I'm listening to a podcast episode between Jordan Peterson and Abigail Shrier that frankly got me really excited when I first learned of its existence. Abigail is the author of a tremendously informed and eye-opening book, a deep dive into the transgender craze sweeping across the West. Now, as I understand it, she's promoting a new book examining the harm psychoterapy can do on a broader, less targeted level (i.e. not just in instilling and promoting radical actions like sex change operations).
And she brings to the table an interesting question, basically doubting the notion that everyone needs therapy. Now, as someone who's benefited a lot from therapy, I tend to agree with this notion. It does seem to me, on a general level, that most of us have unexamined issues in our past, in our existence and that our relationships could hugely benefit from having someone to talk through certain events with.
So right off the bat, I was a bit on edge with the interview. Here's two highly intelligent, educated people whose views I respect arguing against therapy.
Could therapy really not be for everyone?
Yet the more I thought about it, the more it dawned on me that we're talking about two different things. For me personally, therapy has been highly helpful. For people I love, likewise, therapy seems to have helped a great deal. But that's here.
I was reminded of people I know in the U.S. "care" system who've been made significantly worse by the whole psychological scene over there in the West. Only yesterday, I was speaking with someone dear to me who's going through a very difficult time because of the incompetence of therapists and the U.S. medical system. Of the people I know who've interacted with the U.S. therapy scene, alas, most are either fucked-up on meds or fucked-up refusing to take meds. Rightly so, mostly. Because how could you trust a doctor who will prescribe medication for anxiety and depression based on a 20-minute consultation?
But then, if the generalized opinion of the medical system is that that quick solution is the right one for your issues, how can you benefit from this system, while retaining your freedom and wellbeing? Perhaps I'm speaking out of turn, not having been a patient in that system myself, but it seems to me that the patient has very little autonomy or alternative, if he/she doesn't want to take the pills.
I'm sure this is not just in the U.S. ,though it is the States that instigated this sort of apathy and malevolence that has now spread to countries like the UK and Canada. Hence, my use of them as an example.
When I started therapy, I was quite wary myself of being referred to medication. So I talked with my therapist (who, of course, is not licensed to prescribe stuff, and would have to redirect me to a psychiatrist), and she assured me she would prescribe medication if she detected patterns in my life that veered towards extremities and couldn't otherwise be controlled, or caused significant disruption in my daily activities.
Obviously, that wasn't the case. Just like it wouldn't be the case in my American friend's example. Yet, I've been able to have a very fruitful and helpful experience in therapy, while she's been drugged up to the ears, finding little to no help in the system.
So returning to the question, is therapy for everyone, I still think it is. I think the world could do without this whole "therapy is for crazies" stigma and that more people with average lives (no great woes, no great highs) could benefit from taking some time to speak to somebody. Make themselves heard and perhaps ruminate on some events they've buried. I think that can be tremendously helpful.
Oddly enough, it leads me to a similar conclusion to the one from yesterday's post - that while I think therapy is beneficial, the Western medical system (like the electoral one) has become so spoiled and corrupt that little to no benefit can be got from it. That the change needed would be so radical and cause such upheaval that it seems very unlikely to ever happen. In which case, I'm probably wrong. Not everyone needs therapy. In fact, if that's what they can expect, the fewer people in therapy, the better.
Which is a proper shame when you consider most of us aren't "so bad". We just need a little push, the occasional kindly ear, or just someone to validate "our side of things". This could be so good. If only...
(Of course, the focus is as ever on the money, and psycho-medication seems to be an extremely lucrative business. It always seemed to me that therapy could be a pretty lucrative business, too, while also actually helping people. But who wants that?)
Oh well, back to my interview.
