Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.
Will you please go away, you arrogant little shithead. . . .
But in his OP:
DEL - 10 September 2011 02:00 PM
. . . I would appreciate feedback from psychotherapists.
. . .
-David Lemke
, Mr. Lemke specifically invites a person such as Mario, while only mildly inviting someone like you, Saralynn. Maybe he regrets his specificity but for now, he seems to be stuck with it.
Mario: You of all people should know the futility of book-loving therapists and college-educated people without true experience or personal skill, but spewing opinions as truth and theories as answers. Just look in your medicine cabinet and liquor cabinet. In an instant the spirit of the living God could have healed you, unless you had a biological abnormality. But you chose to wallow in the human world of doubt and confusion. This is the true pile of shit that lands on the heads of people without conviction. Get your stinky head straight, for once in your life.
Why couldn’t God have healed me even if I had a biological abnormality? Why the qualifier? Oh ye men of little faith! Or is it “ye little men of faith?” Whatever, you’re right…he seldom does that, does he? I’ve noticed that he has a predilection for curing people with back pain.
Whatever, I positively, definitely, absolutely, without a doubt will not reply to your posts anymore, even though I am tempted to do so. Suffice to say, whatever problems I had in the past were compounded by my religious beliefs, which, in retrospect, were childish and egocentric. God answers prayers….problems are caused by a lack of faith….God loves you so much, he knows the number of hairs on your head…..we are made to be as perfect as God in Heaven is perfect. And most of all…
“Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:”
Apparently, I was not and am not as worthy as you.
People like you with their implicit assumptions that people suffer because they don’t have enough faith cause a lot more damage than the most incompetent of psychologists
Shut up, Sara!
That’s it, no more, I’m finished. I pray to Freud that I can resist the temptation to respond again.
[ Edited: 20 September 2011 03:37 PM by saralynn ]
Suggest “ignore” re BM, and that he has done more than most theistic posters to disqualify his own messages. Thanks, BM, you’re doing a better job that we could.
Suggest “ignore” re BM, and that he has done more than most theistic posters to disqualify his own messages. Thanks, BM, you’re doing a better job that we could.
Nah…I was just irritated because the topic in question was interesting to me, as well as relevant. The “family crisis” that I mentioned before all touched on the topics being discussed. Actually, even Mario’s intrusion was useful because, as you said, it exemplified the dangers inherent in the unquestioning acceptance of religious dogma by both the people who are suffering and those trying to help them. That “if you only had more faith” nonsense is stupid and cruel, not to mention arrogant.
And all this loops back to Dave’s OP. What is the most ethical and sane approach to psychotherapy? The questions he asks are important ones, esp in regard to religious belief, but, unfortunately, there are no easy answers. It all depends on the particular problems of each patient. The only thing the therapist can do is make decisions based on his perception of his client’s needs as they become more clear to him and to be very careful that his own prejudices don’t interfere with his objectivity. There are really no rules to follow or strict definitions in regard to what is right and what is wrong in terms of modifying or not modifying a person’s religious beliefs. It varies from individual to individual.
There are really no rules to follow or strict definitions in regard to what is right and what is wrong in terms of modifying or not modifying a person’s religious beliefs. It varies from individual to individual.
Rarely an issue of modifying religious beliefs, most often a person is seeking to reduce pain, anxiety or depression however they may be able to do so.
A therapist, given a typical outpatient, insurance-reimbursed clinic, has maybe 4-5 visits at most to assess and influence what the “problem” is, and that may or may not be in complete agreement with what a patient may articulate. “I want to make my spouse” do, or not do, something is not within the usual purview of what can be done; same with “my boss is an asshole…..” Given the defined issue is something possibly subject to some influence, then there’s maybe 2-3 meeting left in which to exert any influence. Usually, this means either/or increasing the acceptance of a person about his/her situation, increasing their own impact on that situation, or maybe just providing some brief support in a crisis situation. “Insight,” a much touted term, is one of those vague goals that may never be clarified or reached. In a situation of one person talking with another, with no prior history between them, maybe such tactics as providing non-judgmental support, the induction of cognitive dissonance on conflicted views of the patient; suggesting a different perspective that might lead to some influence on the defined issue; providing specific information or recommendations when that’s possible to do, any of these or more might have some use. Or they may not. The agenda of a patient seeking help might be a quite different one than that of a therapist.
I met with a man once who said “I need help,” as it developed to get SSDI for PTSD that he claimed had occurred 44 years previously when he was captured in the Battle of the Bulge for one month, it had been somehow unexpressed for 43 of those years since, but had now erupted when he was seeking long term financial aid from the state after he’d gone bankrupt. Or a state public defender who’d been caught sleeping with her client and fabricating evidence in his defense, and she was seeking “help” to avoid being fired, while having the state pay for her counseling and having no sense of having “screwed up.” Or a woman who presented with a lot of guilt and marital issues, only to find after 6 or so visits that her father had had sexual intercourse with her for 10 years from the age of 12 until she got married, then he killed himself. Mother, as is not unusual, claimed no knowledge of that and denied it, and for that matter there was no verification apart from the patient’s claim. The most significant and useful outcome of all that when she got her first job and kept it; that did more in my opinion than therapy to help her out. Or a woman who managed to captivate my staff with her claimed multiple personalities, so that some 17% of our total clinic resources were devote to meeting with her, video taping, etc. which she found most reinforcing. Again, as these might exemplify, the agenda or goals of the therapist and patient might not be in congruence.
In the first case, I refused to certify this man’s claimed PTSD and sent him away;in the second, I “cheated” as we were both employed by the County and I appeared in Court sometimes, so I sent her to an adjoining County for services (she never showed up and was later fired); in the third, last heard from, she was doing well In the 4th case, early one morning, about 1:00 AM, when she showed up at the local ER claiming to be suicidal, I was on call and sent her to a County psychiatric facility, not the local posh private psychiatric facility she requested, and all of her personalities vanished as she screamed at me for being unfair; she never did come back in for “treatment.” Therapists, if they’re professional, can say “no,” although that runs contrary to the popular idea.
The OP question remains quite valid, and has to be answered on a case by case basis. I think it fair to say that the therapist’s judgment of ethics and sanity must dominate, not that of any patient; and cannot glibly answered a priori. No one can anticipate who or what they’re going to be faced with, therefore no facile set of responses can be formulated. For instance, I’ve broken confidentiality in order to have a patient apprehended at home and weapons removed when there was a theat to kill himself; recommended to an elderly mother, who’d complained about her 27 y/o male son still living with her while contributing nothing to expenses while he worked, to kick him out. Then had to literally corner my administrator who’d said I had been “insensitive to the mentally ill” by doing so, until he backed down. Placed a man in the “Segregation Unit,” (AKA “the hole”) in prison when he’d tried to con me into recommending medications. Point is, each and every one of these examples reflect the unique issues of a specific situation.
DEL, my qualifications are twelve years of counseling in a residential program for very tough young men back in the eighties, before drugs took the place of the hard work of group therapy and actually living with people who need help. My college degrees helped only a little; and the people around me at the time who relied on their education and readings, i.e., the clinical directors, failed miserably at helping the young men they saw only occasionally.
Dennis, who, by every word he writes, is surely one of these learned people who never invested personally in a single patient, calls me a chew toy when he has experienced the opposite. I have called him out on his bullshit credentials and lack of true counselling skills years ago. He ran away from me right off because he only wishes to be patted on the back for regurgitating other people’s words from the books he has read and memorized.
You, it seems, are cut from this cloth, but you will not get a pat from me, for I see your words, too, therefore I see you. And I do not see someone who will help others profoundly or permanently.
Let’s see if you help hundreds of others as I have. Let’s see if you get calls of gratitude, as I do, years later from successful people who were once in trouble and only found bullshit therapists until I came along with the answers they needed to hear.
You won’t find these answers in any book, because they are only given at the exact moment they are needed, and only to the therapist who is empty of bullshit theories and silly formulas—i.e., the therapist who knows there is a spirit alive in us, giving us wisdom and understanding.
You also won’t find these answers from Dennis and superficial intellectuals like him. So stop reading and look within at the person you are, and change her.
A therapist, given a typical outpatient, insurance-reimbursed clinic, has maybe 4-5 visits at most to assess and influence what the “problem” is, and that may or may not be in complete agreement with what a patient may articulate. “I want to make my spouse” do, or not do, something is not within the usual purview of what can be done; same with “my boss is an asshole…..” Given the defined issue is something possibly subject to some influence, then there’s maybe 2-3 meeting left in which to exert any influence. Usually, this means either/or increasing the acceptance of a person about his/her situation, increasing their own impact on that situation, or maybe just providing some brief support in a crisis situation. “Insight,” a much touted term, is one of those vague goals that may never be clarified or reached. In a situation of one person talking with another, with no prior history between them, maybe such tactics as providing non-judgmental support, the induction of cognitive dissonance on conflicted views of the patient; suggesting a different perspective that might lead to some influence on the defined issue; providing specific information or recommendations when that’s possible to do, any of these or more might have some use. Or they may not. The agenda of a patient seeking help might be a quite different one than that of a therapist.
I met with a man once who said “I need help,” as it developed to get SSDI for PTSD that he claimed had occurred 44 years previously when he was captured in the Battle of the Bulge for one month, it had been somehow unexpressed for 43 of those years since, but had now erupted when he was seeking long term financial aid from the state after he’d gone bankrupt. Or a state public defender who’d been caught sleeping with her client and fabricating evidence in his defense, and she was seeking “help” to avoid being fired, while having the state pay for her counseling and having no sense of having “screwed up.” Or a woman who presented with a lot of guilt and marital issues, only to find after 6 or so visits that her father had had sexual intercourse with her for 10 years from the age of 12 until she got married, then he killed himself. Mother, as is not unusual, claimed no knowledge of that and denied it, and for that matter there was no verification apart from the patient’s claim. The most significant and useful outcome of all that when she got her first job and kept it; that did more in my opinion than therapy to help her out. Or a woman who managed to captivate my staff with her claimed multiple personalities, so that some 17% of our total clinic resources were devote to meeting with her, video taping, etc. which she found most reinforcing. Again, as these might exemplify, the agenda or goals of the therapist and patient might not be in congruence.
In the first case, I refused to certify this man’s claimed PTSD and sent him away;in the second, I “cheated” as we were both employed by the County and I appeared in Court sometimes, so I sent her to an adjoining County for services (she never showed up and was later fired); in the third, last heard from, she was doing well In the 4th case, early one morning, about 1:00 AM, when she showed up at the local ER claiming to be suicidal, I was on call and sent her to a County psychiatric facility, not the local posh private psychiatric facility she requested, and all of her personalities vanished as she screamed at me for being unfair; she never did come back in for “treatment.” Therapists, if they’re professional, can say “no,” although that runs contrary to the popular idea.
The OP question remains quite valid, and has to be answered on a case by case basis. I think it fair to say that the therapist’s judgment of ethics and sanity must dominate, not that of any patient; and cannot glibly answered a priori. No one can anticipate who or what they’re going to be faced with, therefore no facile set of responses can be formulated. For instance, I’ve broken confidentiality in order to have a patient apprehended at home and weapons removed when there was a theat to kill himself; recommended to an elderly mother, who’d complained about her 27 y/o male son still living with her while contributing nothing to expenses while he worked, to kick him out. Then had to literally corner my administrator who’d said I had been “insensitive to the mentally ill” by doing so, until he backed down. Placed a man in the “Segregation Unit,” (AKA “the hole”) in prison when he’d tried to con me into recommending medications. Point is, each and every one of these examples reflect the unique issues of a specific situation.
Dennis Campbell,
That’s why I like Arnold Lazarus’s “Multimodal Therapy”. While it has its gimmicky side, after thinking about it more, it seems to be a very sensible approach considering what we currently know and don’t know about human behavior change. Are you familiar with Multimodal Therapy? It’s loosely based on social learning theory and attempts to account for as many variables as possible while still being productive and not “woo woo”. I think that constructivist therapies have largely gone the path of “woo woo”. However, just the simple acronym of B.A.S.I.C. I.D. (Behavior Affect Sensation Images Cognition Interpersonal, Drugs/Biology) makes a lot of sense and offers a short hand way to remember many different modalities to assess and treat without focusing too broadly. Also, Lazarus recommends partly using a client’s expectations of therapy and one’s own personality in therapy, which sometimes means that you just cannot work with a client. If a client expects a female therapist who is really warm and fuzzy, that therapist might be more effective for the client using essentially the SAME behavioral principles. So, if that therapist uses exposure therapy, but with an extra warm and fuzzy style (also just the variable of being a woman), a client might benefit. Another therapist who might not meet the expectations of therapy happening that way might be ineffective with the same client. So the therapist is advised to learn as many different techniques as possible, even hypnosis, so long as the techniques in each modality are the most evidence-based available. I think that it is more flexible, more realistic and probably more likely to be effective for someone changing his/her behavior and reducing symptoms than standard cognitive behavior therapy. While it may not be perfect, I find that it seems to cover a wide range of situations. In Multimodal Therapy, religion might even be used if a client uses religion as part of his/her way of making sense of the world and insists on religion being incorporated into behavior change. However, there is still some aspect of therapy not covered by the model of Multimodal Psychotherapy. Lazarus’s case examples seem to show that the therapist’s own judgments and intuitions come into the picture a lot. For instance, I might focus on one modality (e.g. imagery) more than another therapist would and I might use different techniques. However, this is why Lazarus mentions that not every client will be suited to a given therapist. He seems to be very honest of the limits of theories of behavior change without throwing the baby out with the bath water and becoming nihilistic or anti-science. He kind of takes the attitude that, until we know more, an approach where you’re open to many different foci is warranted as so many variables are involved in dealing with humans. At the same time, there seem to be ways of making it easier for yourself as a finite being to narrow your focus without being overly rigid.
All true and your task, not an easy one, is to try and figure what might work best. You’re right. not possible to help some people, and more than likely no one will be able to do so, as they might define help. Had one quite nice fellow who’d complained of a lot of anger toward wife, so much so he got headaches. Not my brilliance, but turned out they had a monoxide leak at home and that was causing everyone to get headaches and angry. Since he was an AC tech, he was embarassed as well. Point, you’ve got to try and review almost anything that might be an issue, so “Failure” to do so in 3-4 sessions more than likely.
BM, you’re right is a disgusting and annoying troll. He’s been banned twice so far, and we’re hoping for 3rd and final time. His clinical diagnosis is asshole.
RSS Feed
