3 ms·

The same applies to psychologists. What happens to them if they heal their patients so they don't need the therapy anymore...

saint_fiasco 11y ago
That maybe true for psychologists as a group, I don't know. But for the individual psychologist, it's still better for his patients to do OK so they will tell other potential patients that he is a good psychologist. The members of terrorist and anti-terrorist organizations don't really get that sort of feedback.
tedks 11y ago
Psychologists (numerically) primarily study the brain; a minority subset of psychologists are clinical, either therapists, or psychiatrists. So your post is inaccurate to refer to all psychologists as a minority subset, but for that minority subset, this is what would happen were they to be successful in treating their patients: * The patient moves on, spreads positive word of mouth advertising, and frees up time for newer patients that might have a higher demand for the therapist (a new patient is much more likely to have weekly or biweekly sessions than a stable patient that would only need monthly sessions). * The patient stops having an acute problem in their life, but still wants to retain the therapeutic relationship that helped them out of it to address new challenges that arrive in their life. Someone might start going to a therapist because of a major depressive episode, but after that problem is contained, move on to other aspects of their life they find troubling, like social anxiety, or executive functioning, or relationships... * The patient has treated all major and minor deficiencies, but still wishes to use the therapeutic relationship to produce deeper self-fulfilment in their life. A therapist might help someone manage the stress of starting a company, or help explore options for personal growth, or otherwise help their clients achieve self-actualization. You must have a very narrow and biased view of therapy and psychology to make such a statement. Do you really think there is no value in having someone reflect your feelings and thoughts back to you in an analytical way so that you can identify antipatterns and work on solutions? Beyond that, humans aren't tools that, once fixed, are performing at capacity until broken again. Humans have limitless capacity for personal growth, limited only by our distractions by other more menial needs. Do you think that it is impossible to help other people personally grow, or that it is impossible to grow at all? In the past, this might have been the role of the pastor or priest or rabbi or yogi or life coach, but religion is rapidly backsliding away from relevance, and psychologists have the power of science behind them, so they will only get more effective while the other groups are increasingly exposed for the charlatans they are. (I think your problem might originate by associating psychodynamic practitioners with psychology. Freudianism and its descendents are not part of psychology, since they are ascientific. They're not even debunked like say, phrenology, because they aren't falsifiable. So they're more comparable to the religious or spiritual figures I named above.)

saint_fiasco 11y ago

That maybe true for psychologists as a group, I don't know. But for the individual psychologist, it's still better for his patients to do OK so they will tell other potential patients that he is a good psychologist. The members of terrorist and anti-terrorist organizations don't really get that sort of feedback.

tedks 11y ago

Psychologists (numerically) primarily study the brain; a minority subset of psychologists are clinical, either therapists, or psychiatrists. So your post is inaccurate to refer to all psychologists as a minority subset, but for that minority subset, this is what would happen were they to be successful in treating their patients: * The patient moves on, spreads positive word of mouth advertising, and frees up time for newer patients that might have a higher demand for the therapist (a new patient is much more likely to have weekly or biweekly sessions than a stable patient that would only need monthly sessions). * The patient stops having an acute problem in their life, but still wants to retain the therapeutic relationship that helped them out of it to address new challenges that arrive in their life. Someone might start going to a therapist because of a major depressive episode, but after that problem is contained, move on to other aspects of their life they find troubling, like social anxiety, or executive functioning, or relationships... * The patient has treated all major and minor deficiencies, but still wishes to use the therapeutic relationship to produce deeper self-fulfilment in their life. A therapist might help someone manage the stress of starting a company, or help explore options for personal growth, or otherwise help their clients achieve self-actualization. You must have a very narrow and biased view of therapy and psychology to make such a statement. Do you really think there is no value in having someone reflect your feelings and thoughts back to you in an analytical way so that you can identify antipatterns and work on solutions? Beyond that, humans aren't tools that, once fixed, are performing at capacity until broken again. Humans have limitless capacity for personal growth, limited only by our distractions by other more menial needs. Do you think that it is impossible to help other people personally grow, or that it is impossible to grow at all? In the past, this might have been the role of the pastor or priest or rabbi or yogi or life coach, but religion is rapidly backsliding away from relevance, and psychologists have the power of science behind them, so they will only get more effective while the other groups are increasingly exposed for the charlatans they are. (I think your problem might originate by associating psychodynamic practitioners with psychology. Freudianism and its descendents are not part of psychology, since they are ascientific. They're not even debunked like say, phrenology, because they aren't falsifiable. So they're more comparable to the religious or spiritual figures I named above.)