4 ms·
Every time I read a critique of psychotherapy like this, it's hard not to conclude that the authors have very little knowledge of what therapy actually entails,
by haswell 3y ago
Every time I read a critique of psychotherapy like this, it's hard not to conclude that the authors have very little knowledge of what therapy actually entails, and how it's changed over the decades.
As someone who has dealt with mental health issues stemming from complex trauma for most of my life, it's difficult to take this seriously. What the author describes is a laughable caricature of the field, and seems pretty far removed from the realities that many people face.
I see therapy as a commitment to focusing on root causes, and retraining maladaptive patterns of thought. I see my relationship with my therapist as that of a teacher/student. Someone who can help me reframe things and see other perspectives until I can do the same thing for myself. Coming from an abusive environment that hammered certain attitudes into me from an early age, I've found incredible value from establishing a trust relationship with a person who can act as a conversational sparring partner and can point out the patterns of thought I can't see in myself. I didn't have other people in my life who I trust this deeply, probably because of the underlying reasons I'm seeing a therapist.
I've found that some of the most helpful ways to improve my mental state have nothing to do with those sessions. Sleep, exercise, time in nature, social connection, artistic outlets, etc. are all critical. But those are the things that I didn't know how to actually do. I wanted to want these things, but couldn't navigate the mental blocks that kept me stuck where I was. And for whatever immediate physiological benefit these activities bring, they don't undo decades of conditioned thought that needs to change. Using sheer willpower to force myself to exercise only worked for a short time, and I couldn't establish lasting habits until I had unwound associated unhelpful patterns.
To present these things as better than or as effective as therapy is to completely misunderstand the point. Therapy is also not some panacea, and most of the real work happens outside of session.
> Patients can expect to pay somewhere between 60 to 250 dollars per hour for a therapy session. (A jog in the park, a church service, a long walk in the woods are all, of course, free.) In many cases, insurance covers part of this; however, therapy can still be expensive for the patient, and therapists—men and women who often espouse dubious, even risible theories—are handsomely remunerated.
As a kid, I grew up going to church services. Services in which I heard "spiritual leaders" rail against the sinfulness of homosexuality (among many other things). Around age 12, I heard earnest conversations from elders in the church about such people deserving to be stoned to death according to scripture.
This was rather confusing and terrifying to hear from people who were supposedly worthy of my attention at a time when I was coming to grips with the fact that I felt attraction to both men and women.
To deride psychotherapy and casually offer "free church services" as an alternative in the same sentence is pretty humorous to a person who has had life changingly positive experience with therapy...therapy that arguably became necessary after years of indoctrination and instilled existential dread by those free church services.
I'm not railing against all churches, and there are some great organizations. But it seems only fair to point this out in an article that calls therapy to task for those instances when it doesn't work.
I, for one, am grateful for therapy. It saved my life (literally), and has been an incredibly positive force in my life.
- JackFr 3y agoHomosexuality is an interesting case. The DSM classified homosexuality as a disorder until 1973, when the APA board of trustees voted to remove it as a disorder. Is that a scientific judgement or a cultural one? I don’t deny the effectiveness of therapy - I know of great successes personally and anecdotally and I understand self-reported well-being is improved broadly. And yet it’s not quite science or medicine. There is no real understanding of purely materialist mechanism of how it works.
- tptacek 3y agoWhat do you mean, "it's not quite science or medicine"? Medicine isn't infallible; it gets big things wrong all the time, often for decades.
- JackFr 3y agoMedicine gets things wrong no doubt, it’s subject to various fads and foibles but the redefinition of a disorder because of a change in societal norms seems different. I don’t see the AMA voting to declare something that is a disease is no longer a disease. (Although maybe I’m wrong — alcoholism and addiction are now a disease.)
- tptacek 3y agoOne reason you don't see that is that that's not the AMA's function. The AMA is a lobbying group.
- haswell 3y ago> the redefinition of a disorder because of a change in societal norms seems different Different how? Early accepted medical practices were often barbaric, and not effective. When we learned more about the human body, we stopped doing those things. Much can also be said about the many fields of science, and the giant shifts that were necessary as the fields matured.
- haswell 3y ago