Therapy is bs/wrong!

Now I've listened to some of the Shrink Next Door and read a bit about the guy. It is pretty astonishing to me that this can happen and I, too, would be surprised surprised if it did not affect his practice (although the podcast just came out recently). The academic role he holds at NYU is not very high rank though and it is unclear from the available info what he actually does in that role, he does not seem very accomplished that way. A prime example of mass manipulation. I was thinking about the authority brought up on another recent thread - this kind of manipulation can only happen because many people do see him as authority and do not question his methods and behavior. Sadly, there are many doctors like him in various other specialties.

The T I was referring to a few posts above is definitely much smarter and more decent/careful/respectful - I never had the impression that he takes advantage of clients and is not into dictatorship and superficial appearances, more just likes to work with certain kinds of people/populations and collect high fees with not much effort (maybe he does more with other clients, I don't know). It is a good way to earn a lot of money without actually working with super challenging cases and people who chronically struggle with basic functioning. He did try to sell me a very expensive psychiatrist colleague of his when I considered trying medication but I turned it down promptly as there was absolutely no info available on the psychiatrist online, only my Ts word, which I had no reason to trust blindly. They are also in NY - it is the perfect place for that kind of practice.

Another reason that it may be so hard for me to listen to the podcasts is that it is too close for comfort, too reminiscent of ways I have been in therapy? Not exploited to that extent, but there are some similarities.

Maybe, after I hear how Marty got out, I can go back and listen and see if there's something I can learn. About vulnerability, and trust. Any maybe some other things?

Somehow or the other, my skepticism was compartmentalized. Some kind of blind following or adherence to or people pleasing of authority? Makes me feel kind of nauseated. . .

When I first reached for support after “escaping” my bullies, someone suggested a cautionary tale book, Therapist, by Ellen Plasil, which was a carnival of abuse horrors. It made my experience look tame. The victim author was clearly highly intelligent and continues her long career as a lawyer.

The Jonestown anniversary documentaries were my face slap to begin reading and writing about the consequences of undue influence. It was close to the bone for me.

But yes, I too blindly followed my therapists, acting against my better judgment in the belief they were healing me.

I think it is natural for many people to try to trust and not to question an "expert" we decide to use, until they prove unreliable or worse. I have never trusted/followed anyone blindly but, with professional services I decide to use, I am typically very open-minded initially and do not scrutinize them until there is a reason. Same with therapy: I went into it with a great deal of curiosity and openness to pretty much anything. It'd narrowed down and turned into a lot of skepticism gradually, based on my experiences and all the stuff I hear about therapy here on PC and elsewhere. I'd tried with both of my Ts for a bit less than a year each before I eventually made the conclusion that the whole thing just wasn't for me.

I think there are many therapy clients who progress in the opposite way: initially have problems trusting/talking and open up gradually. I believe this type of attitude depends on our personalities and individual histories. I don't usually take authority without the person's demonstrating competency (credentials, fame etc do not impress me much) in something reliably but do not criticize something by default either. I'm pretty much the same way in my work relationships. It is tricky with healthcare though (both physical and mental) as we usually want to feel better ASAP or at least learn something useful, we want to gain and can overlook often pretty obvious red flags. If, in the unlikely case I would ever engage in therapy again and were to interview my two ex-Ts now, I most definitely would not hire either and would know much better what to look for and how. I guess at least I've learned quite well what does not work for me and what sort of help might be more useful, would not be open in a way "let's try and see what happens".

As a product of a 1950s-60s education and older parents I was raised to show blind obedience to authority. I gather, generally, that education is less fear-based today.

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.)