To those who have been harmed by the "therapeutic relationship"

To me, the mere fact that all that data was provided by therapists invalidates the whole thing. This is such horseshit. It's like if business owners were writing the reviews of their own businesses on consumer reviews websites.

But the amazing this to me about this "study" is that with this very obvious conflict between the very idea of research and the motives of the research participants, they still found that therapy may be harmful. I'd think that given who was collecting the data, no harm would ever be found Can you imaging what the result would've been if they'd collected the data directly from the patients, as they should have? I think, to say that this "study" produced underestimated results is an understatement. Since the entire foundation of it is BS because of who was collecting the data, the results are highly distorted and deceptive.

And, by the way, I couldn't find in this paper if the patients were informed about the study. It says the therapists were informed and signed a consent, but what about the patients? If they weren't informed, they have a court case.

Yes, I agree. Although, I might not and could write about that here, too . . .

It has been very helpful to me personally to be able to write in this forum about my negative experiences in therapy, and not to be rejected.

And when folks can do that -- talk about negative experiences and disagreements without rejecting each other necessarily -- it allows things to come out that might not in a "structured" interview or therapy feedback form, although I do think more of that might be helpful, too. The researchers need to know what they are looking for, and I'm not sure that they do, yet.

It does seem to me that the researchers were "trying". Interesting that they are not from the U.S.? And the limitations section is pretty good. But the voices of clients definitely needs to be solicited, and heard, too -- in a big way.

Lots of businesses these days do solicit feedback from consumers, because it helps their business, I guess, which helps them make more money. It's not just about image all the time -- although if the business doesn't pay attention to the surveys, then I guess it could be seen as a public relations ploy. I don't have any information about that.

Even when businesses do their internal reviews they still solicit the data from customers. Customer experience data is always collected from a customer because no one else can speak for them. Client experience in therapy data should be collected from clients not therapists. I don't know how any study on client experience that doesn't involve a direct client feedback can be considered valid.

The researchers don't want to know. If they were looking for the real data, they'd have to face some unpleasant realities of therapy and then the profession would have to do something to change it. No one likes to make changes. Humans generally fear change. We all have a tendency to stick with what's familiar because it's more comfortable.

As to the ability to tell one's personally story like it is, it is extremely important for those who have been harmed/abused in any way. And, if the person says that they've been harmed by the entire system, not just some selected "bad apples", that's how it was for them and they are allowed to say it without being attacked for "generalizing". If you are someone who has experienced the system differently that's wonderful. Just say that you have experienced it differently, but don't try to shut up people with different perceptions and different experiences by arguing about how they are "objectively" incorrect.

No one has the ability to grasp the objective reality fully. We can begin to understand it only if we humble ourselves by realizing how limited we are in understanding it, paradoxically as it sounds. And we can only understand it together because each individual experience holds a valid piece of the objective reality, but it's only one piece. We can't see the big picture of what's going on until we start putting pieced together. To be able to do that no single piece can be rejected. It's like understanding the elephant in the elephant metaphor of reality.

I can say that my experience of therapy culture is kind of similar to BF's. May be I'd describe it in a less hyperbolic way, but the idea would be basically the same.

Culture, by Wiki definition is the social behavior and norms found in human societies. Every group with some common identifier has their own culture - ethnic groups, religious groups, professional groups, social groups. Each one may have subcultures and it could be broke down to many levels.

The whole concept of a "culture" is generalization, and yet, it is a perfectly legitimate concept in sociology, anthropology, social psychology and among lay people in general. We talk of all kinds of cultures all the time and by doing so we generalize groups of people of the time and no one seems to see anything wrong with that in our regular social interactions. People on PC seem to equate generalizing with bigotry not knowing the difference, but there is a fundamental difference.

Bigotry is based on an assumption that every singe member of a group behaves in a certain way. A general concept of culture doesn't make that assumption. It is simply states that a group has some tendencies, attitudes and behaviors that are common for that group. It does recognize the diversity within the group, but it also points out to similarities that are widely known not only to the outsiders who come in contact with the group but also to researchers, because cultures of specific groups are actually a subject of a research. That's how information about various cultures is collected in sociology, anthropology and other sciences.

I hope this clarifies the difference between generalizations and bigotry and, I hope, generalizations would stop being demonized here, because, frankly, I am sick of it being an excuse for anyone to shut down the voices they don't like.

I also don't see how argument can be neatly separated from a dialog if a dialog includes different or opposing opinions. What's wrong with arguments if they are civil and if everyone is focused on the substance and if the idea is to learn more about the subject?

Which part was hyperbole? I say in general better to err in that direction than come out with meek waffling like "I dunno about this therapy biz, seems a little fishy", which will be instantly flattened by the therapy steamroller.

You didn't ask me, but I think a lot of what you write is hyperbole. Which I have greatly appreciated because it made your points starkly clear. Otherwise, on my own, my "I dunno about this therapy biz, seems a little fishy" attitude might have found it too difficult to see the fish. And in my case, I sensed them, they were hurting me, and I needed to see them more clearly.

So, OK, maybe I talk more about what I think and feel needs to be changed. And that's OK, too, that's me. But I'm very glad you talk about the fish, describe them as you see them, etc. Helps a lot, even though I don't always see the same thing or agree with everything you write.

There is no "part". I was referring to the general tone of your posts. Now, I really want you to understand that just because someone says that you use hyperbole doesn't necessarily mean that they are criticizing you. I certainly wasn't. I was talking about different personal preferences in how we express ourselves. I prefer to use a different tone, which does NOT mean that I am judging you for your ways of expression. I don't know if you were able to figure out something about me from my posts, but if I dislike someone's general tone, I simply don't engage with them. I have engaged with you a lot on this forum, which should tell you that I appreciate your insights regardless of how you choose to express them. Yes, my personal style is different from yours, which doesn't mean there is something wrong with mine or with yours. I was simply pointing to personal differences. That's all. If you read my post to which you replied once again, may be you'll notice that I agreed with the point you made about the therapy culture. It's interesting that you "missed" that main point but chose to focus on a side note about our different ways of self-expression, which is a small thing that doesn't need to be magnified into a federal case. We need the diversity of opinions and ways of self-expression. There are people here like HT who appreciate your way of speaking and there are those who like other kinds of tone better. Every individual expression is valuable..I don't know how many times I have to make that point here over and over again so people would finally get it.

I agree with you, you can't ask therapists about whether their clients have suffered ill effects from therapy. Not only because they have their own blind spots and motives, but because clients simply don't tell their T's about a lot of the negative reactions they have.

But one purpose I do see in this study is that T's who are reading it can't dismiss the reported adverse effects as clients being disgruntled, or nitpicking and fault-finding, or misattributing negative feelings to therapy that are actually external, because these weren't reported by clients. These are T's admitting that their own clients are experiencing negative side effects from therapy. And that does make it a lot harder for other T's to dismiss.

But a huge underestimate, for sure.

IDIMW: I don't feel criticized, just disagree with the characterization. I agree with your other points, but I think it's generally a bad idea to comment on someone's posting style or motives, as it invites a response and then things get sidetracked and/or weird. No big deal though. I hate discussing this kind of thing.

Same here, on all points.

The one said trust the process and be open, I did, then she used that openness as the basis for getting rid of me, after indulging her own self-gratification. Used, yea for sure.

I get why such metaphors are troubling for some people, but that's really not the problem of those who wish to express their experience in these terms.

May be. But I suspect they'll still dismiss it because the study doesn't go very far. It doesn't attempt to explain what causes harm, so there is no useful info for anyone to gain from it that could improve the status quo. And I doubt that most Ts would be interested in doing any independent research trying to understand the issue better. So, I don't see any positive practical implications of this study, especially in the US. The study was done in the UK and, as much criticism as it deserves, they are at least trying to recognize harm in therapy as a real "thing". Here, in the US it's not a "thing". The common idea that operates within professional circles is that a client can be harmed only through some gross ethical violations a therapist has committed such as sexual abuse or doing business together and such. Essentially it's a theory of "bad apples" that do some "bad" things, but such instances are believed to be so rare and "bad apple" therapists are believed to be a tiny minority of the profession that it's not representative of the therapy practice as a whole. In other words, there is no recognition of harm in therapy as a systemic issue in the US.

I agree with you about how harm in therapy is perceived in the US. But the authors of the study point out that they selected therapists from heavily supervised practices where sessions were recorded and listened in on for supervisory purposes, so gross misconduct was extremely unlikely. I think it's part of their point that these negative effects are not due to bad therapy -- they are due to therapy, period.

Of course whether anyone pays attention -- I hold out little hope for that. I've been involved in academic research and the papers get published and 6 people read them. Most MD's have very little idea what's in the research literature so I see no reason why therapists would know.

Yeah, that's what I was referring to. Regardless of the importance of the specific point that the study makes, no one will pay attention until it becomes a major news.

Not sure any amount of evidence of harm is going to get thru to them. It's their religion (and source of income). They will just invent more rationalizations. Or maybe some new techniques.

The possibility that "good" therapists can trash lives... seems this is their kryptonite. The "bad apples" narrative is their reflex against this.

Main thing that comes to mind when i read about these studies... what a waste of resources. People are suffering because of toxic physical and social environments and you have all this energy being poured into sustaining this giant artificial edifice that by its nature downplays root causes and seeks to get the vulnerable to assume the burden of society's collective pathology.

“Many times the boundaries themselves can cause harm”

I have been harmed by the “relationship” - by ill chosen words and messed up boundaries (not mine)