without attempting to flaunt local ordinances against lynch mobs, i believe that a psychotherapist’s personality is to a reasonable extent fair subject for discussion, whether it’s for personal treatment or when said therapist offers to psychoanalyze and treat society. i hope to explain this here without breaking community standards.
i say this from having been in therapy for many years, and having benefitted from it overall, but also having suffered bad experiences and abuse from therapists. it was not all good. some of them were wrong, some were poison.
whether through toxicity or incompetence, iatrogenia is real, even if it’s hard to observe in psychology, and it’s extremely important to choose the right therapist when seeking treatment. not all practitioners are created equal.
so i’ve learned to research and interview and interrogate therapists before committing to a course of treatment with them—everyone should. a bad fit can be outright deadly.
in the old times of psychoanalysis analysts presented themselves in a detached and impersonal manner of supreme authority, but modern psychotherapy requires self-awareness and a measure of self-disclosure from the therapist (that there is an evolution in hierarchies btw).
my most successful course of therapy ever was a long-drawn argument with my doctor where he shared many personal stories. (he had his own problems, btw, and was far from perfect, but he taught me self-acceptance in eccentricity, and for this i am eternally grateful).
so i know from experience (and having discussed with practitioners, read/reviewed/edited books, etc) that many psychotherapists in fact have histories of personal or family mental illness or dysfunction, just as many doctors choose that vocation from having suffered or witnessed serious illness in person or in the family. and that is part of them.
e.g, you read scott peck and he’ll start by telling you how he voluntarily committed himself to a psychiatric hospital at a young age. if you have a therapist, ask them what got them interested in their profession.
i do not say that as a disqualifier, in the manner of scientologists: on the contrary, these people know the territory they’re talking about, they’ve survived it, and i’ll get back to that in a moment. but it’s also helpful to know what are their personal bias & perspectives & potential blind spots & potential dangers. even more so in the case of a public figure offering a “cure” for society.
so, to get back to ideas and away from personal criticism, i’ll end this by saying that, in the context of some schools of therapy having worked with archetypal figures, like “the witch” “the wizard” “the knight” etc etc. —i think that “wise grandma” is way better than “angry dad”.
e.g. here’s marsha linehan, creator of dbt, an evidence-based treatment which has offered a cure to previously “beyond help” borderline personality disorders:
https://youtu.be/PCJ0R6vAUnw
btw she was diagnosed an treated for schizophrenia in her youth, although she believes it was actual borderline. for this too she holds my admiration. wanna talk about “heroes” without outdated sexist biases? there she is, beating back monsters for the good of humanity.
for me then, “skills” are far superior to “rules for life.”
having said that: some people need some rules sometimes. so i’ll try to do my best to abide by the board’s rules and i sincerely hope this hasn’t breached the terms.
respectfully,
-not a public figure
(for the record, and perspective, i have not been diagnosed as borderline, but i did learn about her by doing research about that condition)
