me so many years ago.

I believe that it's okay for people to go to therapy for whatever purpose they choose. It's one of many things one can do to feel better and have support for the slings and arrows that come up in life. For me therapy is like a touchstone that helps me figure out how I can have more of what I want in my life. At this point, I don't feel like I need to work on trauma or the symptoms that are part of it. Just like regular massage is no longer about fixing the golfers elbow I got from gardening this summer. It still okay to use the service to just feel good. Therapy works some of the same way for me. It feels good to talk about the changes I'm making in my life and why with someone who has no investment in the specifics of what I do. Sometimes my family gets anxious when I talk about wanting to move when our youngest is in college, and my spouse worries as I think about making changes in my career, but my therapist doesn't. For me, therapy is a lot cheaper than massage, and tai chi is cheaper than both.

I haven't experienced much of the negative side effects therapy, although my therapist has pissed me off from time to time, missed the point, her family and some other way. I've never experienced the problematic transference or attachment. I do think that I experience a biochemical response in therapy, and feeling good as the result of feeling understood or because I've been able to articulate it in a way that can be understood, that's a bonus of therapy. I think the therapy has re-wired my trauma response into something different because of the bio chemistry changes that occurred during therapy. I think any time you talk about a traumatic experience in a setting where the original biochemistry response is activated, those pathways change. My experience has been that these pathways change further, they are no longer the groove they once were, and I talk about therapy. I can see now that my relationship to my past is different, I am more at peace. Therapy helped a lot, and so did the bodywork, but I feel I continue to improve as time goes on. I don't see any reason to end therapy and I'm thinking about going back to once per week.

[Out There]

That's very interesting. I find my regular T very calming and soothing and read about " Limbic system resonance " long - short the lymbic system is haywire in people with trauma and if you're with someone whose lymbic system is balanced it will balance yours too. I believe trauma needs a multi disciplinary approach but regular T has held all parts of it together , including specific trauma work. He's like insulin to EMDR T's penicillin. He's very stable and I guess we're going to like that if we're not used to it.

There have been times I have walked to therapy and I literally felt drugged. Like I had taken a pill and I felt in love. That has stopped but I have never in my life felt so drugged without taking anything.

[magicalprince]

I do think therapy dynamics have a strong basis in biochemistry "hacks" or "loopholes."

What I think creates that is too much thinking and talking and too little action. Therapy is meant to delay action for people who are too REactive to allow insight into actions. But there is also a natural human desire for action and to act on feelings so this can get compounded by that environment in which action is strictly prohibited.

If the understanding and insight doesn't get solidified, then what is at risk of happening instead is that the DESIRE/IMPULSE compounds on top of itself until a therapist is essentially selling a drug.

Oh yeah, also, it is known that occasional/scarce/unpredictable rewards create behaviors which are the most addictive and hardest to extinguish. So when there is sometimes a minute action taken, a hug, a gesture, something that is different than usual, that can become that "scarce" reward.

Originally Posted by peaches100

Makes me wonder if a biochemical predisposition toward addictions would make therapy addiction more likely?

It wouldn't surprise me. There has been some research that shows that binging and purging releases endorphins in the brain. I believe all of these "maladaptive" coping mechanisms serve a purpose of some sort - whether it's numbing or soothing - most likely they trigger some sort of physiological response.

Originally Posted by ListenMoreTalkLess

I believe that it's okay for people to go to therapy for whatever purpose they choose.

I agree. And for me, the support I got for quite a number of years was exactly what I needed at the time - I really couldn't have handled doing trauma work when I was drowning. After a while, though, I realized I was only seeing my therapist to, well, see HIM. And, I suspected that I was avoiding developing relationships outside of therapy because my needs for closeness (as close as a one-sided relationship can be) were being met in therapy.

Originally Posted by magicalprince

Oh yeah, also, it is known that occasional/scarce/unpredictable rewards create behaviors which are the most addictive and hardest to extinguish. So when there is sometimes a minute action taken, a hug, a gesture, something that is different than usual, that can become that "scarce" reward.

I agree, but am having a hard time putting my experience of this into words.

[Sarmas]

I think that you’ve hit the nail on the head. I guess it is like an addiction. I’ve never seen it that way. I have also seen my therapist for about the same amount of time and took a 6 month break. I’m in a break now and I’m not going back. I talked to her but I couldn’t speak my inner thoughts. The time is not enough for me to unleash. Then after she double booked me last that just left a bad taste in my mouth. We have a long history. I think the double booking was my last slap in the face. I took that and ran the other way. I had to think that I was paying someone to hear me talk. She didn’t always validate what I said. It can be an expensive relationship. If I’m paying that much then It better be fantastic.

However there are people that need that and it’s their only way to cope. I guess it all depends on who you are and what your situation is. After 5 years I have pretty high expectations and it’s true I expect a little more “commitment” to our work. It’s an odd relationship. Throughout all of my breaks I’ve never gone to termination session. I told her that it was the most ridiculous thing for Me to do. I’m not going to pay her $90 to tell her that I’m not coming back and hear her two cents. I could just send a her a text telling her I’m not going for free. Again some people might need that closure.

Well, everything about how the brain works (and dysfunctions) is indeed biochemical and biophysical processes. Feelings and behaviors are also associated with these. The way therapy can have effects is also via influencing those processes, it is not mystical at all, just unpredictable.

Addiction to therapy is something I have experienced quite strongly, in the end that's what kept me going, the pleasure factor. It also became a distraction from important other things in my life that I did not deal with properly. I am very certain of this because I had addiction problems before (in fact, the main thing I went to therapy for was also related to my addictions) and getting hooked on therapy felt very similar, including the cravings between sessions or after I ended therapy, relapses (reconnecting with the T), etc. I actually often think that when people talk about attachment to the T here on PC, especially continuing to go to a bad T, it is often a form of addiction. The whole process of therapy is very appropriate to elicit that kind of conditioning and habit formation: it has all the elements such as acute rewarding effect, reinforcement, environmental conditioning, repetitions. And I do believe that people who have a tendency to develop obsessions and addictions (like myself) are more likely to get hooked on therapy in a similar way and then it can be hard to stop even if the effects are negative.

I like this article, which was written by a PC member:
Therapy Consumer Guide - Can Therapy Become an Addiction?

[magicalprince]

Originally Posted by Xynesthesia

The whole process of therapy is very appropriate to elicit that kind of conditioning and habit formation: it has all the elements such as acute rewarding effect, reinforcement, environmental conditioning, repetitions.

When you put it that way I imagine the therapy room itself as having the potential to become almost a literal Skinner's Box.

Originally Posted by magicalprince

When you put it that way I imagine the therapy room itself as having the potential to become almost a literal Skinner's Box.

Haha, exactly! I think what makes it especially powerful are the elements that it is limited and typically involves intermittent reinforcement. Also, all those things when people complain that the T is not available or responsive enough, for example report intense discomfort when there is no response to emails or texts - it really sounds to me like symptoms of acute withdrawal.

I remember when I was in therapy and walked in the neighborhoods where my T's office was located between sessions, I had these super intense urges to see or at least contact the Ts - that was very much an environmental cue response (my brain associated the experience of sessions with the environment around them). Also, I used to wonder why some people have the urge to drive or walk by the Ts office or house, what does that provide? I think the same. It is often described as feeling a connection with the T, but what is it really? A neurobiological reaction and behavioral response.

The idea behind long-term therapy, that it often takes time to have an effect and then the effect to last, is also well-supported by modern neurobiology. It takes time to influence certain ingrained biochemical mechanisms indirectly. Unfortunately, they can also be affected in destructive ways by bad therapy and then those effects can also be very stubborn and hard to change/recover from. This is why I always think that it would be important to leave harmful therapy ASAP, before the effects become very solid. Unfortunately, the addiction-like aspect works against this in many cases, people stay to "work through it" and it just makes it even more difficult and addictive.

Another aspect is related to the classic psychodynamic-type therapies, which attempt to use the T-client relationship heavily. It gets people hooked on something completely unnatural and claims to model natural relationships, but with all the limitations and artefacts, which easily elicits dependence on something that does not even exist in everyday life. Very much like getting hooked on a drug, which is not normal part of our physiology, but provokes a very powerful response.

[magicalprince]

Originally Posted by Xynesthesia

Haha, exactly! I think what makes it especially powerful are the elements that it is limited and typically involves intermittent reinforcement. Also, all those things when people complain that the T is not available or responsive enough, for example report intense discomfort when there is no response to emails or texts - it really sounds to me like symptoms of acute withdrawal.

I remember when I was in therapy and walked in the neighborhoods where my T's office was located between sessions, I had these super intense urges to see or at least contact the Ts - that was very much an environmental cue response (my brain associated the experience of sessions with the environment around them). Also, I used to wonder why some people have the urge to drive or walk by the Ts office or house, what does that provide? I think the same. It is often described as feeling a connection with the T, but what is it really? A neurobiological reaction and behavioral response.

The idea behind long-term therapy, that it often takes time to have an effect and then the effect to last, is also well-supported by modern neurobiology. It takes time to influence certain ingrained biochemical mechanisms indirectly. Unfortunately, they can also be affected in destructive ways by bad therapy and then those effects can also be very stubborn and hard to change/recover from. This is why I always think that it would be important to leave harmful therapy ASAP, before the effects become very solid. Unfortunately, the addiction-like aspect works against this in many cases, people stay to "work through it" and it just makes it even more difficult and addictive.

Another aspect is related to the classic psychodynamic-type therapies, which attempt to use the T-client relationship heavily. It gets people hooked on something completely unnatural and claims to model natural relationships, but with all the limitations and artefacts, which easily elicits dependence on something that does not even exist in everyday life. Very much like getting hooked on a drug, which is not normal part of our physiology, but provokes a very powerful response.

Yeah, normally life circumstances themselves will limit such asymmetric engagements from persisting and that will prevent the development of addictions. That's why I personally believe that any good therapy needs to be both of those things at the same time, natural and unnatural (but, mind, always natural FIRST.) If you remove the natural component it's no wonder that you get unnatural outcomes. Where applicable, it's the "forbidenness" of the therapist that creates the perception of specialness and exclusivity of their responses and that really is a perfect storm. In that kind of therapy room, human connection (and by extension, existential security) seems to be in short supply so the most minuscule signals of connection, even proximity itself, shifts to provide an unnaturally large hormonal release. Such potent abuses of such simple mechanisms.

Unnatural therapists and unnatural therapies ---> unnatural client behavior. Who would have ever dreamed of such a notion! Anyway, it is sad when we treat humans like rats in a cage. It's sad enough when we treat rats that way to begin with.

But what is really natural, what can be natural in therapy? I personally think using it as consultation, to discuss the problems we are experiencing, is natural. Supportive, positive feedback is natural. Conflicts are natural. Building and reinforcing the illusion of a relationship, within the constraints of therapy, that is meant to mimic or substitute a parent or friend can never really be natural. I personally don't mind using therapy as a bunch of experiments, with me being the subject, at all. The problem is that Ts rarely are very explicit about this, the true nature of it, and feed that illusion instead. I think that they should be very clear and open about the fact that it is a contrived "lab" investigation, from the beginning. I think that clients that are prone to getting hooked would likely still do, but at least they would not be encouraged to develop/cultivate severe distortions. That would enhance awareness. Making the client believe that they have a surrogate parent, caring friend or something, I think that generates and maintains denial, which is usually broken at some point and that can be very painful.

Addiction is extremely painful and destructive. For me, my substance issue was hands down the hardest thing to deal with and to resolve, with dire consequences, some irreversible. No other psychological issue came even close to it. If a client goes to therapy for something like depression or anxiety, and they get an addiction from the "treatment", I think that is a very bad balance and high cost. This sounds perhaps overly dramatic, but there are many stories being told here that fit this pattern. There is also the element that it is hard to accept it for what it is when it goes downhill. For example, when a T withdraws their engagement or does not respond as desired by the client, it is often experienced as abandonment, a parallel is made between the therapy event and everyday relational dynamics. But is it an accurate analogy, really?

There were some discussions here on PC about how Ts should provide clearer and more realistic guidelines from beginning and an opportunity for the client for informed consent, regarding the true nature of therapy and how it works. Of course most don't because that could interfere with their job and income. Even worse, there are many very ignorant, old school Ts who truly believe in the old dogmas about it and are not familiar with modern research facts much. They cannot educate the client about how therapy really works because they are in the dark about it as well. But they do like a position of power and the gratification it provides them with - maybe that also a certain form of addiction on the Ts end, especially the ones with narcissistic traits.

I experienced some reactions/behaviors in therapy that were pretty extreme and unlike anything I had experienced before. The Ts interpretation of such a thing is often that it is something brought out of the depth of the client's unconscious and reflects old hurts or deprivations. Sometimes, yes, but not always. I do firmly believe that some of those scary reactions were responses to a new experience that happened right there, in therapy, elicited in part by the unnatural factors of therapy that are not typically experienced in everyday life. Then the T focuses on an artificial phenomenon that has little relevance to real life or sometimes dumps the client because they cannot deal with it. Then the client goes to a different T to "work it out" and the cycle continues. Plus the client is often left with the message or belief that there is something fundamentally, very deeply "wrong" with them, which may be beyond repair. It decreases self-esteem further when it is supposed to enhance it, but maintains the sense that it has to be sought and resolved somehow.

[magicalprince]

Originally Posted by Xynesthesia

But what is really natural, what can be natural in therapy?

What can be natural anywhere?

In my mind, "we're people, we're doing therapy." We never stop being people, we will stop doing therapy at some point. People should act like people. That sounds deceptively simple, doesn't it?

You know, if therapists didn't conceal themselves, clients wouldn't try so hard to reveal them. And this really isn't about what information is or isn't shared. This is about an attitude, it's about therapists going into therapy telling themselves "I am now entering a different mode where I behave differently than I do anywhere else in my life." When someone is behaving in a strange way, other people will naturally want to know WHY. Humans desire reciprocity in order to feel secure.

I personally think using it as consultation, to discuss the problems we are experiencing, is natural. Supportive, positive feedback is natural. Conflicts are natural. Building and reinforcing the illusion of a relationship, within the constraints of therapy, that is meant to mimic or substitute a parent or friend can never really be natural. I personally don't mind using therapy as a bunch of experiments, with me being the subject, at all. The problem is that Ts rarely are very explicit about this, the true nature of it, and feed that illusion instead. I think that they should be very clear and open about the fact that it is a contrived "lab" investigation, from the beginning. I think that clients that are prone to getting hooked would likely still do, but at least they would not be encouraged to develop/cultivate severe distortions. That would enhance awareness. Making the client believe that they have a surrogate parent, caring friend or something, I think that generates and maintains denial, which is usually broken at some point and that can be very painful.

You see that's the problem though, it's not the illusion of a relationship. It's a relationship. It's two people relating. When you call something that is a relationship an "illusion," people get weird about it. We have in therapy the illusion of an illusion which recursively proliferates to create the downward spiral that therapy can become. Therapy is just a big fat decoy. It's two people sitting in a room. That's it. That's all it's ever been. It's not special. It's not separate from the rest of life. It is pure belief that creates the conditioning that occurs in that room, the therapist's beliefs, the client's beliefs, and their respective beliefs about each other's beliefs.

Addiction is extremely painful and destructive. For me, my substance issue was hands down the hardest thing to deal with and to resolve, with dire consequences, some irreversible. No other psychological issue came even close to it. If a client goes to therapy for something like depression or anxiety, and they get an addiction from the "treatment", I think that is a very bad balance and high cost. This sounds perhaps overly dramatic, but there are many stories being told here that fit this pattern. There is also the element that it is hard to accept it for what it is when it goes downhill. For example, when a T withdraws their engagement or does not respond as desired by the client, it is often experienced as abandonment, a parallel is made between the therapy event and everyday relational dynamics. But is it an accurate analogy, really?

There were some discussions here on PC about how Ts should provide clearer and more realistic guidelines from beginning and an opportunity for the client for informed consent, regarding the true nature of therapy and how it works. Of course most don't because that could interfere with their job and income. Even worse, there are many very ignorant, old school Ts who truly believe in the old dogmas about it and are not familiar with modern research facts much. They cannot educate the client about how therapy really works because they are in the dark about it as well. But they do like a position of power and the gratification it provides them with - maybe that also a certain form of addiction on the Ts end, especially the ones with narcissistic traits.

I experienced some reactions/behaviors in therapy that were pretty extreme and unlike anything I had experienced before. The Ts interpretation of such a thing is often that it is something brought out of the depth of the client's unconscious and reflects old hurts or deprivations. Sometimes, yes, but not always. I do firmly believe that some of those scary reactions were responses to a new experience that happened right there, in therapy, elicited in part by the unnatural factors of therapy that are not typically experienced in everyday life. Then the T focuses on an artificial phenomenon that has little relevance to real life or sometimes dumps the client because they cannot deal with it. Then the client goes to a different T to "work it out" and the cycle continues. Plus the client is often left with the message or belief that there is something fundamentally, very deeply "wrong" with them, which may be beyond repair. It decreases self-esteem further when it is supposed to enhance it, but maintains the sense that it has to be sought and resolved somehow.

I have experienced the addictive aspect myself. For me, I actually never believed that therapy was different than real life, but I had a T who did, and that messed with me a lot, trying to reconcile those two opposing factors. I was addicted to the notion that this T would eventually understand where I was coming from. What a mess that became.

[BudFox]

Seems therapy is as addictive as any process or substance there is. In fact seems many other addictions are attempts to compensate for missing intimacy, connection, belonging and these are the very things therapists trade in, though they merely toy with these needs recklessly rather than meet them in a real way.

Also, therapy is dosed in such a way as to create instant craving. You get a small concentrated dose, then a very long withdrawal, etc. It's one of many ways that therapy is a first do harm practice.

I think it all comes down to exaggerated and simulated caring. I see that as the essence of the pathology of therapy and it pushes people into extreme states. This is the drug therapists are selling. Oh my god, at last somebody cares and understands me. Most likely they do not care and do not get you, but it feels like it.

As for biochemistry, biological psychiatry has trained everyone to think in terms of a handful of biochemicals, as if lives are controlled by them. It's all so reductive.

[BudFox]

Originally Posted by magicalprince

It's two people sitting in a room. That's it. That's all it's ever been. It's not special. It's not separate from the rest of life.

On the spectrum of human interactions, I'd put therapy pretty far along toward the aberrant end of things. Paying someone to dispense emotions, or insight about your life and your feelings, that's out there. Plus the forced seclusion... therapy is separate from the rest of life, literally. And all the dogma and jargon and orthodoxy, and the guru-disciple role playing. There are obvious associations with cults and religious sects. There is also parent-child role playing, which is even encouraged in some cases.

Pretty bizarre stuff when you hack away all the camouflage.

[magicalprince]

Originally Posted by BudFox

On the spectrum of human interactions, I'd put therapy pretty far along toward the aberrant end of things. Paying someone to dispense emotions, or insight about your life and your feelings, that's out there. Plus the forced seclusion... therapy is separate from the rest of life, literally. And all the dogma and jargon and orthodoxy, and the guru-disciple role playing. There are obvious associations with cults and religious sects. There is also parent-child role playing, which is even encouraged in some cases.

Pretty bizarre stuff when you hack away all the camouflage.

Right, but you pay for whatever you think you're paying for. If you ask 100 people what they pay for therapy for, they will probably give 100 different answers. That's why it is addictive. You believe you are getting what you pay for (otherwise why would you pay for it?)

Yet ironically that's also how it can be effective if you use it right. It can really show you what it is that you believe.

[Myrto]

Originally Posted by Xynesthesia

But what is really natural, what can be natural in therapy? I personally think using it as consultation, to discuss the problems we are experiencing, is natural. Supportive, positive feedback is natural. Conflicts are natural. Building and reinforcing the illusion of a relationship, within the constraints of therapy, that is meant to mimic or substitute a parent or friend can never really be natural. I personally don't mind using therapy as a bunch of experiments, with me being the subject, at all. The problem is that Ts rarely are very explicit about this, the true nature of it, and feed that illusion instead. I think that they should be very clear and open about the fact that it is a contrived "lab" investigation, from the beginning. I think that clients that are prone to getting hooked would likely still do, but at least they would not be encouraged to develop/cultivate severe distortions. That would enhance awareness. Making the client believe that they have a surrogate parent, caring friend or something, I think that generates and maintains denial, which is usually broken at some point and that can be very painful.

Addiction is extremely painful and destructive. For me, my substance issue was hands down the hardest thing to deal with and to resolve, with dire consequences, some irreversible. No other psychological issue came even close to it. If a client goes to therapy for something like depression or anxiety, and they get an addiction from the "treatment", I think that is a very bad balance and high cost. This sounds perhaps overly dramatic, but there are many stories being told here that fit this pattern. There is also the element that it is hard to accept it for what it is when it goes downhill. For example, when a T withdraws their engagement or does not respond as desired by the client, it is often experienced as abandonment, a parallel is made between the therapy event and everyday relational dynamics. But is it an accurate analogy, really?

There were some discussions here on PC about how Ts should provide clearer and more realistic guidelines from beginning and an opportunity for the client for informed consent, regarding the true nature of therapy and how it works. Of course most don't because that could interfere with their job and income. Even worse, there are many very ignorant, old school Ts who truly believe in the old dogmas about it and are not familiar with modern research facts much. They cannot educate the client about how therapy really works because they are in the dark about it as well. But they do like a position of power and the gratification it provides them with - maybe that also a certain form of addiction on the Ts end, especially the ones with narcissistic traits.

I experienced some reactions/behaviors in therapy that were pretty extreme and unlike anything I had experienced before. The Ts interpretation of such a thing is often that it is something brought out of the depth of the client's unconscious and reflects old hurts or deprivations. Sometimes, yes, but not always. I do firmly believe that some of those scary reactions were responses to a new experience that happened right there, in therapy, elicited in part by the unnatural factors of therapy that are not typically experienced in everyday life. Then the T focuses on an artificial phenomenon that has little relevance to real life or sometimes dumps the client because they cannot deal with it. Then the client goes to a different T to "work it out" and the cycle continues. Plus the client is often left with the message or belief that there is something fundamentally, very deeply "wrong" with them, which may be beyond repair. It decreases self-esteem further when it is supposed to enhance it, but maintains the sense that it has to be sought and resolved somehow.

Your posts are incredibly insightful, thank you. And I completely agree with everything you wrote, especially the part I bolded. According to my ex therapist I was deeply attached to her because I had been neglected as a child and because my parents were emotionally abusive. She "deduced" this from a couple of things I mentioned when my parents made some mistakes (but whose parents don't?) even though I was simply venting. I believed her for a while (even though I kept trying to recall the abuse I had supposedly suffered at the hands of my parents and couldn't come up with anything). But when I was terminated I snapped out of this addiction that was therapy and realized that all her insights about my past were unfounded. I had never been abused, I wasn't neglected. The attachment I experienced in therapy was not because of some "unmet needs" from my past but because I was lonely at the time and that therapist acted as if every single one of my thoughts was fascinating. Who wouldn't get hooked on this? It's a basic human thing.

[pachyderm]

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...ical-treatment

Part of his message:

Psychiatric problems come purely from traumatic adaptations as digested by our temperament. Psychotherapy deactivates problematic mappings and activates healthier ones. It is purely functional and adaptive and bears no relation to some idea of inherited organic brain diseases.

I'd say that ideally "Psychotherapy deactivates problematic mappings and activates healthier ones."

[here today]

Would be very interesting if he had cited some actual brain scan results, or something like that. What about problematic mappings that get established because of traumatic therapy? Or the problematic mappings that get more ingrained because of repetition in therapy?

The biology he cites may or may not be accurate, I don't know, but the psychotherapy I have been through does not seem to have produced the results in me that he described. Nowhere near as effective as a brief round of physical therapy earlier this year, which the physical therapist also described as primarily rewiring my brain, for the way my whole body compensated for a weak ankle that was broken long ago.