When people talk about “therapy” here, they most likely are thinking of bog-standard talk therapy, where you just go in and kinda, well, talk to someone about your life, problems, etc.
For some people, it’s enough to just get things off their chest, talk about things out loud with someone and helps them deal with their issues. I personally see such a therapist monthly and find it beneficial to my mental health.
For others, especially those with more intense troubles and traumas, it may not be, and would probably be served better by someone more specialized with said traumas.
Like any medical profession, the quality of individual therapists and mental health experts can vary widely, from chuds to libs to comrades and everything in-between. there’s a solid chance you may not get the perfect fit on try 1, I didn’t.
I just feel like some people are dipping their toes into Scientology-ish “all therapy is bad, never seek professional help for your problems” stuff, which I think is disastrous advice.
That’s, in my humble opinion, a fault of the system that makes people disregard the opinion of the professionals, or of the field failing to compel patients to actually conform to the therapy mode chosen or to adapt to the needs of the patient. Your “bad patient” thing sounds to me very much like “everyone complains about bad teachers but nobody wants to admit that there are bad students”. Like, maybe adapt the system and the field to diverse people in diverse situations, instead of applying a cookie-mold approach and blaming the recipient for it.
How are you going to compel people to conform to the therapy?
You can drag a horse to water. You can’t make it drink.
Again, that should absolutely be studied as part of the effectiveness of given therapies and methodologies. If the field fails to account for the high percentage of people who don’t confirm to therapies for one reason or another, or to study those reasons and to find solutions, then what the fuck are the scientists doing?
I’m not going to say that the methodology doesn’t matter, but the #1 factor in whether therapy is going to work for someone is the level of trust with the therapist. That tops methodology, education, everything else. Certain therapies absolutely help certain things, but a good therapist isn’t trying to get anyone to “conform.”
Read the rest of my interactions with the other user in this comment chain
I did that before I responded. Sorry to interject if it didn’t fit.
Oh no, all good, just wanted to say that I’ve mostly addressed it in my other interactions
It is studied as a part of the effectiveness. Nobody claimed that there is a high percentage of bad patients. Just that they exist.
The focus on “bad patients” is faulty from a pragmatic point of view. It leads to thinking “certain people just don’t wanna be helped”. If you reframe it as people who for example by social conditioning or by public opinion or trust on psychology, don’t fully accept treatment, or people who for actual reasons aren’t receptive to treatment, the framing leads you to finding solutions to those problems instead of just dismissing them as “bad patients”, as happens with students. I bet my ass that “bad patients” correlate with demographic and economic factors, i.e., “bad patients” are a product of the environment that can be fixed by altering the environment in a very similar fashion to how “criminals” are a overwhelmingly byproduct of the system and surrounding conditions.
Automatically assuming that bad patients don’t exist is faulty in and of itself. Of course some people don’t want to be helped - Not everyone is ready to be helped, and not everyone thinks that they need to be “helped”. You cannot help someone that doesn’t want to be helped.
Again, focusing on “bad patients” instead of the environment that creates them, is like focusing on “criminals” instead of their surrounding socioeconomic environment
Nobody is focusing on them. Just admitting that they exist.
Yeah the behaviours you mentioned are a sign of a “difficult” patient (not the individual therapist’s fault nor the patient’s fault), not a “bad” patient. A “bad” patient cannot exist because the goal is a constant never-ending striving to get as close to 100% of the population healthy no matter what. Saying “what can we do, x% are morally bad so fuck em they deserve to suffer unless they become good” is neoliberal thinking and unacceptable.
Furthermore, such behaviours are indicative moreso of a sick society which tries to compartmentalize the healing of a person’s mental illness to a paid hourly visit per week and does fuck all to collectively address any compounding factors that may exacerbate their condition, nor try and help them further, outside of this relationship.
you’re fuckin suss