[here today]

I failed therapy or therapy failed me. Whose “fault” it is/was – to the extent that my faults were to blame, I was in therapy to try to identify and correct or accept my faults. To the extent that therapy was to blame – nobody much is looking much to identify the faults and correct them or accept them and inform potential clients.

There are some exceptions. The quote

Interviewer [Male Voice]: In your recent book Prevention of Treatment Failure you talked about the fact that some patients do get worse in the course of psychotherapy. How common is the problem, what are the causes?

Michael Lambert: In adults who enter treatment, the rate is about 5–10 percent. In children and adolescents who seek treatment, the rate is about 15–25 percent. So it's relatively rare in adults but all too common in children. And the major causes are external events that set people back like a divorce or a death or loss of a job, so it's environmental. And then within the therapy itself, it's usually related to some kind of rejection that the person experiences while they are working with their therapist. It's usually not related to specific therapy techniques but to relationship factors where the patient feels misunderstood, uncared for, or neglected in some way.

From the article

Interview With Michael J. Lambert About "Prevention of Treatment Failure"

has a explanation for therapy failure that seems relevant in my case, I think.

I did feel rejected by my last T, and some others before her. And to the extent, as I have learned since the therapy ended, that I had unprocessed experiences of feeling rejected from early in my life, that made me vulnerable to feeling rejected, again, in therapy probably.

At the risk of sounding boastful, this seems to me like a potentially useful insight, from me to therapists – if any of them were interested. When my last T got haughty and shamed and rejected me – she later “knew” what she had “done”, I think, and was then caught up in her own shame and defensiveness about that so there was no way that my rejection experience could enter the room and be talked about.

If this were a recognized “thing” that can happen in therapy, then perhaps some strategies to help identify and deal with it, within an existing therapy relationship could be developed. So, OK, it was my last T’s issues and countertransference, which she “hadn’t done her own work” about, but perhaps she wasn’t entirely aware of it, either. Her fault, not mine, but I paid the price. Not “right”.

Nevertheless, moving on. . .

[musinglizzy]

I feel the same way....sorry, it hurts!

[feileacan]

Based on your descriptions of your experience, it seems to me that not only you felt rejected by your last T but she really rejected you by saying that she cannot handle your stuff.

I'm actually curious what exactly happened with this last T? What did you do that made her feel that she cannot handle you anymore? Have you written about it in more detailed way somewhere in this forum?

As far as devising methods for preventing such things, I guess you would not be surprised that I am sceptical. This is not something you can teach in classes and too many factors are very subjective. Everyone is in their journey to self-awareness precisely where they are and this applies to T's and clients both.

My guess is that for the majority of patients, not much self-awareness is necessary because these people just don't have the problems that would evoke major counter-transference issues. It would be stupid to ban such T-s because they serve the majority of patient population perfectly well.

Then there are cases that are very difficult and I suspect that you are on the more difficult end of that difficult spectrum. And so am I. And similar to you, I did not know that and so did not my T when we started. And how could either of us know?

My T has told me that I am her most difficult patient and I believe him. In that sense I am his training case, through my case he is learning stuff that he did not know before and it has not been easy for him. He recently admitted that ca two years ago there was a long period when it was extremely difficult for him to be with me because he felt I was constantly attacking him, belittling him, taunted him. He survived it but someone else might not have survived. I don't think it is a matter of training and I don't think you can teach anyone to survive and tolerate such things if the person is not in that level in his own self-development. At the same time, you can't describe and define such level of self-development and self-awareness. In short, I think the problem is too ill-defined to any kind of formalization. It's a messy stuff and if you're lucky (as I have been) then it can bring along a lot of good and when you're not so lucky (as you seem to have been) then there can be lots of obstacles in the way. But that's how life is in general and in that sense it's ok.

[here today]

I was aware that things that I felt toward the last T included some negative transference. I could still turn those bad feelings "off" for the general sake of "getting along", but I was in therapy, so I thought it was best not to.

I would not ban T's with such counter-transference issues, but I would like to raise awareness among them of the effect on clients when that happens. It can be very harmful. I do think some training in recognizing clients with the kinds of rejection issues I had could be helpful -- how, I'm not sure. I could come up with some ideas, but I'm just suggesting right now that it is an issue that deserves to be raised. I expect others might come up with ideas, too.

It's not OK in my book to say that you were lucky and I was not. It seems OK to you, I can understand that, but it does not seem OK to me. No, there are things in life that are not OK. Doesn't mean they are going to go away, right away at least, but they are not OK. And eventually, some of those things do get better or go away -- although others replace them. Nevertheless, the general history of humanity is that we do sometimes recognize problems and make improvements.

OK with non-OKness, I can go with that. But strive and argue for improvements -- that's a choice I'm happy to make.

[feileacan]

Originally Posted by here today

It's not OK in my book to say that you were lucky and I was not. It seems OK to you, I can understand that, but it does not seem OK to me. No, there are things in life that are not OK. Doesn't mean they are going to go away, right away at least, but they are not OK. And eventually, some of those things do get better or go away -- although others replace them. Nevertheless, the general history of humanity is that we do sometimes recognize problems and make improvements.

I don't know. I was extremely unlucky in terms of my parents and any adults that figured in my life in childhood. I could say that it wasn't ok and it's not ok but what does that accomplish. I am saying that it's not ok in terms of that I have strived to be and I am million times better parent to my own children. It does not compensate what I missed out though.

I guess what I'm trying to say that the change always happens in the level of particular people. You can't demand someone to change the whole system. The only thing you can do is to try to do something yourself (and I realise that this is what you are trying to do in some sense in this forum by raising these issues). But somehow I get the sense (maybe wrongly) that you would like to someone else to do something about it and I don't have much belief in that.

People do things that they find important. This topic is important to you, it's probably not that important to the majority of therapists because they never meet a patient like you. They can go through a course or whatever and it all remains a distant theory to them because they don't have the first hand experience of what it really means. And thus they are not interested. Why should they?

You are interested because it has affected you. I am interested because it has affected me but because it has affected me differently (I experience huge gratitude towards my T because when I contemplate what he has done for me then it looks unbelievable) and thus my interest is different. I would like to pay it forward if I can. I don't know yet if I can but if I can then I would like to do that.

HT, I also can't help and really wonder what you actually did to that therapist. Because you keep posting about this story and the rejection, but I don't recall ever reading what exactly was rejected by her. Negative feelings,transference, okay, but what did really happen in your therapy?

Here Today,

It's really crappy that those of us who can evoke strong countertransference feelings in our therapists also tend to be the ones told how therapy is the only way we can heal. If we're not outright told that we're "untreatable", "manipulative", "difficult"...

I might be projecting my own stuff as I've a personality disorder and have heard of similar reactions from therapists with some friends of mine with DDNOS/DID and/or with personality disorders... The T couldn't handle certain parts/modes, especially angry part(s), the T couldn't manage their countertransference issues (all written about in clinician books for treating the spectrum of complex trauma from personality disorders to polyfragmented DID)...and if I remember your posts right what happened was similar...

I believe you.

[SalingerEsme]

HT Thank you for the article. I read it with interest.

It is almost like in order to function, T's must believe patients are improving, and have cognitive distortions of their own ( just called "silver linings"here) . Seen that way, it is like if a patient is struggling to the point of breaking through that distortion, the therapist is threatened in the core part of where they find motivation if they are not resourceful and trained to deal with what the client brings into the room.

I too am on the difficult end, but my T has spent a career dealing with horrific stories and seeing people recover ( PTSD). I think he brings that tolerance for emotional stress to me ( CPTSD) so he can handle downturns, even steep ones( red feedback) without losing sight of an overall future story arc in which he succeeds and I get better . In this case, the experience of succeeding gives the T some tolerance of apparent failure without throwing in the towel.

I dont think you would be in that 5-10 percent if you had my T, or a T like that able to tolerate a long red challenge to silver lining thinking for an extensive time and stay emotionally present and creative. I also think if I went to the T you describe you went to see, I would be the 5-10 percent, instead of now gaining ground. I do not think you failed therapy or that all of Therapy failed you, but I think your specific therapy failed you big time.

It is not you.

All of this is to say I don't think it is something about you, HT, but about the specific T(s).

[here today]

Originally Posted by Xynesthesia

HT, I also can't help and really wonder what you actually did to that therapist. Because you keep posting about this story and the rejection, but I don't recall ever reading what exactly was ejected by her. Negative feelings,transference, okay, but what did really happen in your therapy?

Thanks. I'll try to write down a concise history that still includes the relevant stuff, at least as best as I can tell.

It will need cooperation, and some switching back and forth, between my "activated" self and my rational self so it may take a day or two, but a very good idea. Thanks for your interest.

The main thing -- the rejecting element -- came when she said she lacked the emotional resources to continue. Rationally, that makes sense. But to the activated self it was/is a rejection. (WARNING, ACTIVATED SELF NOW SPEAKING.) My stuff is/was too much. A lifetime of trying to get to it, and it was too much! How on earth was I supposed to find a "good fit"? I'd tried and tried -- and this was a person recommended by an international-level author and trainer in trauma and dissociation who lives in my city!! Where in the world --ANYWHERE -- is there someone whom I'm not "too much" for? Who can accept me? Who can help me find socialization skills to help me, if that's the problem? DBT is not for me -- I had overcontrol issues and the notion of "wanting" a relationship (by my emotional self) was absent, so the interpersonal effectiveness module wouldn't work. Therapists (in the past) couldn't hear that, they just blamed me! Of course!

So, it's not just the last T, it's ALL T's and THE WHOLE WORLD. NOWHERE IN THE WORLD ARE THERE ANY OTHER FEMALES WHO CAN ACCEPT ME. I CAN GET ANGRY AND "AGGRESSIVE" AND THAT'S NOT OK. ANYWHERE. THAT'S WHAT I LEARNED AS A CHILD AND STILL HOLDS TRUE.

Seeing any reenactment here, anybody? But how would/could this (ideally) end? How could I, rationally, have known how to select a better T? It is really too much for the profession to expect that of those who have parts cut off. It hurts us. Our lives are wasted. Maybe they don't care -- maybe the whole society doesn't care -- but I, now, care.

That's something. Actually, maybe a lot. Thanks for allowing me a chance to be heard.

[here today]

Hm. . .I didn't realize I had posted something and then edited it. Usually, I don't lose time.

Thanks so much for writing about it and I am sorry about getting you to go into such an uncomfortable place within yourself. I realized after asking you to say more that it may not be a very good idea to stir up those things. So it was aggression that the T(s) and others rejected? I really don't think that you failed therapy or was not able to pick a T that would be suitable for you, I think it's more that therapy is just not useful for many people, no matter how much of it we do or even how good the T is (whatever that means). It wasn't useful for me either and I wasn't even rejected. I hate, for example, how my first T always talks about therapy as some kind of holy grail for all mental health issues, I don't even believe that someone practicing for >30 years can really believe that, I am 100% sure that all of them have many failures. Mine also says all over the internet that he is special because he can take aggression from clients and, in fact, claims working with aggression as the center of his therapeutic universe (and he is a psychoanalyst on top). He was most definitely not able to take criticism well from me and became very nasty himself, in ways that I actually found shocking. Maybe there are a few rare Ts who can handle literally everything a client can say to them, but I really believe that taking intense, persistent anger and aggression well is more an exception than anything else, from anyone, even Ts with all the training and experience. I also think that probably many Ts have problems with anger themselves that they project onto their clients in many different, often masked forms. I really don't think it's your fault or failure in any way.

[here today]

Originally Posted by Xynesthesia

. . . So it was aggression that the T(s) and others rejected? . . .Maybe there are a few rare Ts who can handle literally everything a client can say to them, but I really believe that taking intense, persistent anger and aggression well is more an exception than anything else, from anyone, even Ts with all the training and experience. . .

Yes, thanks, I do think you stated it well, that it was aggression that the T(s) rejected.

I "tried so hard" to "get in touch" with it and did not at all understand what effect it might have on others, because it was so distant and cut off.

If the T's could have recognized the problem and given me (the regular me, the "apparently normal part", to use the language of structural dissociation) a heads up -- that could have helped a lot. Maybe they didn't realize that the ANP is/was so in the dark about stuff.

Which is part of why I keep writing -- they hurt people a lot when they don't realize that.

Thanks for your understanding, and for writing about your experience. That helps gives me some clues about what to do and how to deal with this, in the future.

[stopdog]

"
Hi S,

When I hear about clients who are struggling to make a breakthrough . . .

. . . I always think about words that have stuck with me since grad school.

They used to say that in therapy, about a third of people get better, a third stay the same, and a third get worse."
Ruth
Ruth M. Buczynski, PhD
President and Licensed Psychologist
The National Institute for the Clinical
Application of Behavioral Medicine
Home - NICABM

I do understand that dissociation may be one of the more difficult issues to work with as it's not easy to imagine and relate to for those that have not experienced it. Not something like anxiety or depression that most people have experienced at least to a certain extent. But if a T claims to have an interest in it, especially if they claim it to be part of their specialty, then they should be prepared for surprises and potentially highly uncomfortable reactions, there is obviously a reason why some things get dissociated in the first place.

Maybe one thing that can be challenging is knowing you the way you are most of the time, the "regular you" as you described - then suddenly experiencing something unexpected and very very different. If your style interacting with the Ts was anywhere similar to how you interact on this forum, they probably get used to someone very polite, respectful and thoughtful and are then surprised when that less controlled and raw part appears, and they don't know what to do with it. Then, if this happens repeatedly, they may feel incompetent (which they are!) and the reaction is to avoid feeling that way by rejecting what triggers it.

I was not particularly interested in working with anger in my therapy as I don't think I have problems around it, but was quite astonished at the reactions my first T's behaviors brought out of me. So out of character relative to my regular self, extreme. What made things worse for me was his refusal of taking any responsibility or apparently even recognizing the repetitive mistakes and sloppiness, interpreting it as transference. I am absolutely not against the concept of transference and I like to analyze my feelings and behavior that way even on my own, but in that case, those criticisms and reactions of mine were not transference, I am 100% sure. They were strong but normal reactions to his sloppiness, to being manipulated, gaslighted and misunderstood. I get that you do have relevant early life experiences in your history but perhaps part of your anger and aggressive reactions in therapy were perfectly valid and healthy reactions to what the T did and little else? And they just did not want to take responsibility at all and felt ashamed in front of someone who comes across as very respectful and responsible in general.

[here today]

Originally Posted by stopdog

"
Hi S,

When I hear about clients who are struggling to make a breakthrough . . .

. . . I always think about words that have stuck with me since grad school.

They used to say that in therapy, about a third of people get better, a third stay the same, and a third get worse."
Ruth
Ruth M. Buczynski, PhD
President and Licensed Psychologist
The National Institute for the Clinical
Application of Behavioral Medicine
Home - NICABM

In the interest of consumer protection and the principle of "first, do no harm", that quote should be the first line of every informed consent disclosure.

here today,
It's hard to believe no therapist in the world can work with you. Did you try someone with object relations approach? what you speak of are basic object relations concepts. It seems many therapist are clueless in this area. I think training would help, and that no therapist without this training should take on trauma clients.

2.2 Object Relational Perspective

Object relations theory is that branch of psychodynamic thought that focuses on relationships being more crucial to personality development than are individual drives and abilities (see Greenberg and Mitchell 1983). Here, the important identity-preceding structure is the self, a personality structure formed out of interpersonal interactions. The view of the development of the self presented here combines the thought of Bowlby (1982), Mahler et al. (1975), and Kohut (1977). The self is formed in infancy and early childhood (up to four years of age) out of the internalized and ‘metabolized’ interactions between the child and significant other persons (sometimes called ‘self-objects’). Although the origins of the self lie in self-other interchanges, the self is experienced as one's own, and one comes to sense one's existence as both a separate and interdependent being. The conditions necessary for the establishment of a self include an initial period of undifferentiated symbiosis (Winnicott's ‘dual unity’) with a mothering/caregiving figure, differentiation from that figure, attachment to the caregiver and other significant objects, exploratory back and forth movements from the attachment figure, and eventual individuation as the self–other interactions become internalized and take the form of a secure self.

Object relations theory - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics

I believe a therapist often has to go through this type of therapy to even have a solid sense of self as described in bold above. Otherwise, without the psychological boundaries that are parallel with a healthy sense of self, these therapists tend to get enmeshed often (my observation). Therapist who did have this therapy can still get enmeshed, but it's much easier to avoid it when you have healthy psychological boundaries.

2.5 An Object Relations Theory Model of the Transference and Countertransference

Modern object relations theory proposes that, in the case of any particular conflict around sexual or aggressive impulses, the conflict is imbedded in an internalized object relation, that is, in a repressed or dissociated representation of the self (‘self representation’) linked with a particular representation of another who is a significant object of desire or hatred (‘object representation’). Such units of self-representation, object representation and the dominant sexual, dependent or aggressive affect linking them are the basic ‘dyadic units,’ whose consolidation will give rise to the tripartite structure. Internalized dyadic relations dominated by sexual and aggressive impulses will constitute the id; internalized dyadic relations of an idealized or prohibitive nature the superego, and those related to developing psychosocial functioning and the preconscious and conscious experience, together with their unconscious, defensive organization against unconscious impulses, the ego. These internalized object relations are activated in the transference with an alternating role distribution, that is, the patient enacts a self representation while projecting the corresponding object representation onto the analyst at times, while at other times projecting his self representation onto the analyst and identifying with the corresponding object representation. The impulse or drive derivative is reflected by a dominant, usually primitive affect disposition linking a particular dyadic object relation; the associated defensive operation is also represented unconsciously by a corresponding dyadic relation between a self representation and an object representation under the dominance of a certain affect state.

The concept of countertransference, originally coined by Freud as the unresolved, reactivated transference dispositions of the analyst is currently defined as the total affective disposition of the analyst in response to the patient and his/her transference, shifting from moment to moment, and providing important data of information to the analyst. The countertransference, thus defined, may be partially derived from unresolved problems of the analyst, but stems as well from the impact of the dominant transference reactions of the patient, from reality aspects of the patient's life, and sometimes from aspects of the analyst's life situation, that are emotionally activated in the context of the transference developments. In general, the stronger the transference regression, the more the transference determines the countertransference; thus the countertransference becomes an important diagnostic tool. The countertransference includes both the analyst's empathic identification with a patient's central subjective experience (‘concordant identification’) and the analyst's identification with the reciprocal object or self representation (‘complementary identification’) unconsciously activated in the patient as part of a certain dyadic unit, and projected onto the analyst (Racker 1957). In other words, the analyst's countertransference implies identification with what the patient cannot tolerate in himself/herself, and must dissociate, project or repress.

All the stuff about aggression is part of the therapy. There is a lot of great object relations stuff here. Take care!

Object relations theory - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics

[starfishing]

I completely agree, it shouldn't be acceptable that there are so many ignorant, incompetent, and/or poorly trained therapists out there who don't understand their own limitations and who are capable of doing so much unwitting harm.

There are structural changes that are needed in therapist training and regulation in order to do a better job protecting clients. Not every therapist needs to be a specialist in every issue, but part of being a minimally competent generalist is recognizing what's outside of your scope and knowing when your skills are inadequate to the task at hand!

Anyone with two hands can catch a baby when a birth goes easily and smoothly, but we don't let everyone with two hands call themself an OB or a nurse midwife--we make sure that OBs and midwives have the skills that are needed to assess risk, recognize when intervention is needed, and either make the needed intervention or refer to someone who can. Right now in some cases I think therapist licensing is closer to the "anyone with two hands" end of the spectrum, and it needs to be treated more like the complex, risky profession that it is.

[BudFox]

I see therapy as a very weird and very rigged game, designed to make therapists feel better and clients miserable. In that context, failure isn't really failure. Seems rather meaningless, even if it does leave some emotional or subconscious mark.

Any human relationship can be healing but therapy relationships seem uniquely constructed for harm.

I think that Lambert guy is full of s**t on many levels, and is typical of the disingenuous and condescending therapist class who spew platitudes about trying to make the system better "for the client", but are just completely self-involved and not interested in looking deeply at core assumptions.

[feileacan]

Originally Posted by starfishing

Anyone with two hands can catch a baby when a birth goes easily and smoothly, but we don't let everyone with two hands call themself an OB or a nurse midwife--we make sure that OBs and midwives have the skills that are needed to assess risk, recognize when intervention is needed, and either make the needed intervention or refer to someone who can. Right now in some cases I think therapist licensing is closer to the "anyone with two hands" end of the spectrum, and it needs to be treated more like the complex, risky profession that it is.

That's in some sense a very good comprarison. In that sense that I for instance (having given birth to two children, one of them planned at home) absolutely don't think that everyone calling themselves OB or a nurse midwife does have knowledge or experiences to only do the necessary interventions.

If you go in with full trust to the personal then the chances that you get an intervention that you did not really need but some kind of procedure prescribe you anyway are very high. This is so in my country in Europe but according to my knowledge it is even more so in US, where constant baby monitoring via IV during birth is the norm and the rate of C-sections is one of the highest in developing countries.

Sure, maybe it all helps to ensure delivering an alive baby (although in US the death rates during or after birth are the highest in developing countries too), but whether the mother and baby get traumatised during the process - who cares.

[starfishing]

Originally Posted by feileacan

That's in some sense a very good comprarison. In that sense that I for instance (having given birth to two children, one of them planned at home) absolutely don't think that everyone calling themselves OB or a nurse midwife does have knowledge or experiences to only do the necessary interventions.

If you go in with full trust to the personal then the chances that you get an intervention that you did not really need but some kind of procedure prescribe you anyway are very high. This is so in my country in Europe but according to my knowledge it is even more so in US, where constant baby monitoring via IV during birth is the norm and the rate of C-sections is one of the highest in developing countries.

Sure, maybe it all helps to ensure delivering an alive baby (although in US the death rates during or after birth are the highest in developing countries too), but whether the mother and baby get traumatised during the process - who cares.

I wholeheartedly agree with you re: unnecessary interventions in childbirth being a serious problem that hurts and traumatizes people (I'm more aware of that than would be remotely relevant to recount here). But since that problem isn't in the slightest caused by training standards in OB and midwifery being excessively high, perhaps you could clarify how that's relevant to the issue of undertrained therapists being dangerous?

[Deejay14]

Originally Posted by stopdog

"
Hi S,

When I hear about clients who are struggling to make a breakthrough . . .

. . . I always think about words that have stuck with me since grad school.

They used to say that in therapy, about a third of people get better, a third stay the same, and a third get worse."
Ruth
Ruth M. Buczynski, PhD
President and Licensed Psychologist
The National Institute for the Clinical
Application of Behavioral Medicine
Home - NICABM

Yes I have heard the same thing.

Have you ever tried therapy that involves any kind of creative exercise, HT? Any form of artistic expression? For example, people here often mention sand trays or writing poems. For me, creative work is where I can most easily and effectively explore and act out disturbing emotions. Getting very emotional never comes easily for me in the company of other people unless I know them very well and they are willing to communicate that way also. But channeling strong emotions and irrational, spontaneous feelings and impulses into creative work is something that I do easily given that the medium if right for me. And then I love to discuss the process/result with people who have an interest and ability to think in abstract ways and use/interpret symbolic meaning.

I think any creative activity provides ample room for mental projections, but without creating direct interpersonal drama, then the projected drama can be discussed cognitively. I don't think it's the best way to address interpersonal issues and exercise more effective communication, but can be very helpful to get in touch with emotions and impulses that are not acceptable socially. Similarly to what the term sublimation implies, which I also use a lot in my life, for example we can say my entire career is that (I think it's very similar for many therapists when they choose that career). And I can still look at the psychological forces that motivate these things, either by myself or with someone else who is interested in discussing, without actually targeting someone else with it directly.

I can actually apply the interventions during childbirth analogy in the context of therapy even though I never had a child and know very little about that industry. I was the target of unnecessary interventions and T reactions though while my true issues remained neglected and kinda ignored by the T. For example, that whole thing about the interpersonal conflicts - once that happened, it seemed like the T could not focus on anything else. I refused to continue with him in part because that stuff had nothing to do with my problems, it only distracted from them and created new frustrations. It only served the T, because that's how he likes to work with clients. Was completely unnecessary for me so I left. He predicted that I would run into the same kind of conflict with another T or other people because I never "worked it out" with him. Never happened. It really was his issue, not mine. I am thinking about this again also in relation to your story, how people in your childhood rejected certain aspects of you and then the T did the same. And now you think it's your grand evil issue! I don't know... why I originally asked what exactly happened. I may be very wrong but just have a feeling that those people in your life blew it way out of proportion and you may be left with a sense that you are flawed and incapable of managing social relations well. I am not sure who is incapable really... maybe you are more just unmotivated?

[BudFox]

In my experience, harm in therapy does not come from poor training or incompetence. Harm comes from therapy itself. It's all the insidious little things. Therapists are never gonna acknowledge that the practice itself might be toxic, so they continually throw out red herrings (bad training, bad fit, wrong method, client reistance).

[starfishing]

I've had harmful experiences too, but the good experiences I've had in therapy have been extremely valuable to me, and hugely beneficial to my life as a whole. Life-changingly beneficial. I don't think there's a way for me to reconcile how useful and important therapy has been for me with a view that sees therapy as inherently harmful.

Since I don't think that bad, harmful therapy is inevitable, I'm left with thinking about how to separate the good from the bad, how to protect people from harm, and how to increase people's access to the benefits that are possible.

[here today]

Originally Posted by Xynesthesia

. . . I am thinking about this again also in relation to your story, how people in your childhood rejected certain aspects of you and then the T did the same. And now you think it's your grand evil issue! I don't know... why I originally asked what exactly happened. I may be very wrong but just have a feeling that those people in your life blew it way out of proportion and you may be left with a sense that you are flawed and incapable of managing social relations well. I am not sure who is incapable really... maybe you are more just unmotivated?

My sense of being flawed comes from childhood I think -- and is, or was, in a sense accurate in that I had suffered an enormous emotional trauma in the hospital when I was 3, nobody understood or knew about it. My trust in people and my mother was broken, my self was fragmented. I felt that split, something was broken. I had a some dreams I remember from childhood. And/but -- I managed. There was no "healing" at the time. Like a child broke a leg bone and nobody knew how to set it. The trauma therapy succeeded in that I "recovered" the emotional memory of that experience and have been working on my own to integrate it.

"Part" of me has been unmotivated to relate to others, as I mentioned above. That "part" was split off in that experience that I mentioned, I believe.

The anger and aggression has seemed to me (the rest of me) to be a "demon", which I have been somewhat aware of and tried to face and confront for 15 years or so. And I have, sort of, though it is still raw in its experience, as you mentioned.

I do think it's fair to say that things got blown out of proportion -- by others and myself. And then they got "stuck" there.

The challenge is, I guess, how to bring them back into proportion. But having the situation pointed out helps to bring focus to the challenge.
Thanks. I'm not complacent about it -- still working and hoping for things to get better. In that, I am not unmotivated at all.