> The CBT ppl just blink at me like the question is not on their manual.
What country? In England the IAPT programme (the main source of CBT) has extensive data collection on outcomes (probably the largest collection in the world) and a focus on getting more and better evidence to improve the service.
Chapter 3 and 6 of the IAPT manual are about evidence based practice and gathering better data:
https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/the-ia...
The data sets are here: https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/sta...
The latest (Jun 12 2018) says this
---begin quote---
Key Facts
In April 2018 there were:
-- 119,304 new referrals;
-- 85,145 referrals that entered treatment;
-- 47,296 referrals that finished a course of treatment, of which;
-- 89.4 per cent waited less than 6 weeks and 98.9 per cent waited less than 18 weeks to enter treatment;
-- 44,222 started their treatment at caseness, with 51.9 per cent moving to recovery.
---end quote---
There's some jargon there, but that's explained in the executive summary: https://files.digital.nhs.uk/D3/B3FC5F/iapt-month-apr-2018-e...
tl;dr: CBT is somewhat effective; it's more effective if you have CBT that follows the high intensity model (14 to 20 weeks, one hour per week, face to face one to one with a qualified therapist).
If you continuously end up in situations where you're seeing mental health professionals, you might consider just accepting their authority without the need to jump through your hoops.
"You have to be willing to help yourself" is perilously close to "psychotherapy only works on people who are capable of changing of their own volition", which calls into question the entire purpose of psychotherapy. If I could change my way of thinking through sheer force of will, why would I pay a professional $100 an hour to sit and listen while I do it? It evokes the classic defence of the quack - the spoon only bends if you truly believe in the power of the mind.
If that problem is framed as "some patients are too sick to treat", then at least it shifts the burden of responsibility onto the therapist; it's not the patient's fault that the psychotherapist lacks the neccesary tools to facilitate change. Blaming the patient for having a bad attitude just makes the profession of psychotherapy look ineffectual.
When I went in I had some major anxiety problems, and by working with my therapist I was able to identify where those problems came from. I started taking steps to change how I lived so I wasn't as anxious anymore.
What sort of magic are you expecting from psychotherapy? You're paying someone to help you solve your problems. You're not paying someone to solve your problems for you.
On the other hand, going to therapy is forcing yourself to do something that is difficult, sometimes painful and requires a lot of effort and resources (both time and money). I don't see the relationship between voluntarily going to therapy and advertising inducing you to buy things.
A real intervention doesn’t require someone to help themselves; an appendectomy doesn’t require patient participation and motivation.
Okay, this is clearly not what we were talking about. Sorry I was not more specific in my statement to generalize to all scenarios, ever.
Edit: I think it is also a pretty fair assumption that if someone is shot or their appendix is about to burst, they would want help. The key difference here is that someone who is shot is not capable of helping themselves - with regards to many things people go to therapy for, the only way to fix your problems is going to be taking some actions yourself.
I mean these are nice people with good intentions but so is a priest in a church or a temple. The whole thing feels half baked. Ya ya I know reprogramming the mind is complex and this is a work in progress. But my experience from work and coaching team sports is people follow authority figures when in doubt/outcomes are unknown. And most shrinks and counsellors in my case atleast are unable to establish authority.