3 ms·

Therapy is part of the problem. Often things that people think should be solved by talking to therapist should actually be solved by family, friends and mentors

Therapy is part of the problem. Often things that people think should be solved by talking to therapist should actually be solved by family, friends and mentors. We try to profesionalize big parts of heathy communities and families so we don't have to deal with its downsides.

waboremo 3y ago
You realize a lot of the reason why people are in therapy is because of family, friends, and mentors? Like it's not a lack of initiative, or a lack of communicating; it's being shamed by your own family, being manipulated by friends, etc. So many of these problems stem because humans are fucking complicated (and sometimes cruel) as hell. So no, therapy is not part of the problem. Just because in your hypothetical scenario therapy has now been spread across multiple roles instead of a dedicated one, doesn't mean it ceases to exist - you are now expecting your family, friends, mentors, etc. to act as your therapist at will. Unless you assume people are in therapy just because they get annoyed at how their lover eats breakfast, or whatever superficial aspect that could easily be solved with some chat. I don't know many people paying the cost of therapy for superficial problems like that but hey maybe in your community they do!
- YellOh 3y ago
  No need to strawman. I think jiggywiggy is just pointing at the mental health issues demonstrably linked to atomization and loss of community in the modern world. As a starting point, consider the growing share of people who describe themselves as having zero friends, and the links between loneliness and mental health issues. Some issues are caused by interpersonal conflict / abuse, but we're delicate social creatures and a lack of family & friends can also be extremely damaging. I doubt people are going to therapy because of how their lover eats breakfast (except maybe extreme misophonia), but there are plenty of people justifiably upset about their complete lack of emotionally intimate relationships with other people. And, as mentioned above, many issues can be alleviated by support from friends and family. At least ideally, if your spouse hits you, you should be able to ask your family or community for support. People lacking those outside relationships only exacerbates mental health issues caused in other relationships.
  - watwut 3y ago
    He is not strawmanning. He is pointing out to issue with argument. > At least ideally, if your spouse hits you, you should be able to ask your family or community for support. First, family and community usually do not know what to do in case of abuse. They are clueless. Second, this is not how this issue was dealt with in the past. If you are in violent relationships, your chances are now massively better then in the past. In the past, you had no real support and you was pressured to give aggressor yet another chance again and again. You was told to be more obeissant and you was blamed for the way abuse harmed you. There are even less marital murders now, that is how much better it is. Violence against wife was frequently normalized and male victims were seen as not men enough. What community all too often did was to support the abuser ... because abuser is stronger and more likely to retaliate. Plus victims were economically dependent (effectively by law) and supporting them would mean you need to financially help them too. Better for everyone to force victim back to abuser.
    - YellOh 3y ago
      Yes, current anti-abuse law seems more likely to be able to physically intervene even when the abuser is popular and/or powerful. I do not think we should return to the past. However, after a negative event in a relationship (abuse, or your spouse dying, or your child getting sick), people in general were more likely to have more friends and a stronger communal relationship that resulted in mutual aid (emotional and/or material). This isn't gone today, just greatly diminished. As a prototypical example, think of small-town communities centered around a church, where members are able to reliably get both meaningful connection with others (social/emotional needs) and trust each other to help with things like childcare or a church group to go repair someone's house. It's not that community is completely nonexistent in the modern world, or that we should give up the benefits of modern life to try to recapture it. Just that the average person in the recent past was more likely to have useful & meaningful connections with others that they could depend on in hardship than does (for example) the prototypical modern professional in an atomized big city.
      - watwut 3y ago
- jiggywiggy 3y ago
  I never said therapy needs to stop to exist. There is a place for it. It's just severely limited in what it can do. Just look at the numbers, it's very bad at "curing" people. There is no love, care, responsibility, advice, touch, inspiration, devotion in therapy. I understand why and it's useful at times. But we are severely limiting our ability to help people if we do not use those aspect of the human psyche. Dangerous and tricky as they are, we've now simply blocked any possible idea of using those for mental problems treatments. That's what I meant in the first place, there are lots of issues with communities and social relationships. To not have to deal with those we prefer a more individualistic lifestyle. Understandably, but not everyone has been able to get those human experiences naturally and it's definitely a part of the problem.
antifa 3y ago
I don't think anyone is paying for therapy if they have family, friends, mentors available...

waboremo 3y ago

You realize a lot of the reason why people are in therapy is because of family, friends, and mentors? Like it's not a lack of initiative, or a lack of communicating; it's being shamed by your own family, being manipulated by friends, etc. So many of these problems stem because humans are fucking complicated (and sometimes cruel) as hell. So no, therapy is not part of the problem. Just because in your hypothetical scenario therapy has now been spread across multiple roles instead of a dedicated one, doesn't mean it ceases to exist - you are now expecting your family, friends, mentors, etc. to act as your therapist at will. Unless you assume people are in therapy just because they get annoyed at how their lover eats breakfast, or whatever superficial aspect that could easily be solved with some chat. I don't know many people paying the cost of therapy for superficial problems like that but hey maybe in your community they do!

YellOh 3y ago
No need to strawman. I think jiggywiggy is just pointing at the mental health issues demonstrably linked to atomization and loss of community in the modern world. As a starting point, consider the growing share of people who describe themselves as having zero friends, and the links between loneliness and mental health issues. Some issues are caused by interpersonal conflict / abuse, but we're delicate social creatures and a lack of family & friends can also be extremely damaging. I doubt people are going to therapy because of how their lover eats breakfast (except maybe extreme misophonia), but there are plenty of people justifiably upset about their complete lack of emotionally intimate relationships with other people. And, as mentioned above, many issues can be alleviated by support from friends and family. At least ideally, if your spouse hits you, you should be able to ask your family or community for support. People lacking those outside relationships only exacerbates mental health issues caused in other relationships.
- watwut 3y ago
  He is not strawmanning. He is pointing out to issue with argument. > At least ideally, if your spouse hits you, you should be able to ask your family or community for support. First, family and community usually do not know what to do in case of abuse. They are clueless. Second, this is not how this issue was dealt with in the past. If you are in violent relationships, your chances are now massively better then in the past. In the past, you had no real support and you was pressured to give aggressor yet another chance again and again. You was told to be more obeissant and you was blamed for the way abuse harmed you. There are even less marital murders now, that is how much better it is. Violence against wife was frequently normalized and male victims were seen as not men enough. What community all too often did was to support the abuser ... because abuser is stronger and more likely to retaliate. Plus victims were economically dependent (effectively by law) and supporting them would mean you need to financially help them too. Better for everyone to force victim back to abuser.
  - YellOh 3y ago
    Yes, current anti-abuse law seems more likely to be able to physically intervene even when the abuser is popular and/or powerful. I do not think we should return to the past. However, after a negative event in a relationship (abuse, or your spouse dying, or your child getting sick), people in general were more likely to have more friends and a stronger communal relationship that resulted in mutual aid (emotional and/or material). This isn't gone today, just greatly diminished. As a prototypical example, think of small-town communities centered around a church, where members are able to reliably get both meaningful connection with others (social/emotional needs) and trust each other to help with things like childcare or a church group to go repair someone's house. It's not that community is completely nonexistent in the modern world, or that we should give up the benefits of modern life to try to recapture it. Just that the average person in the recent past was more likely to have useful & meaningful connections with others that they could depend on in hardship than does (for example) the prototypical modern professional in an atomized big city.
    - watwut 3y ago
jiggywiggy 3y ago
I never said therapy needs to stop to exist. There is a place for it. It's just severely limited in what it can do. Just look at the numbers, it's very bad at "curing" people. There is no love, care, responsibility, advice, touch, inspiration, devotion in therapy. I understand why and it's useful at times. But we are severely limiting our ability to help people if we do not use those aspect of the human psyche. Dangerous and tricky as they are, we've now simply blocked any possible idea of using those for mental problems treatments. That's what I meant in the first place, there are lots of issues with communities and social relationships. To not have to deal with those we prefer a more individualistic lifestyle. Understandably, but not everyone has been able to get those human experiences naturally and it's definitely a part of the problem.

antifa 3y ago

I don't think anyone is paying for therapy if they have family, friends, mentors available...