Therapy is bs/wrong!

In my home country in the 1970-80's, I grew up in a pretty oppressive political situation (that expected blind followers) that was gradually trending to collapse, before it eventually did collapse in the early 90's. I lived through a quite dynamically changing and rebellious era and my father and his friends that frequented our home were very much into "progressive" politics (meaning to elicit changes) - those thinks definitely influenced me and how I approach authority. Also, my family or origin and education was never authoritative but allowed a lot of freedom (sometimes too much freedom and not enough discipline), so I did not really experience anything that would have suppressed/manipulated me much in early life. Then I've lived pretty much my whole adult life so far quite freely doing things in the ways I please (which can sometimes be problematic as well). I definitely think that the openness is a combination of some inborn biological factors and all those influences and life choices. I've definitely grown somewhat less open with time and experience, in part due to some decline in being very drawn to novelty, high-risk-high-reward experiences and the unknown, which is normal with aging. I'm glad that I did not get into therapy when I was very young though, pretty sure I would have gotten more caught up in it without the knowledge and awareness that developed in my 30s. I used to be also quite a boundary pusher in interpersonal situations that interested me (not because I craved attention and closeness, much more because I wanted to do everything in unconventional ways and avoided what I perceived as boredom), and typically quite successful at it; I think that might have gotten me into some really complicated and messy situation with a therapist.

I can imagine that many of the celebrity clients of that a$$hole T were also drawn to him because they are used to being able to do all sorts of weird things for their money and that culture, by itself, promotes extremes.

This is very common in cognitive splitting, a known effect of childhood trauma.

There is another thread here about influence, where I described myself as a follower. With my T. iI had a problem with her not really saying anything - I hated that. However, had she told me what to do, or what exactly thinks my problem is, I would have very probably resented that also.

The difficulty lies probably in the fact that in some people I identify the voice of reason. They are the short-thinkers, or gut-thinkers. I would follow them, because I see in their minds and comportment something that I totally lack. The problem is, most people like that start to resent me quickly, and push me away. The reason - I feel that I am following, but mostly I am not, I stay who I am, thus being a failing follower.

I think this as something to do with that podcast, but mostly with the fact that for some people, being influenced, being made to give up their possessions, etc. Is actually exactly what they want, so why should the one who is giving them that deemed unethical?

Which is a very profound moral and ethical question.

Yes, politics, global factors definitely can color our classrooms and dining rooms. I was raised by America’s wartime and Depression generation, highly imbued with the need for survival and discipline.

Subsequently then, we can take these constructions into the consulting room.

For a long time I followed any uninhibited "gut thinker." I still fall for charismatic people occasionally. Maybe they lack deliberation and shame while I can be on the opposite side of the spectrum.

Responding to your ethical question, professional codes of mental health workers, attorneys and presumably others prohibit profiteering for reason. Since clients/patients see these people for help, professional advice becomes confused and conflated with the adviser's selfish interests. It can be too easy for a counselor to manipulate a patient into blind obedience in the guise of helping.

From my lay person's knowledge of elder law that, Marty's potential heirs might have had a heck of a time proving undue influence, since he was competent by normal criteria. (I dealt with these nuances for a close relative who was far more impaired than Marty.)