4 ms·

The whole make yourself happy first mentality is a bizarre side effect of therapy. Therapists have one client. Not the client’s family, friends, coworkers, and

The whole make yourself happy first mentality is a bizarre side effect of therapy. Therapists have one client. Not the client’s family, friends, coworkers, and community. Because of that much of the advice therapist give benefits the client at the expense of everyone else. This creates a toxic environment when you have a large percentage of any group going to therapy and practicing me first techniques. I wonder if there is a way to align therapist goals with the greater good as opposed to the single client. Much how we have made changes to help doctors care for the long term physical health of a patient over a short term fix.

epicide 6y ago
Not all therapy works that way. For a lot of people seeking therapy, their issues do start with a personal sense of lacking. Starting with helping them to love themselves first makes sense. If someone goes to a therapist with narcissistic tendencies or anger issues, I would expect less of the "me first" approach.
- citrate05 6y ago
  I’d actually go so far as to say that I’m not familiar with any legitimate therapeutic approach that is not concerned with how the patient treats others. I’ve definitely read self-help books that seemed to be advocating for narcissistic behavior, but they weren’t written by mainstream psychologists or therapists.
citrate05 6y ago
I’d be curious to hear a specific example of the toxic or self-centered behavior you’re referring to, since this is not at all my experience.
jupiter90000 6y ago
I'm not so sure if it is a side effect of therapy? At least in the modern capitalist world, people seem to be pretty 'me first' whether they've done therapy or not. Take America, where we refuse to have significant social safety net. I don't think this is because everyone started doing therapy...
FooBarBizBazz 6y ago
In the best/ideal case, that's one of the jobs of a pastor/rabbi/imam. Their purpose, to now use Christian language, is to care for their flock. This does mean being concerned with the spiritual needs of the individual. But it also means being concerned with the larger community. You can imagine those goals being in conflict. The norms that help communities to grow and find new life are not necessarily the norms that help individuals find fulfilment. For example, heteronormativity helps the biological reproduction of the community, and generally is good for the happiness of the majority, but it sucks for LGBTQ people. It's natural, therefore, for there to be a backlash against it. But it seems to me that the solution is really to recognize the roles that people of all sexual preferences can play in ensuring the community's biological, ecological, and cultural future. In this way, norms related to fertility can be reconciled with those about truth-to-self, in a way that is actually functional. (Note that if 20% of the community has a non-reproductive role to play, and a birth rate of 2.1 is required to maintain the community, then a birth rate of 2.6 is required among the 80% of heterosexuals, which is perfectly reasonable. As some percentage of those will probably remain single -- 20%? -- then really only about 64% of women can be expected to have children, in which case the expected value needs to be about 3.3 -- still fine. An alternative is to make up for low reproductive rates by proselytizing, but I think a permanent culture needs to exist at an equilibrium. If gene/meme incentives are not aligned, everyone will need to wage a constant war against their own selves (various kinds of "pray the gay away" and other mutilations), which is exactly what we are trying to avoid.) All this is meant simply as an example of how, although shifting from therapist-of-the-individual to shepherd-of-the-community could be anticipated to advance different (and possibly problematic) norms, it is probably possible to resolve those norm-conflicts in a way that is productive, i.e., that respects and values all individuals while also propagating a sustainable, non-parasitic culture.
bigwavedave 6y ago
> Because of that much of the advice the therapist give benefits the client at the expense of everyone else. Hold up there- for such a sweeping generalization, I'd argue that you need to give clear-cut examples of this effect that you call "toxic" in your next sentence. You're not grasping the target audience here or even what the "me first" attitude is if you say it's at the expense of others. Let me give several examples of the people you claim are toxic. My fiancée is a people pleaser- she is someone this article was written for and who seeks therapy. Tell me, how is it at the "expense of everyone else" for her to now be able to politely and confidently tell her bulldozer of a friend that she'd rather go home and sleep at 23:00 in anticipation of her 06:00 shift instead of watching "classic" movies her friend wants to watch until 04:00 three or four times each week? I'd contest that it isn't. How is it "at the expense of everyone else" for my little brother to be able to politely yet assertively tell his housemates he'd rather get a head start on his CS term project this weekend than get sloshed and deal with a hangover? I'd contest that it isn't. How does it "create a toxic environment" for me to take some PTO to avoid burnout instead of participating in the actually toxic culture of a company that has an unlimited PTO policy but considers it taboo for anyone to take time off? I'd contest that it isn't. I'd contest that it isn't "at the expense of everyone else" for any individual who's been raised to do anything and everything their mates, family, ecclesiastical associates, coworkers, casual acqauaintences, etc ad nauseam ad infinitum asks of them to instead say "hey, I'm going to take care of my mental health by learning to be assertive instead of burning out or being miserable forever." There are ENDLESS comments and articles on hn lauding people who make choices to avoid burning out on their careers, about learning not to say "yes" to every request from a coworker that comes across their desk, yet I don't see anyone crying about how this is "toxic" and that it's "at the expense of everyone else"; you somehow seem to think this same principle doesn't apply to individuals in their own lives. I hope these examples illuminate who this article is meant for and clarify what the "me first" attitude is in this context.

epicide 6y ago

Not all therapy works that way. For a lot of people seeking therapy, their issues do start with a personal sense of lacking. Starting with helping them to love themselves first makes sense. If someone goes to a therapist with narcissistic tendencies or anger issues, I would expect less of the "me first" approach.

citrate05 6y ago
I’d actually go so far as to say that I’m not familiar with any legitimate therapeutic approach that is not concerned with how the patient treats others. I’ve definitely read self-help books that seemed to be advocating for narcissistic behavior, but they weren’t written by mainstream psychologists or therapists.

citrate05 6y ago

I’d be curious to hear a specific example of the toxic or self-centered behavior you’re referring to, since this is not at all my experience.

jupiter90000 6y ago

I'm not so sure if it is a side effect of therapy? At least in the modern capitalist world, people seem to be pretty 'me first' whether they've done therapy or not. Take America, where we refuse to have significant social safety net. I don't think this is because everyone started doing therapy...

FooBarBizBazz 6y ago

In the best/ideal case, that's one of the jobs of a pastor/rabbi/imam. Their purpose, to now use Christian language, is to care for their flock. This does mean being concerned with the spiritual needs of the individual. But it also means being concerned with the larger community. You can imagine those goals being in conflict. The norms that help communities to grow and find new life are not necessarily the norms that help individuals find fulfilment. For example, heteronormativity helps the biological reproduction of the community, and generally is good for the happiness of the majority, but it sucks for LGBTQ people. It's natural, therefore, for there to be a backlash against it. But it seems to me that the solution is really to recognize the roles that people of all sexual preferences can play in ensuring the community's biological, ecological, and cultural future. In this way, norms related to fertility can be reconciled with those about truth-to-self, in a way that is actually functional. (Note that if 20% of the community has a non-reproductive role to play, and a birth rate of 2.1 is required to maintain the community, then a birth rate of 2.6 is required among the 80% of heterosexuals, which is perfectly reasonable. As some percentage of those will probably remain single -- 20%? -- then really only about 64% of women can be expected to have children, in which case the expected value needs to be about 3.3 -- still fine. An alternative is to make up for low reproductive rates by proselytizing, but I think a permanent culture needs to exist at an equilibrium. If gene/meme incentives are not aligned, everyone will need to wage a constant war against their own selves (various kinds of "pray the gay away" and other mutilations), which is exactly what we are trying to avoid.) All this is meant simply as an example of how, although shifting from therapist-of-the-individual to shepherd-of-the-community could be anticipated to advance different (and possibly problematic) norms, it is probably possible to resolve those norm-conflicts in a way that is productive, i.e., that respects and values all individuals while also propagating a sustainable, non-parasitic culture.

bigwavedave 6y ago

> Because of that much of the advice the therapist give benefits the client at the expense of everyone else. Hold up there- for such a sweeping generalization, I'd argue that you need to give clear-cut examples of this effect that you call "toxic" in your next sentence. You're not grasping the target audience here or even what the "me first" attitude is if you say it's at the expense of others. Let me give several examples of the people you claim are toxic. My fiancée is a people pleaser- she is someone this article was written for and who seeks therapy. Tell me, how is it at the "expense of everyone else" for her to now be able to politely and confidently tell her bulldozer of a friend that she'd rather go home and sleep at 23:00 in anticipation of her 06:00 shift instead of watching "classic" movies her friend wants to watch until 04:00 three or four times each week? I'd contest that it isn't. How is it "at the expense of everyone else" for my little brother to be able to politely yet assertively tell his housemates he'd rather get a head start on his CS term project this weekend than get sloshed and deal with a hangover? I'd contest that it isn't. How does it "create a toxic environment" for me to take some PTO to avoid burnout instead of participating in the actually toxic culture of a company that has an unlimited PTO policy but considers it taboo for anyone to take time off? I'd contest that it isn't. I'd contest that it isn't "at the expense of everyone else" for any individual who's been raised to do anything and everything their mates, family, ecclesiastical associates, coworkers, casual acqauaintences, etc ad nauseam ad infinitum asks of them to instead say "hey, I'm going to take care of my mental health by learning to be assertive instead of burning out or being miserable forever." There are ENDLESS comments and articles on hn lauding people who make choices to avoid burning out on their careers, about learning not to say "yes" to every request from a coworker that comes across their desk, yet I don't see anyone crying about how this is "toxic" and that it's "at the expense of everyone else"; you somehow seem to think this same principle doesn't apply to individuals in their own lives. I hope these examples illuminate who this article is meant for and clarify what the "me first" attitude is in this context.