Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ttidcc.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe From: hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) Newsgroups: net.singles Subject: Re: self-actualization Message-ID: <655@ttidcc.UUCP> Date: Thu, 8-Aug-85 16:13:10 EDT Article-I.D.: ttidcc.655 Posted: Thu Aug 8 16:13:10 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 11-Aug-85 06:14:53 EDT References: <1744@reed.UUCP> <621@ttidcc.UUCP> <1680@hao.UUCP> Reply-To: hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) Organization: The Cat Factory Lines: 137 Summary: In article <1680@hao.UUCP> woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) writes: > ... I agree persons who are not qualified should not be >giving psychotherapy. But, what you are calling "amateur psychology", by >which I assume you are referring to things like Lifespring, EST and other >awareness or personal growth training courses, IS NOT THERAPY NOR IS IT >INTENDED TO BE OR TO REPLACE THERAPY. Actually, "amateur psychology" covers a much broader multitude of sins (in my opinion). It includes anyone doing counseling who is un- or undertrained and unsupervised. That takes in a lot of religious counselors, Dear Abby, and most marriage counselors among others. Note: I'm not attacking any specific program. There are some that are well run, with qualified people in charge, who carefully screen their clients and have professional psychologists standing by to help anyone who gets into serious trouble. My quarrel is with those who do none of these things. As for whether or not something is therapy (regardless of what it claims to be), that's one of the knottiest and most controversial questions in the psychological field, both legally and ethically. I will not attempt to rule one way or another on a subject that some of the greatest minds in the field are still knocking their heads against. > In order to do the Lifespring training, you have to sign a statement >saying that you are aware that the Lifespring course is NOT psychotherapy >nor is it intended to replace the same. This is just a legal cop-out. It gets them around licensing laws by letting them claim not to be doing therapy and getting the client's "informed consent" and acknowledgement. I used to know a therapist who was licensed in California but wanted to give seminars and do therapy in Washington (state). Because there was no reciprocity in the respective licensing laws he had all his Washington clients sign an agreement acknowledging that he was only a "facilitator" and was not a licensed therapist. What he actually did in Washington didn't differ significantly from what he did in California (and he charged the same $70/hour for "facilitating" as he did for therapy). _Anyone_, licensed or not, could do the same. Again, the reason things like this exist is because there is no legal definition of what constitutes therapy vs. counseling vs. self-help training, etc. > In fact, if you are currently in >or have been in therapy within the last 6 months, you have to have a >therapist's signature on the registration form. Another legal technicality. This avoids a lot of trouble from law suits. If you look far enough (usually not very far) you can find someone willing to sign almost anything. Many of the self-help programs will be happy to refer you to such. > The Lifespring course, and >other awareness training courses, are designed for people whose lives basically >work, but somehow know they could have it better than they do, *NOT* for people >whose lives are a total mess that need therapy. This is a common misconception about who needs therapy. Plenty of people, myself included, go to therapists for personal growth. You don't have to be suicidal or psychotic or a bag-person to want or need therapy. Also, many people don't realize their lives are "a total mess" until some amateur misuses a technique they've read about to rip their psychological guts open then leave them bleeding because they don't know how to repair the damage and don't have any qualified supervision to call on for help. > The "wreckage" you speak of is often caused by people who really need therapy >going into an awareness training course. True. It's also caused by people going to unqualified "counselors", self- appointed transactional analysts, misc. priests, the occasional incompetent psychologist (they certainly exist), etc., etc. In addition to the non-trivial requirements of obtaining a Ph.D., licensed psychologists spend thousands of hours in supervised internships before they're allowed to have patients of their own. Even then, most have arrangements with fellow psychologists for supervision and detached opinions. Merely having read _I'm OK, Your OK_, or some other equivalent doesn't qualify anyone to mess with other peoples' minds. It's the people who think it does that I'm set against. Many (not all) of the awareness/self-help courses don't screen their clients for anything other than bank-balance. With some others, the screening is purely a formality or consists of an MMPI administerd by someone with no training in psychometrics or any other qualifications for interpreting the scores. When someone who does need therapy gets into trouble in such a seminar (this could be anything from a minor crying jag to a full psychotic break) there are usually no qualified personnel standing by to deal with the situation. > But you really shouldn't make >blanket generalizations about "amateur psycholgy". I, and several people I >know, have gotten a *great deal* of benefit out of awareness training courses. >All *you* are qualified to say is that it isn't therapy (I agree), that those >who give those courses are not trained psychologists (they do not claim to be), >and that you don't see any value in it for *you* (nothing wrong with that, >either). I am a living counterexample to a blanket condemnation of awareness >trainings. First, I don't recall making any blanket condemnations of awareness training programs per se. I think that was your interpretation. Second, I'm _not_ qualified to say that what they do isn't therapy and I'm not sure anyone is, though they can claim whatever they want. As for amateur psychology, which I define as un- or under-qualified people messing with other peoples' minds in an unsupervised situation. I must continue to condemn that as a dangerous, illegal, and unethical practice on a par with medical quackery and even harder to prove. Finally, I agree that some people derive benefits from groups like est and Lifespring (which I have no personal experience of). I don't intend to point an accusatory finger at any specific group that I've no detailed information on (e.g.: Lifespring). Even qualified, licensed therapists have both positive and negative results in their practices. My concern is with the handling (and minimizing) of the negative results. Too many people have come out of bad therapy/counseling/awareness experiences psychologically devastated with no ongoing support to help them deal with their feelings. Creating a situation where such can happen is a violation of the ethics code of almost any helping profession you can name. Sorry if this has run on a bit. I really should put a safety on my diatribe button. On a tangent: Has anyone heard how Werner Ehrhard is doing with acknowledging personal responsibility for the tax-evasion charges against him? (-:{ -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe) Citicorp TTI Common Sense is what tells you that a ten 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. pound weight falls ten times as fast as a Santa Monica, CA 90405 one pound weight. (213) 450-9111, ext. 2483 {philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe