David Baxter PhD
Late Founder
Then I'm afraid you are totally missing what psychotherapy is all about. I wish you good luck in your search for information nonetheless.
- Thread starter stopdog
- Start date
Then I'm afraid you are totally missing what psychotherapy is all about. I wish you good luck in your search for information nonetheless.
Oh, come on
I don't know anyone who has blindly followed their own therapist. Indeed, it would seem paternalistic to believe that a client needs two therapists to help him gain perspective, especially since there are millions of self-help books out there.There's a lot of truth in the old joke about "How many therapists does it take to change a light bulb?" The answer is not two
....The light bulb has to want to change.I do not think it is needed to have two therapists to gain perspective. That is not what I meant. Therapists hate to be questioned about how therapy works because they do not know (as in there is no answer to your question as to how to know if this is working - you just feel it; if you are asking these questions then you don't trust me enough soyou should leave, and so forth), so I think it can help someone understand by being able to compare. I am certainly not advocating it for anyone else - just wondering why it seems so condemned by therapists. I really just wondered why, if a client was willing to pay and not try to make them hear about each other, a therapist would CARE if someone saw two. The thrust was what difference does it make to the therapist.
1) That's not my experience at all.
2) Ask for CBT if you want a more evidence-based approach. I would agree that psychodynamic therapy is far less focused on doing research studies.
Usually, the most objective way I can tell I am improving is greater functioning. The other answers seem reasons to find another therapist.
Again, I wonder if you are better off with a therapist whose primary focus is CBT rather than psychodynamic since CBT is more mainstream and evidence-based.
My edited post to clarify:
I do not think it is needed to have two therapists to gain perspective. That is not what I meant. In my experience, therapists hate to be questioned/get very irritated when a clients asks about how therapy works or how to tell if it is working because they do not know (as in there is no answer to your question as to how to know if this is working - you just feel it; if you are asking these questions then you don't trust me enough so you should quit - it is not going to work for you if you do not just shut up and trust the process but no one can explain to you what the process is, and so forth), so I think it can help someone understand by being able to compare. I am certainly not advocating it for anyone else - just wondering why it seems so condemned by therapists. I really just wondered why, if a client was willing to pay and not try to make them hear about each other, a therapist would CARE if someone saw two. The thrust was what difference does it make to the therapist.
I do not think it is needed to have two therapists to gain perspective. That is not what I meant. In my experience, therapists hate to be questioned/get very irritated when a clients asks about how therapy works or how to tell if it is working because they do not know (as in there is no answer to your question as to how to know if this is working - you just feel it; if you are asking these questions then you don't trust me enough so you should quit - it is not going to work for you if you do not just shut up and trust the process but no one can explain to you what the process is, and so forth), so I think it can help someone understand by being able to compare. I am certainly not advocating it for anyone else - just wondering why it seems so condemned by therapists. I really just wondered why, if a client was willing to pay and not try to make them hear about each other, a therapist would CARE if someone saw two. The thrust was what difference does it make to the therapist.
Hi stopdog. If you want to talk to someone that “sucks at doing it” (therapy), I’m your person. And I have had two therapists at the same time on multiple occasions over the years. I had three therapists that did not have an issue with it, and I have had three that had (serious) issues with it.
My reasons (I think) for multiple therapists were:
a) excessive neediness (I needed more support than just the scheduled appointment with one therapist to get me through the time period between appointments and felt that it was too much burden to place on the one therapist to ask them to “give me” still more time/attention – like they didn’t want to spend the time they had to with me, so they certainly wouldn’t want to spend even more) and
b) assistance dealing with the other therapist (I always used the second therapist as support/encouragement for dealing with the first therapist....I wasn’t so much addressing my “issues” with both therapists….well, other than my “issues” of being able to deal with human beings in general…it was therapy to help me deal with therapy
)You indicated that you “suck at doing it” (therapy) and that you want to get a wider field of feedback by consulting multiple therapists, just to make sure you are getting the best advice (sorry if I misunderstood - I kind of read that out of your earlier posts in the thread). I can understand that. You don’t want to put “all your eggs in one basket” so to speak, since you are able to pay for multiple therapists. This would a) give you more feedback and b) provide evidence that the feedback you are getting is “good” since both therapists are saying the same thing. That makes complete logical sense.
I wonder also, if it helps you to hold your “issues” at arm’s length, and view them “objectively”, “practically”, in an “arm’s length” way…..like you would view other problems in your life – like you have a flat tire, it is what it is, how do I fix it – well A says do it this way, B says that way, ok….fair enough – I know what I want to accomplish – I want to be able to get in my car and drive again – so whose approach seems to be able to get this tire changed the “best” (and if it were me, “best” would mean in the fastest and easiest way – because if both approaches get the tire changed, no point in struggling more than necessary, that in fact would be kind of stupid….)
In my opinion, you can’t deal with “issues” that are brought to therapy in the same non-arm’s length, unemotional, detached way you view other problems in life. It just doesn’t work that way. These “issues” *are* emotional – I wish they weren’t, but I believe they are. You might want to keep them separate from yourself, in an attempt to distance yourself from the pain and hurt they cause/inflict upon you – but at the end of the day, in order to confront them and deal with them, you have to acknowledge that they are part of you, within you. This isn’t about “fixing” a tangible, external, inanimate object – this is about *you* and you can’t distance yourself from *you*….well, not if you want to address the problems and once and for all, deal with them and “fix” them.
I don’t know if you think this could apply in your case, but I think this is where the others were trying to talk about how therapy is about building a relationship to work through things. Because the matters are so personal and sensitive, it is hard enough to acknowledge them to yourself, let alone let in one or more other people. By building a relationship with a therapist, you are not just working on building trust with another human, you are working on building a team to help you address *your* issues, to deal with *yourself*. You are building a support system that will allow you to face your demons so to speak once and for all. And because it is such a personal, intimate thing – where you are vulnerable and exposed – to ask yourself to “trust” one person is a big enough deal on its own….but to ask yourself to open yourself up in this way to a second, or more people – well, for me that would just put up the walls again and return to the non-arm’s length, unattached approach that separates my “issues” from *me*. The way I prefer it – to be uninvolved and detached – if I don’t let my “issues” near me, they can’t cause me any further pain. And yet, if I can’t get “over” my “issues”, I will never be free of their pain….catch 22.
I don’t know if that might be what you are doing – trying to remain unemotionally involved (to minimize your pain) – and if having multiple therapists, for “logical” reasons, might enable you to do this. It might be something to consider, given you said therapy hasn’t been helping you to date.
The therapists that I have had, that were against multiple therapists, their concern was indeed that I would not build a bond with them, trust them, if I didn’t commit to the therapeutic process with them. That I would only maintain superficial relationships and keep all the therapists at arm’s length, and therein never fully accept and deal with my issues….because I never had a support person I fully trusted, I would never get to the point of being able to deal with my issues. And yes, I do believe, since therapists are human, that sometimes it is about ego and being personally hurt, but not on purpose. But by seeing a second therapist, the first therapist can be left to feel like well you don’t think I’m good enough and that can lead to hurt feelings and completely destroy the therapeutic bond…from the therapist side, rather than the client side.
I don't know if this is too off-topic given your main question is why therapists would care...I think it isn't so much for themselves that they care (outside of the ego issue), but that ethically they have to keep your best interests as their focus. And as I hopefully tried to explain above, building that therapeutic relationship is the way they (in my opinion) see you being able to solve and work through your issues.
Marcel - thank you for your thoughtful reply. Indeed I am reluctant to place all my eggs in one basket and I see the problem as being their ego at risk (or thoughts of liability, not getting credit for being the one who helps etc) as their big reason for being against it. Mine do not know about each other and I am not certain one way or the other if they would strongly object or not, but as I have not asked, there is always the idea that I do not want to know their response to the situation. I think I just do not believe it is any concern of theirs, but it could be for more nefarious reasons. I guess I will have to see if a therapeutic bond can be built by me with two at the same time or not. Theoretically I do not see why it would not be possible to have a therapeutic bond with two people at the same time. One can have two lovers, two children, etc all at the same time with emotional connections to all. This is the first time I have tried having two at one time - so it can't fail any more than my two earlier attempts at doing it the conventional way. More costly, yes, but more of a failure - probably not.
Re: Why not see two therapists on a regular basis
Another bad thing about having two at the same time would be how you took their advice. What if one said something to you that you deep down know is true but you really don't want to hear it. The other says something more flattering to you. Which one are you going to listen too? The one who may have bruised your own ego a little bit by speaking the truth or the one that makes you feel good?
Another bad thing about having two at the same time would be how you took their advice. What if one said something to you that you deep down know is true but you really don't want to hear it. The other says something more flattering to you. Which one are you going to listen too? The one who may have bruised your own ego a little bit by speaking the truth or the one that makes you feel good?
And sometimes faster/easier isn't better. Sometimes it's better to go the slow road so it is you who took the initiative or asserted communication or whatever, whereas if a 2nd therapist coaxes/encourages you to do something more quickly... What if one therapist (A) said to try meditation and medication for a month with weekly visits and having you journal your thoughts on something so you could get to a solution yourself, but the other therapist (B) decided right off the bat from firing questions at you that you have [condition] and need [medication] and you will have to do this [behaviour modification].
So if you took the advice of (A) how could you do (B)? Or if you chose to go with (B) how could you do (A)? Because (A) wants you to take the time to find out for yourself and process it, whereas (B) has already made up his/her mind what the problem is and thinks he\she has a solution for you. What if (A) is better for you in the long run, but you pick (B) because you prefer it when someone tells you what to do and it seems faster and easier?
So if you took the advice of (A) how could you do (B)? Or if you chose to go with (B) how could you do (A)? Because (A) wants you to take the time to find out for yourself and process it, whereas (B) has already made up his/her mind what the problem is and thinks he\she has a solution for you. What if (A) is better for you in the long run, but you pick (B) because you prefer it when someone tells you what to do and it seems faster and easier?
I knew there was a boatload of reasons
To add to the list.....Regarding lifestyle changes, there's a certain amount of trial and error involved. Otherwise, you may be dealing with just thought experiments in your mind. So even if all three therapists -- why limit yourself to two? -- agree on something, that doesn't mean it is more true for you than something they would disagree about.
To add to the list.....Regarding lifestyle changes, there's a certain amount of trial and error involved. Otherwise, you may be dealing with just thought experiments in your mind. So even if all three therapists -- why limit yourself to two? -- agree on something, that doesn't mean it is more true for you than something they would disagree about.
I knew there was a boatload of reasons
. So even if all three therapists -- why limit yourself to two? -- agree on something, that doesn't mean it is more true for you than something they would disagree about.
There is a limit to my funds and my time - which is why not 3, although if I had more of both - then even more would seem a viable possibility. I never said just because they agreed it would necessarily be be more true but would seem to be less likely to be complete quackery or simple personality of the therapist.
If they gave conflicting advice it seems easy enough to try one route and then the other and see which one worked. It is for me it is not so much the idea of quick and easy but rather rational and efficient - those are not the same thing. The elusive component in therapy is how to tell if therapy is working at all or even making the situation much much worse.
Anyway - it seems to be working for me right now, certainly better for me than when I tried just having one.
---------- Post added at 05:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:08 PM ----------
How would it be worse than if one had just chosen B (who sounds like a terrible therapist) as their only therapist? Then the only information one is getting is the information that, in your hypo, is not the best advice. With both of them you could at least try one approach and then the other to see what worked best.
The impression I get, though, is that things aren't going well. That things are just less worse than before. Were your previous therapists also psychodynamic in focus?
Yep, you're right. I'm no therapist, so I shouldn't really be doing comparisons/scenarios. All I meant was if (A) was good advice but completely different and even conflicting from (B) I don't know what I would do. I wouldn't be able to do both, it would have to be one or the other, and if I select one over the other, then one of the therapists will know I am not doing what he/she wants me to.
Listen to the other guys who are actually therapists, they know more about what they are talking about than I am. I am just sticking my preference and my nose where it doesn't belong. Sorry about that.
Listen to the other guys who are actually therapists, they know more about what they are talking about than I am. I am just sticking my preference and my nose where it doesn't belong. Sorry about that.
I appreciate you adding your take on the situation and I respect your preference. Thanks.
Regarding measuring progress:
Regarding the client-therapist relationship:
And regarding the limits of insight:
Daniel - thank you for the links.
"This new relationship is warm, accepting, respectful and non-judgmental."
I have never found a therapeutic relationship to be any of those things. I find them more like going in and doing battle with an adversary to whom I have handed an entire arsenal of weaponry to use against me and I have no ability to wound them back. Anything the client says or does has a handy label placed on it in order to distance the therapist from any part in perhaps being wrong.
"This new relationship is warm, accepting, respectful and non-judgmental."
I have never found a therapeutic relationship to be any of those things. I find them more like going in and doing battle with an adversary to whom I have handed an entire arsenal of weaponry to use against me and I have no ability to wound them back. Anything the client says or does has a handy label placed on it in order to distance the therapist from any part in perhaps being wrong.
It seems you are trying to avoid the issue of establishing trust with your therapist by trying to see two therapists. But now you have two therapists that you don't trust. And so now it is still just as easy as before to try to avoid opening up in therapy. You may easily talk during the whole hour, but you may be keeping your cards close to your chest.
Replying is not possible. This forum is only available as an archive.
Similar threads
