When therapy doesn't work

I couldn't reply to the thread either. LOL.

Jung reportedly had an extended psychotic episode. Freud was a coke-head and chain-smoker and seemingly quite a kook. Ironic. I'd argue both were cultists.

It's ironic to see Conman Cokehead Freud name checked as weaponry to denigrate survivors of harmful therapy. Freud who objectified his "patients" but didn't cure anyone, Freud who called his patients" rabble is Exhibit A against therapy. (See Masson.)

Freud indeed was at the vanguard of bashing the unfortunate patient who failed to respond (or fake respond) to his nonsense. I provided a hall of horror literature about "negative therapeutic reaction" in my post #5 of this thread.

The question, of course, is whether contemporary therapists have improved on Freud's disgrace in blaming harmful therapy on the patient. I can't pretend to know the universe, but from the slim amount of literature covering iatrogenesis, I'm not optimistic.

My impression is that the whole liineage from Freud down to present day is a mess of crazies and narcs, and victim blaming is the glue that holds everything together. The exceptions are held out as the norm.

I think the idea that someone who has a firm grip on reality and is possessed of strong critical thinking skills is at a disadvantage in therapy says far more about inadequate therapists than about the efficacy of therapy.

One of the first things my former T told me was that all the antidepressants and psychotherapy in the world wouldn't help me if I were not willing to take care of myself: sleep, eat healthy food, get some fresh air. If I was incapacitated such that I couldn't do that for myself (I wasn't), he could guide me as necessary. But until I was willing to engage in healthy behaviors, I wasn't going to get much benefit from anything more than supportive therapy. If there are therapists out there so divorced from basic sense, they should be ashamed and booted out of the profession.

What I find laughable in the other thread is that Freud's being quoted. The guy who recanted all his patient's true stories of abuse, the one whose disciples had sex with their vulnerable patients, among many other unethical things which were "okay" then. Just because it was OK then doesn't mean it isn't harmful: We now consider lobotomies unscientific for good reason.

Also how hilarious to blame failure of therapy on the patient's personality structure. It smells of how therapists tried to medicate and convert gay people into straight people. Saying "psychotic" patients are at fault is incredibly ableist.

Not to mention the long and dark history of psychiatry and psychology in terms of experiments, institutionisation and other systemic isms prevalent today still.

I say this as someone benefiting from therapy and from psych meds.

Can't reply to the thread either Quoting Freud seriously as if he wasn't a creepy misogynistic asshole full of neuroses which he decided to project onto the world is quite funny. The guy lied and lied about his "findings", he claimed to have "cured" lots of people when it wasn't in fact true. He blamed clients (how original). Why people still believes in his theories is utterly baffling. As for psychologists coming up wih some other approach I doubt it would happen since the system seems to work perfectly for them, why would they give it up? They take credit when the client seems to benefit from therapy and blame the client when it doesn't work. It's perfect.

Folks, modern psychotherapy shares little from the days of Jung and Freud (unless you're going to psychoanalysis in Manhattan).

I would suggest that psychotherapy is a super-broad term that encompasses hundreds of research-validated approaches and techniques. Just like medications, different types of therapy works differently for different people. And to complicate matters, each therapist works in a different way and may be 180 degrees from the therapist next door in their approach, manner, and techniques.

This makes it super complicated (and super confusing) for most who've ever tried therapy. Even if you go to 3 different therapists, you're likely to get some similarities, but also a lot of differences.

Just like in taking medications, I suggest people need to find the one type of therapy and the one therapist that works for them, in combination with other treatment efforts. And in some cases, that answer might be "zero," which is not a failing of psychotherapy per se, but simply our ability to properly match a person's specific needs and approach with that of the right therapist.

Like most things in life, this isn't (nor should it be) a black-and-white issue. All treatments for mental disorders involve nuance and complexity, and reflect our poor understanding of how the brain actually works (and why some people get a mental disorder while others do not).

Let's try and keep that in mind when talking about these things, because it makes for a more interesting conversation, to hear different people's perspectives on this issue.

DocJohn

It's interesting that we get a scolding from a moderator because apparently we dare to point out that Freud and Jung were crooks whose ideas are STILL pervasive in therapy (blaming the client, therapists are omniscient, etc.). Clearly we've hit a nerve.

DocJohn, I think the main reason people are upset here is that Mouse seems to have deliberately blocked all the anti-therapy people, and then made a post which describes them as psychotic and/or narcissistic which they are unable to respond to.

I think using the 'block' tool to attack people in a one-sided and passive-aggressive way is a rather unpleasant misuse of that feature.

I'm sure Freud would be baffled by all the opinions on this forum, because 99% of us seem to be women and according to him "women oppose change, receive passively, and add nothing of their own".

As the OP here, I really did want to participate in the other discussion of "why therapy doesn't work" and could not.

I think the topic CAN be explored under the heading "when therapy doesn't work", too, so that's why I chose that.

I appreciate DocJohn's comments and "intervention". I don't always agree with him, but to the point that things, and people, aren't always just one way or the other, good or bad -- yes, I think, too, that it makes for more interesting conversation. And, importantly for me right now, I think it can lead to a more realistic understanding of the world. Something I personally feel that I need.

Also "why doesn't therapy work -- sometimes" in ways that looks at how the therapy didn't work for some people when it does for others,could be a really interesting question that, from what I can tell, doesn't seem to be asked enough. Might help lead to a more realistic understanding of therapy, by therapists, and the society as a whole. And maybe some improvements and ways to help people who, previously, seemed "beyond" help -- despite our best personal, internal, conscious efforts -- and therapy as it exists right now.

One factor I feel needs to be looked at more is the effect in some therapies of the therapist assuming an "expert" role, or throne, that they seem unable to get off of. Seems like that can tend to "pathologize the patient", as one person on the other thread put it. And which does seem present in the attitudes of a lot of those early psychiatrists. Maybe it was partially the culture, IDK. Doesn't seem appropriate now.

The woman told me I was unconsciously resistant and fought the process more than any client she had ever had. As she also said she had been in practice over 30 years, I doubt she was telling the truth. The thing is, when I would ask what she meant - she would refuse, say nothing she said was magic, tell me she was unable to explain, tell me she wished she had answers for me, and look at me blankly. For me, their inability to explain what they mean by resistant and the process meant it was never going to work. How could I do what I did not understand. I found a use for the woman around my person's illness and death -but it was not what those people describe they think they do.

An important point is that is Freud's sophistic explanation of "negative therapeutic reaction" related to his specific and now debunked brand of pseudo-science. So in other words, the patient who rejected his treatment had to be envious, narcissistic and self-sabotaging, when in fact the patient was rejecting Freud's bunkum. Unfortunately, I this intrapsychic explanation for therapy failure seems to continue in modern day, letting the therapist, or the technique, completely off the hook.

With the word from on high - I am reminded of this:
There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's own safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.
"That's some catch, that catch-22," he observed.
"It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed.
Catch-22

and this

The first rule of Fight Club is: You do not talk about Fight Club. The second rule of Fight Club is: You DO NOT TALK ABOUT FIGHT CLUB! Third rule of Fight Club: Someone yells stop, goes limp, taps out, the fight is over. Fourth rule: only two guys to a fight. Fifth rule: one fight at a time, fellas. Sixth rule: no shirts, no shoes. Seventh rule: Fights will go on as long as they have to. And the eighth and final rule: If this is your first night at Fight Club, you have to fight.

This is to me . . . "problematic", too.

I could put some effort into trying to articulate what and why it is "problematic" -- but why should I put that effort into it? I put something like that into my own therapy. Didn't work. Didn't help, didn't connect with or communicate with the therapist.

Why can't the therapists explain their "technical" theories in language that clients can understand?

I'm currently attending a continuing ed class in quantum mechanics, taught by a retired quantum mechanics theorist. He has put a lot of effort over a number of years into trying to communicate what can only really be understood in the language of mathematics, into something that is palatable to non-specialists. Plus, there is no question it works. OK, well, most of us in the class are older and have math and science backgrounds and I, for one, didn't "get" quantum mechanics the first time or in what I've read along the way since.

I just don't see how psychotherapy could be that difficult to try to explain to people. I read their theories. Some I like, some I don't. They aren't anywhere near "scientific" theories like physics. But there seem to be some decent approaches toward some observations, generalizations, and abstractions that could become "scientific" over time. Got to start somewhere. All the other sciences did, too.

As I have said before, the main problem I have with psychotherapy is the practice. And that's a social phenomenon I don't have a lot of understanding about. Maybe therapists don't, either?

That's Freud. Delusional if you stay; delusional if you go. On reflection, other disciplines are begun or driven forward by great scientist and thinkers. In contrast, Freud was merely a promoter who simply put forth a package of concocted notions.

Alternative medicine is a term of propaganda.

There is nothing alternative about good nutrition, clean water, full spectrum sun, physical activity, healthy relationships, meditation, detoxification, sound sleep, etc. These are mainstream methods for creating health.

Alternative = paid relationships and mass drugging.

By Jove, we have one thing that we agree on! Almost.

So many definitions of ‘term,’ you see! And ‘propaganda,’ I think, is not, in and of itself, always bad. If we buy into the propaganda of the home tooth care industry we would likely all have our own teeth in our old age.

But I love your list of the ‘nothing alternatives!’

We’re dependent upon paid relationships, surely? As simple as providing a product or service to pay or be paid? Our society is (dangerously) capitalism at its most absurd. Mass drugging (thinking only of psychotherapy) is a challenge to be weighed against treatment for someone like me who needs medications lest I become unable to live on my own.

Alternative medicine, though, is just as sure a thing as legal ethics, I think!

Interesting.. I think there was a lot of this with T1. He hated it that I had read a book by another therapist and was very scornful

I’m very disillusioned with therapy. My therapist is the CBT solution focused type. This is what therapy is like: If I’m so depressed that I sit in one place for hours, I just need to get up and do something. If I keep having images of my Mother’s painful death, well, he’s sorry I had to go through that but it’s been 5 years and all I have to do is forgive myself. (Which isn’t the issue.) No discussion about what those images are. Just get over it. When I was trying to find out the cause of my mother’s death, he couldn’t understand why. In his words - the result would be the same- she’d still be dead. My Decline in health is contributing to my depression-well, I’m not a medical doctor. Husband’s failing memory causing me stress-he’s not going to change so you either stay with him or leave him. Assertiveness not working? Then I’m not doing it correctly. He’s not interested in details, doesn’t want to talk about why something happened, doesn’t want to talk about the past, only interested in solutions and challenging my thoughts. I’ve looked for other therapists, but every one of them describes themselves as solution focused. It’s not for me. If solving problems were this easy, then we wouldn’t need therapists. Is this all that’s being taught nowadays?