Posted by spoc on April 23, 2004, at 10:52:44
There so many comments threads going on this board right now that I wanted to respond to, related to the struggle with deciding whether a certain therapist is right for oneself. So I thought I'd address them all in a new thread. I think my reasoning here is merely realistic, but if it sounds to others like I am a big meanie or truly off base, I'd like to hear why. Maybe that's something I do need to know about how I think in general, but I know I'm not going to come to that on my own.
I know I stack the deck against myself sometimes by going on at length, but that is a ramification of *my* problems (OCD, obsessive and painful attention to detail) just like a cutter's ramification is cutting or a suicidal person's may be black and white thinking or anger. It's not something I'm in control of, but we all need someone to connect with us and most can get that here without feeling bad or stigmatized about their symptom(s). For now I tried splitting my perspectives up into two parts on this thread!
Anyway, here, I started with Speaker's thread on "Ts.. False sense of security?"
---> I have trouble trusting my new T. I think is't that I feel therapy is a false sense of security! I know if I call my T he will talk with me but if I get sick he will not check up on me. So where is the sense of security that someone is there for me? It's like we pay for a caring relationship to help us learn more about ourselves...it's a strange relationship. I am suppose to trust him with everything about me but I know nothing about him...why would I trust? Do others feel this way? >
---
>> Oh, yeah, trust is a biggy. I think the therapy relationship is very confusing and frustrating that way. As tmp said, it's weird to be paying (a lot!) for someone to support you, when it seems like genuine caring and support would not have a price tag on it...----
I agree that as strange as this feels on an emotional level (when compared to other “close” relationships in our lives that, as you state, actually aren't comparable), this is just the way it has to be. And we have to keep it in perspective that this person really does need to make a living, and wouldn't be able to do that if they were instead *giving* away this much time per week to helping people, or deciding to do so on a case-by-case basis. But...---
>>... But, I also think that just because we pay doesn't mean that they don't really care. I mean, they don't have to be doing that particular job, right? They do it because they care about people. Including you. >
---Being paid for it definitely doesn't mean they *don't* care, but I don't think it proves that they do either, and that isn't necessarily a sinister thing. From a strictly logical standpoint, caring can't be *the* main reason all Ts enter this field. Maybe it's more likely to be a common denominator for, say, social workers out on the front lines with their sleeves rolled up; working directly on the battlefields of the worst of crisis and impoverished situations and making little money in return. But for us to make our decisions of whether we trust or are a good match with a given T in private practice, based on assuming they have all entered the field primarily out of caring impulses, may not even be in our own best interests.
That isn't a negative or suspicious position, just realism and acknowledgement of human nature. When we are considering what we want to be when we grow up, a field in which we could (often) work for ourselves, set our own hours and make around $125 to $190 in 45 minutes would appeal greatly to some for mainly *those* reasons.
And the subject matter is of at least palatable interest to most people, as far as choosing something one could enjoy or tolerate spending their life being exposed to. I was always fascinated by it myself, and even began college on a psychology scholarship (there’s a clue for you!). I found that my classmates weren't more likely than the general population to be nurturing or caring types. Many were intellectuals or pseudo-intellectuals who were drawn to the concepts themselves and the science of emotions, not so much the humans to which they applied.
Maybe the common thread we can hope for as to why Ts choose this field is that they have good instincts, judgment and are conscientious. Even with these alone they could help a lot of people, if their reasoning is good and their function as unbiased outside party is solid. I see professions like psychotherapist and ethicist as ones that are often assumed to involve emotions and caring on the part of practitioners, whereas maybe in reality they involve largely the science and logic of sorting out emotions and complex matters of human nature. Which isn’t necessarily warm and fuzzy or emotion-driven in itself. No one would claim the great philosophers from history all sounded empathetic and caring, but they too were drawn to dissecting what makes people and the world tick, and I bet a lot of Ts found philosophy interesting in school, too.
poster:spoc
thread:339137
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20040419/msgs/339137.html