62
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2024
62 points (97.0% liked)
chapotraphouse
13558 readers
770 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Gossip posts go in c/gossip. Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from c/gossip
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
How are you going to compel people to conform to the therapy?
You can drag a horse to water. You can't make it drink.
Again, that should absolutely be studied as part of the effectiveness of given therapies and methodologies. If the field fails to account for the high percentage of people who don't confirm to therapies for one reason or another, or to study those reasons and to find solutions, then what the fuck are the scientists doing?
I’m not going to say that the methodology doesn’t matter, but the #1 factor in whether therapy is going to work for someone is the level of trust with the therapist. That tops methodology, education, everything else. Certain therapies absolutely help certain things, but a good therapist isn’t trying to get anyone to “conform.”
Read the rest of my interactions with the other user in this comment chain
I did that before I responded. Sorry to interject if it didn’t fit.
Oh no, all good, just wanted to say that I've mostly addressed it in my other interactions
It is studied as a part of the effectiveness. Nobody claimed that there is a high percentage of bad patients. Just that they exist.
The focus on "bad patients" is faulty from a pragmatic point of view. It leads to thinking "certain people just don't wanna be helped". If you reframe it as people who for example by social conditioning or by public opinion or trust on psychology, don't fully accept treatment, or people who for actual reasons aren't receptive to treatment, the framing leads you to finding solutions to those problems instead of just dismissing them as "bad patients", as happens with students. I bet my ass that "bad patients" correlate with demographic and economic factors, i.e., "bad patients" are a product of the environment that can be fixed by altering the environment in a very similar fashion to how "criminals" are a overwhelmingly byproduct of the system and surrounding conditions.
Automatically assuming that bad patients don't exist is faulty in and of itself. Of course some people don't want to be helped - Not everyone is ready to be helped, and not everyone thinks that they need to be "helped". You cannot help someone that doesn't want to be helped.
Again, focusing on "bad patients" instead of the environment that creates them, is like focusing on "criminals" instead of their surrounding socioeconomic environment
Nobody is focusing on them. Just admitting that they exist.
Yeah the behaviours you mentioned are a sign of a "difficult" patient (not the individual therapist's fault nor the patient's fault), not a "bad" patient. A "bad" patient cannot exist because the goal is a constant never-ending striving to get as close to 100% of the population healthy no matter what. Saying "what can we do, x% are morally bad so fuck em they deserve to suffer unless they become good" is neoliberal thinking and unacceptable.
Furthermore, such behaviours are indicative moreso of a sick society which tries to compartmentalize the healing of a person's mental illness to a paid hourly visit per week and does fuck all to collectively address any compounding factors that may exacerbate their condition, nor try and help them further, outside of this relationship.
you're fuckin suss