4 ms·

> I suggest that you find a therapist you deeply like and trust Massively hard suggestion here for many. For a lot of reasons. Nice to read the article though.

> I suggest that you find a therapist you deeply like and trust Massively hard suggestion here for many. For a lot of reasons. Nice to read the article though. Back when I was taking coaching clients, I got "can you be my therapist" requests all the time (answer: polite no), and it still makes me a bit sad to think about the stories I heard, compared to the amazing result in the article. Some people...well, what seems like a LOT of people, are paired up with mental health pros who are a terrible match for them, and there's not much they can do about it. Anyway, it's good to be able to think about the unconscious zone[0] and I do admit I generally like "awareness"-style wording better than "un/sub/conscious" wording, in general. It focuses way more on the solution than the problem. But in the problem zone, the "unaware" word is not nearly as cool as "unconscious" or "subconscious." Which, I've seen quite a fascinating range of these issues and there are even some interesting ways of deriving a given group's likely unconscious zones, a.k.a. blind spots. 0. Note, this is a high-growth study/pursuit, which means you can exhaust yourself and raise your anxiety in no time at all. Part of your body/mind will instinctively believe it is dying, so to speak, and it will react accordingly, so please be careful.

winternewt 3y ago
IMHO this is such a huge sign that therapy has no scientific rigor. If there was a clinically proven methodology it wouldn't matter so much who performs it. But with the therapists I've seen they all just seem to be applying their own pet theories to what's wrong instead of drawing from anything like an actual education. Of course this means you need to try a bunch of different therapists to see which one works. It's basically random chance whether they can offer something that resonates with you. You might as well ask a Tarot deck for help.
- waffleiron 3y ago
  > IMHO this is such a huge sign that therapy has no scientific rigor. If there was a clinically proven methodology it wouldn't matter so much who performs it. Doesn’t need to mean no scientific rigor, it could be that it isn’t regulated properly. It really matters who performs brain surgery, the outcome of me performing it and a trained and licensed professional are massively different. Even if I follow the clinically proven methodology as an untrained person.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- rolisz 3y ago
  I've just been to two endocrinologists who gave me completely different diagnosis (they said different organs are the issue) Is this a sign endocrinology has no scientific rigor? There is another explanation for the variation in therapy: different people respond well to different kinds of therapy. And it's really hard to tease this out by doing a randomized controlled trial, so this manifests in papers showing that most kinds of therapy work equally well (but potentially on different subsets of people)
  - winternewt 3y ago
    I would attribute that to incompetent endocrinologists, but it's a fair point. It could just be a lot of bad therapists and not indicative of a problem with the science behind it. And yeah, randomized controlled trials work poorly for this field. Which I guess is an important reason why the science hasn't gotten very far.

winternewt 3y ago

IMHO this is such a huge sign that therapy has no scientific rigor. If there was a clinically proven methodology it wouldn't matter so much who performs it. But with the therapists I've seen they all just seem to be applying their own pet theories to what's wrong instead of drawing from anything like an actual education. Of course this means you need to try a bunch of different therapists to see which one works. It's basically random chance whether they can offer something that resonates with you. You might as well ask a Tarot deck for help.

waffleiron 3y ago
> IMHO this is such a huge sign that therapy has no scientific rigor. If there was a clinically proven methodology it wouldn't matter so much who performs it. Doesn’t need to mean no scientific rigor, it could be that it isn’t regulated properly. It really matters who performs brain surgery, the outcome of me performing it and a trained and licensed professional are massively different. Even if I follow the clinically proven methodology as an untrained person.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
rolisz 3y ago
I've just been to two endocrinologists who gave me completely different diagnosis (they said different organs are the issue) Is this a sign endocrinology has no scientific rigor? There is another explanation for the variation in therapy: different people respond well to different kinds of therapy. And it's really hard to tease this out by doing a randomized controlled trial, so this manifests in papers showing that most kinds of therapy work equally well (but potentially on different subsets of people)
- winternewt 3y ago
  I would attribute that to incompetent endocrinologists, but it's a fair point. It could just be a lot of bad therapists and not indicative of a problem with the science behind it. And yeah, randomized controlled trials work poorly for this field. Which I guess is an important reason why the science hasn't gotten very far.