@Appleblossom wrote:
The airy fairy vague ... find a "good fit" with your therapist is not a robust enough concept for the level of people involved in both (with the inclusion of peer support it is no longer a binary), better to say, all parts of the field.
I couldn't agree more, @Appleblossom . I've often suspected that it is buy and large a cover-up tactic used by the industry to conceal the numbers of bad or useless therapists within it.
My enduring question is: Is anybody checking to see if there are some therapists out there who just don't happen to be a "good fit" for any of their patients?
See, if that concept isn't kept in-check, it inevitably makes the mental health system a breeding ground for useless and harmful therapists who do nothing but inflict obstruction and harm upon the patient community. You look at a situation where a therapist fails a patient and say: "Oh well, those two were just a bad fit". blindly assuming that the therapist is still an asset to the community, because they'll have other patients with who they are a "good fit".
But if you aren't checking, how do you know? For all you know, that therapist may spend all day every day making vulnerable peoples' lives hell.
@Appleblossom wrote:
Rapport building is one thing. Effective intervention and strategies are another.
So very true.
What's the point of "clicking" with a therapist if their never going to help you? "The Golden Rule of Therapy" has been responsible for more patient neglect and degeneration then we'll ever know.
This is what's kept me from reaching out again since I was let out of therapy; the knowledge that there's no point, because nobody out there really helps.
@Appleblossom wrote:
Its not always helpful for the person to be nice.
True enough. Although, I would argue that it's a good rule of thumb to start off from. 😉
