[chihirochild]

Well? What do y'all think?

(I know there's lots of room for debate about what qualifies as "effective" therapy... I guess maybe I mean "therapy that reduces suffering" or "therapy that isn't a 100% complete waste of time and money.")

[ruh roh]

I wouldn't rule it out, but I also wouldn't pay for the experience of trying to see if it would help. On the flip side, I think there are plenty of therapists who dislike some clients and still keep accepting the work. Then again, there is nothing much at stake for them if it goes badly.

[stopdog]

I don't think it matters one way or the other. I suppose if one can ever consider therapy effective, it doesn't matter. I would be more focused on whether therapy can be effective with anyone at all.

[nottrustin]

Yes, I am sure it is possible, but not for me. If I don't like them to some degree there is no way I could get close
ae enough to open up.

[awkwardlyyours]

I doubt it and agree with rr -- I wouldn't pay for the experience.

Not just money-wise but also in terms of time and emotional energy.

[LonesomeTonight]

I'd have to find *something* to like about the T. I mean, I wouldn't necessarily need to think we'd be friends in real life, but I'd have to appreciate/like something about them.

I said yes because it's a humongus world and I'm sure that almost anything is possible.

For me though, it wouldn't work. It didn't work, in fact, with t1 and t2. I hated t1 from the first word out his mouth, and t2 I could not relate to or open up to. I walked out on 1st session with t1 and never went back, and t2 I saw for less than 6 months.


L said one time that 'This wouldn't work if we didn't like each other.' My healing (gradual though it has been, I am the first to admit!) has happened because of and within the therapeutic relationship. So for me, no. I don't think therapy would be effective if I didn't like the t.

Is there another poll on the other side of this - can therapy still be effective if you like the t too much?

Disliking the therapist and ineffective therapy aren't necessarily connected.
But disliking what is that?
That would become part of the therapy if you wish it to.

[ChickenNoodleSoup]

I'd say yes. I actually didn't like my T too much for the first six or seven months. Therapy still helped back then though.

[ElectricManatee]

I think it's possible but not optimal or even advisable. It's like asking if a human could survive by only eating baked potatoes. Maybe it's possible? But I sure wouldn't want to commit to that myself if I had any other available options.

I said "I'm not sure". I had a therapist that I intensely disliked at the end, but it did not start out that way. It was a result of getting to know him better and experiencing his behaviors more. I certainly don't recall that therapy as effective, but it did raise my (already existing) awareness to some personality traits that I really despise. It helped me a bit to recognize signs of these earlier so that I don't waste my time and energy on people like that, especially if they don't show any willingness to adjust.

There are also all those Ts (mine above was one) who claim that experiencing and "working through" what they define as negative transference can be very useful. There have been many posts on this forum by people who claim it helped them. One problem with this is that very few Ts seem to be able to really tolerate it and act in helpful ways when these things occur.

I personally would not continue paying a T that I really dislike (why I terminated with my first T), I don't see the point of trying to collaborate when we have major personality and value clashes. I would not listen to them or respect their opinions. I am not sure how and why such a major clash could be used as "therapy work" - what to work on? I am not a hostile person and can assert frustration/anger/disagreement in fairly civil ways in everyday life. Or just avoid people who truly clash with me, there aren't very many. I like to work on being adaptable but there are limits to what I am willing to adapt to.

[AllHeart]

I’m not sure. For me, it would not work. If I dislike someone, they do not bring much value to me. I would not even invest my time with a t I did not like. I suppose there may be some situations where therapy could work tho. Maybe short term with a specific goal to accomplish. I don’t know.

[SlumberKitty]

Originally Posted by chihirochild

Well? What do y'all think?

(I know there's lots of room for debate about what qualifies as "effective" therapy... I guess maybe I mean "therapy that reduces suffering" or "therapy that isn't a 100% complete waste of time and money.")

For me, no. I disliked T3 and quit after the fourth appointment. It just wasn't worth my money and time to work with someone who was so antagonistic towards me. I don't know how I could heal in an environment like that.

[stopdog]

I think there is a difference in merely disliking a therapist and the therapist being a bully and abusive to the client. To me, if therapy is a real thing that works, then it should not matter whether the therapist is likable or not. It should be able to work. If therapy depends on factors such as liking a therapist to be effective, then I believe it is more evidence that the whole thing is a giant hoax.

[velcro003]

I wouldn’t be able to do therapy w a T i didn’t like.

[fille_folle]

Originally Posted by stopdog

To me, if therapy is a real thing that works, then it should not matter whether the therapist is likable or not.

Why shouldn't it matter? The mode of delivery of treatment always affects treatment outcomes. The more unpleasant or arduous it is to receive a treatment, the more likely someone is to not receive the full benefits (because it is natural to resist that which is unpleasant), or to drop out of treatment.

[stopdog]

I don't consider therapy to be a treatment in the medical sense. Or really much of any sense at all. I never considered myself in need of treatment and I certainly never thought a therapist as a treater. But I also specified that it was how I saw it. If you disagree, that is fine with me.

I am also personally always puzzled by calling therapy as a treatment. What is the treatment actually? Even if it helps some people. I often feel that Ts calling it a treatment is more an ego boost for them, to be viewed equivalent to medical doctors and other practitioners who do specific things that can be defined and measured. I told this my Ts as well and asked them to elaborate. The first got really defensive (just like about any challenge in general) and the second agreed with me.

[fille_folle]

Psychotherapy: the treatment of mental disorder by psychological rather than medical means.

[stopdog]

Not everyone who goes to a therapist has a mental disorder. I didn't.
And I still don't agree it is a treatment.
We are not going to agree on this.

I do have what I regard as mental or psychological disorders. More than one manifesting in my lifetime so far, I've had at least: eating disorder, anxiety, substance addiction, depression, mild OCD. I still can't see the "treatment" aspect in therapy. Yes, there is the condition requiring change and improvement, and I would love treatment that resolves it. I am a mental health researcher myself, and a pretty open-minded person, also I regard myself as quite self-aware. Still have issues seeing how psychotherapy is a treatment, so could those who see it in that way, explain? I am not trying to be sarcastic, just would like to understand. For me, psychotherapy is primarily structured social interaction (sometimes harmonious pleasant relationship, often conflict and, in a good case, conflict resolution and, pretty much a mix like most social interactions). It is "treatment" in the above sense:

treat·ment
ˈtrētmənt/
noun: treatment
the manner in which someone behaves toward or deals with someone or something.

But other ways? Maybe advice. Perhaps the advice part I can see as goal-directed treatment, but then I read all the time that therapy clients don't want advice and therapists are not supposed to give it anyway. So, what is it, really, as treatment? Especially the totally open-ended therapies that do not even claim to have an outcome in sight, just come and talk?

[fille_folle]

Originally Posted by stopdog

Not everyone who goes to a therapist has a mental disorder. I didn't.
And I still don't agree it is a treatment.
We are not going to agree on this.

I don't need us to agree. I just gave the definition of psychotherapy. Perhaps if you don't have a mental disorder, that may explain why you found the whole thing so pointless and baffling. Or not. I really don't know. I gave the definition in order to establish that therapy is, by definition, supposed to be a treatment.

[fille_folle]

Xynesthesia, I wonder if your definition of treatment is tied up with the "resolution" of a condition, and since therapy isn't a cure for anything, you therefore don't see it as a legitimate treatment, like medical treatments sometimes are. I'm just wondering about that based on what you've said. For me, I consider therapy a treatment because it is something I engage in with the goal of ameliorating some of the symptoms of my mental illnesses. To me, that makes it a treatment. Also notable to me is the fact that my insurance pays for a large portion of my therapy. My insurance only pays for medically necessary treatment, so that's another reason I categorize therapy as treatment.

[stopdog]

Certainly it is a definition. Those guys often say they treat things. I simply do not agree. I think it is something they use to puff themselves up and to make them sound more important and scientific than they actually are.
Penicillin will work whether I like it or believe in it. Therapy, it seems from what others here say and what those guys write, does not. I do not believe therapy should be put in with a medical model. Even some of those therapists do not.

[starfishing]

As far as the original question, I think it depends on the details of the dislike. I tend to have a certain amount of baseline dislike for all therapists at first, mostly based on finding the whole enterprise of trying a new person in that role to be extremely difficult and frustrating. That kind of dislike fades for me over time, and hasn't prevented therapy from being effective.

On the other hand, there have been several therapists where my dislike clearly strayed outside that baseline, whether because the therapist was stupid, condescending, bigoted, a bad personality match, or several of the above. And that type of dislike was a clear contraindication to therapy being effective.

Finally, I've also on occasion experienced a more transient dislike of a therapist who I'd otherwise been working well with for an extended period of time. That was also not an obstacle to effective therapy when the therapist handled it appropriately.