> I would say that this doesn't actually prove that people can treat themselves. Yes, true, it proves nothing. It only suggests it. > If it were proven that p

> I would say that this doesn't actually prove that people can treat themselves. Yes, true, it proves nothing. It only suggests it. > If it were proven that people truly are competent to treat themselves, I think more people would have done so. Not if they think psychologists are doctors. Not if the real point is to have a conversation with a sympathetic listener who isn't a machine. There are plenty of reasons a virtual therapist wouldn't work, apart from the technical content of the therapy. > ... nothing I said to the man was private from my own parents. I've read cases like that also, and IMHO it's criminal to create a quid pro quo in which the advantage of a sympathetic listener is undercut by the fact that anything can be revealed to the parents, who are often the real problem. > Best of all, it is private. Maybe. If this virtual therapy thing takes off, people are going to have to be very careful about how the transactions are handled. The content of the sessions would be a gold mine, and I'm sure people will try to offer online therapy sessions with a way to preserve the session content for "research", all explained in excruciatingly small print. > I generally haven't had access to a therapist or even be able to afford a doctor, so I'm just stuck. This is not to diminish your situation or pretend to understand you, but there was a time when a sympathetic friend would have been the obvious remedy.