Long time fan of Carol Tavris' work and of Skeptic and enjoyed the article for the most part. I was disappointed that, towards the end, there was misinformation and stereotyping about therapists who are not clinical psychologists (or I assume Tavris also included counseling psychologists). I have been in the mental health field providing counseling services for over 30 years. I have worked with psychologists, psychiatrists, licensed clinical social workers, licensed clinical counselors, and licensed marriage and family therapists. I have seen the good, the bad, and the ugly no matter what their licensure was. We all spent "thousands of dollars and many years of study" and "have supervised training" to become a licensed clinical practitioners. I assert that it is what happens after the degree and the licensure that can be a problem. Many of my peers support and stay up to date with evidence-based/informed treatments (but remember, not all evidence-based treatments are science-based and that can be confusing). But too many get seduced by these problematic ideas and crap therapies - and yes, clinical psychologist do too! I certainly agree that therapy is corrupted by poorly researched or pseudo science therapies (think EMDR or the very dangerous Internal Family Systems). Don't confuse therapies with different licensures. And "buyer beware," your licensure does not protect you from getting duped by therapy trends.
After a few experiences with therapy, one thing that struck me is that many (most?) therapists get little long-term feedback whether they truly helped the patient or not.
The patient sees them for a while, moves on at some point, and the therapist usually never sees them again. Never sees how the dilemma worked out after a few years.
No, most therapists are not devoid of scientific understanding. Let's consider the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), which is used to classify mental health conditions. It's true that the DSM has been criticized for its lack of scientific rigor and the influence of big money in defining what constitutes a disorder. This system needs to be updated to better reflect the complexities of mental health.
However, it's important to recognize that many therapists are highly trained professionals who are committed to helping their clients. They use evidence-based practices and continually educate themselves on the latest research. While the system itself has flaws, this does not mean that individual therapists are quacks or unmotivated to help their clients. The majority of therapists work diligently to provide effective treatment and support for those in need.
Furthermore, therapy isn't about 'curing' in the traditional medical sense. It's about helping individuals manage their symptoms, develop coping strategies, and improve their overall quality of life. The therapeutic relationship itself can be incredibly healing, offering a space for clients to explore their thoughts and feelings in a supportive environment.
Criticisms of the mental health field should focus on systemic issues rather than dismissing the valuable work that therapists do. By advocating for reforms in mental health diagnostics and treatment, we can improve the field and better serve those who need help.
Thank you, Dr. Tavris. Thank you, Elliot Aronson. Your important work has been a great reminder for me to channel my love and curiosity to also be brave and resilient.
I cannot thank you enough, Dr. Tavris. Your bravery is needed today more than ever. We need thoughtful, responsible, professionals. We need medical ethics. Thoughtful therapy. Sadly and horrifically, so many well-intentioned, kind, people, including: teachers, therapists, doctors, friends, family, are unaware of previous psychological/medical ethical issues. Many well-intentioned; however, few have the time/interest to go deep and understand previous medical/psychological "mistakes." Most of us rely on the medical experts, the professionals; our ethical channels are severely broken. In order to be safe, it is critical to question. Many wonderful, vulnerable young people, and the rest of the world trust the psychological/medical "experts". The experts trust the big experts. I'm grateful that to have learned about social psychology because it is helping me think and understand in the most thorough important responsible way that will allow me to show up today most fully and lovingly for my family. I trust my adult children will find their path. We will all make mistakes. Staying curious. We must always question. My deep love for my children and belief in my children to be healthy skeptics, curious, questioning, truly caring, adults keeps me hopeful. We need wisdom.
After reading this article I bought Carol Tavris's "Mistakes Were Made: updated...dissonance, democracy and the demagogue." The "update" was her personal diatribe against Donald Trump.
This brings up an excellent and now ever-present topic of affirmation, in my opinion. Due to culturally nurturing permissiveness, I’d say that people are increasingly reluctant to be skeptical of others, especially in psychotherapy where it’s a therapist's principle to affirm and validate. To confront means to risk. And it's not just about losing a client anymore.
Carol is correct as far as she goes, but psychology has strayed much farther in recent years, nicely illustrated by the bizarre session from APA described at the start. In 2000 Patricia Greenfield wrote a nice article partly titled "Why anthropology took post-modernism on the chin." At the very end Patricia refers to anthro's response as "self-flagellation" and that is exactly what psychology is engaged in now. Significant numbers in APA (and elsewhere), especially at the "top," have assumed psychology should feel guilt about its historical treatment of the "other," including the hegemony of "white epistemology" in the discipline, meaning of course objectivity and empiricism. Now we must honour other people's "ways of knowing" including magical thinking, for want of a better term. Perhaps people have followed what is happening in New Zealand where Maori beliefs are to be integrated with scientific perspectives in universities, by government decree essentially. Too many in psychology would welcome such initiatives.
By and large therapists are quacks that are not motivated to help let alone cure.
I realised this about 20 years ago and all I do now when I meet a therapist is ask them "What is your metric for success?" and if they can't give me a clear measurable metric I can judge them accordingly.
Speaking of satanic panic and transgenderness: have you checked into the recent work of "SRA expert" turned "gender angels" expert Diane Ehrensaft?
Let me know where I can sign up for chocolate immersion therapy!
Long time fan of Carol Tavris' work and of Skeptic and enjoyed the article for the most part. I was disappointed that, towards the end, there was misinformation and stereotyping about therapists who are not clinical psychologists (or I assume Tavris also included counseling psychologists). I have been in the mental health field providing counseling services for over 30 years. I have worked with psychologists, psychiatrists, licensed clinical social workers, licensed clinical counselors, and licensed marriage and family therapists. I have seen the good, the bad, and the ugly no matter what their licensure was. We all spent "thousands of dollars and many years of study" and "have supervised training" to become a licensed clinical practitioners. I assert that it is what happens after the degree and the licensure that can be a problem. Many of my peers support and stay up to date with evidence-based/informed treatments (but remember, not all evidence-based treatments are science-based and that can be confusing). But too many get seduced by these problematic ideas and crap therapies - and yes, clinical psychologist do too! I certainly agree that therapy is corrupted by poorly researched or pseudo science therapies (think EMDR or the very dangerous Internal Family Systems). Don't confuse therapies with different licensures. And "buyer beware," your licensure does not protect you from getting duped by therapy trends.
After a few experiences with therapy, one thing that struck me is that many (most?) therapists get little long-term feedback whether they truly helped the patient or not.
The patient sees them for a while, moves on at some point, and the therapist usually never sees them again. Never sees how the dilemma worked out after a few years.
No, most therapists are not devoid of scientific understanding. Let's consider the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), which is used to classify mental health conditions. It's true that the DSM has been criticized for its lack of scientific rigor and the influence of big money in defining what constitutes a disorder. This system needs to be updated to better reflect the complexities of mental health.
However, it's important to recognize that many therapists are highly trained professionals who are committed to helping their clients. They use evidence-based practices and continually educate themselves on the latest research. While the system itself has flaws, this does not mean that individual therapists are quacks or unmotivated to help their clients. The majority of therapists work diligently to provide effective treatment and support for those in need.
Furthermore, therapy isn't about 'curing' in the traditional medical sense. It's about helping individuals manage their symptoms, develop coping strategies, and improve their overall quality of life. The therapeutic relationship itself can be incredibly healing, offering a space for clients to explore their thoughts and feelings in a supportive environment.
Criticisms of the mental health field should focus on systemic issues rather than dismissing the valuable work that therapists do. By advocating for reforms in mental health diagnostics and treatment, we can improve the field and better serve those who need help.
Thank you, Dr. Tavris. Thank you, Elliot Aronson. Your important work has been a great reminder for me to channel my love and curiosity to also be brave and resilient.
I cannot thank you enough, Dr. Tavris. Your bravery is needed today more than ever. We need thoughtful, responsible, professionals. We need medical ethics. Thoughtful therapy. Sadly and horrifically, so many well-intentioned, kind, people, including: teachers, therapists, doctors, friends, family, are unaware of previous psychological/medical ethical issues. Many well-intentioned; however, few have the time/interest to go deep and understand previous medical/psychological "mistakes." Most of us rely on the medical experts, the professionals; our ethical channels are severely broken. In order to be safe, it is critical to question. Many wonderful, vulnerable young people, and the rest of the world trust the psychological/medical "experts". The experts trust the big experts. I'm grateful that to have learned about social psychology because it is helping me think and understand in the most thorough important responsible way that will allow me to show up today most fully and lovingly for my family. I trust my adult children will find their path. We will all make mistakes. Staying curious. We must always question. My deep love for my children and belief in my children to be healthy skeptics, curious, questioning, truly caring, adults keeps me hopeful. We need wisdom.
"Political correctness is like a poison gas that can seep into the most unlike places.” False Positive, Theodore Dalrymple
After reading this article I bought Carol Tavris's "Mistakes Were Made: updated...dissonance, democracy and the demagogue." The "update" was her personal diatribe against Donald Trump.
This brings up an excellent and now ever-present topic of affirmation, in my opinion. Due to culturally nurturing permissiveness, I’d say that people are increasingly reluctant to be skeptical of others, especially in psychotherapy where it’s a therapist's principle to affirm and validate. To confront means to risk. And it's not just about losing a client anymore.
Carol is correct as far as she goes, but psychology has strayed much farther in recent years, nicely illustrated by the bizarre session from APA described at the start. In 2000 Patricia Greenfield wrote a nice article partly titled "Why anthropology took post-modernism on the chin." At the very end Patricia refers to anthro's response as "self-flagellation" and that is exactly what psychology is engaged in now. Significant numbers in APA (and elsewhere), especially at the "top," have assumed psychology should feel guilt about its historical treatment of the "other," including the hegemony of "white epistemology" in the discipline, meaning of course objectivity and empiricism. Now we must honour other people's "ways of knowing" including magical thinking, for want of a better term. Perhaps people have followed what is happening in New Zealand where Maori beliefs are to be integrated with scientific perspectives in universities, by government decree essentially. Too many in psychology would welcome such initiatives.
By and large therapists are quacks that are not motivated to help let alone cure.
I realised this about 20 years ago and all I do now when I meet a therapist is ask them "What is your metric for success?" and if they can't give me a clear measurable metric I can judge them accordingly.
Illuminating and sadly relevant, even 20 years later, re. gender ideology. Thanks for giving this piece the attention it still deserves.
Thanks to Carol for this great read!