I largely agree with the post, however I don't really encounter the "therapy is the end-all" sentiment in the wild. Most people who I talk to or hear from realize therapy is just another tool, which compliments exercise, diet and other self-care techniques (which could include medication management as well).

>Self-reflection, a cornerstone of many therapeutic interventions, is a slippery slope. If not careful, it can amplify self-focus and aggravate rumination—the clinical term for repetitive negative thoughts about what can, did or will go wrong.

This is absolutely true for some people, me included. I have learned to deal with these things in other ways but for the longest time I was stuck ruminating over stuff that happened decades ago and it always led to catastrophe.

I would never speak to a therapist unless all the laws regarding mandatory reporting, red flags, FAA and firearms licensing record searches, and involuntary committal are repealed. Until then they are a huge blinking hazard that the slightest misinterpreted phrase will result in serious legal hassles.

Probably better to talk to a therapist overseas virtually to avoid silly government rules. It also lets you keep a good therapist even when you move to a different territory or change insurance (as an American)

Likewise.

And for the same reason, you should probably lie to your doctor about any drug use, past or present. Which is a terrible policy to have, as you may be given treatments or prescriptions that interact negatively. But at least you can independently research those possible effects.

An example of a variant on this, when my wife and I started the journey to adopt in our State (NJ), we were required to give permission to speak to our doctors, and they went through everything. I mentioned something once to my doctor about cutting down on alcohol and that became a big deal in our interviews with State workers.

I'd be curious when adoption started becoming so much more cumbersome, and whether the outcomes for the children have been significantly better. Including taking into account that some children get left to bounce around in foster care because loving parents who want to adopt them get hit as "false positives" as baddies in the onerous screening process.

Agree with you. Being committed is the same as being in jail. They take your belongings and lock you in a room with a guard making sure you don't leave. Then you stay there at their discretion. I understand the reasoning in that if you hold someone off from suicide it should subside hopefully but it's all guesswork.

I keep seeing articles about a new suicide booth in Switzerland and the rate of euthanasia increasing in Canada... I understand people don't have a solution, but it feels like the experts aren't even trying. I think some good advice is to treat therapy like medicine and realize it might not solve the problem and there are real risks involved. I don't want to turn anyone away from therapy, but it isn't for me.

> I understand people don't have a solution, but it feels like the experts aren't even trying.

This is definitely the vibe I get from the mental health establishment. There's so much hot air about "awareness" and "stigma" and telling people "there is help", but that's essentially just marketing. That's not going to do much for someone who's seen a dozen therapists and tried as many medications to virtually no effect, or someone who found the "right treatment" and can hold down a job now but still feels like shit most of the time.

I was taken involuntarily to a hospital.

I was immediately presumed guilty and cursed at by nurses. Looked down upon by cops. Laughed at when I asked for a signed warrant or consent before acting.

Oh yeah, I wasn't there for a mental health hold. A cop claimed there were drugs up my ass. Literally.

They found nothing. Never got an apology. Just a bunch of judgemental assholes that assume if you're being evaluated for something it must be true. Even when discharged they marked "overdose" on my paperwork.... I was stone cold sober and was only there because some officer apparently thought I fit the profile of a drug smuggler. The medical workers didn't want to admit they were wrong so they just marked it as an overdose when absolutely nothing was found, including never performing a tox screen (it would have been negative). On the way out the doctor bragged about how he was monitoring closely to try and find a way to hold me longer, with the implied threat being he had hoped since whatever preconceived notion he had about me being a drug smuggler had no evidence that he could punish me instead by involuntarily committing me.

I was admitted "voluntarily", and it wasn't a whole lot better. I went willingly, and then when I started having second thoughts they basically told me to either sign the consent form or they'd do things the hard way. I didn't face any direct abuse, but the whole framework was organized around achieving compliance, not remission. Some people working there seemed to actually care, but they also had no actual power to improve things.

It's not a great situation to be in, and I absolutely would lie to a mental health professional to avoid going through it again.

If I knew you and you said that to me, I would consider that a huge red flag. What is it that you think you were going to say to a therapist that is going to wind up triggering any of the things you just mentioned?

Therapists aren’t just running around mandatory reporting people for talking about their problems. The things that you mention are triggered when someone is at risk either the patient presents a very clear hazard to themselves or others, or a therapist learns about abuse.

I’ve never heard of this happening lightly. The idea that a misinterpreted phrase is going to land you in legal trouble or involuntarily committed is simply wrong.

Source: am married to a therapist and know what actually would trigger mandatory reporting. They might need some tweaking, but they absolutely shouldn’t be repealed.

It's a red flag to be worried that you could possibly be misinterpreted and that the misinterpretation (innocent or otherwise) could lead to a red flag? That is some dystopian shit.... I'm not even allowed to be a skeptic about the red flag without being flagged. I think you've proven the case as to why I wouldn't want to see a therapist.

If you have an understanding of what leads to mandatory reporting, etc., and you think something you say is going to put you in jeopardy during a therapy session, it's absolutely a red flag. Just what in the Hell do you think you're going to say to a therapist that's going to trigger a mandatory report? Is there some huge wave of people being involuntarily committed I've somehow missed?

Therapists don't try to have people committed or make reports lightly. They're not going to try to take your guns away or have you committed because you use bad words or seem angry during a session. They're not going to report you or whatever for disclosing drug use, or an unusual (but consensual) fetish.

They won't even report you or try to have you committed if you talk about suicide unless you meet certain criteria around likely self-harm. Saying, "man, I just don't want to live anymore" isn't going to do it. Saying "I don't want to live anymore and I have a plan to end my life in the next 24 hours" might. Even then, they're going to try really hard to guide you to voluntary actions and not involuntary ones.

The mandatory reporting laws are in place for specific scenarios like imminent danger, self-harm, or child abuse.

So - if you've actually looked into this at all and think "hey, something I say in therapy is going to trigger mandatory reporting" - yeah, that's a huge, enormous, red flag.

As I said, I'm married to a therapist. I know pretty well what triggers these things, what the process is, etc. It is an enormous headache for a therapist to have to do any of this - and it's certainly not like they're getting paid extra for every patient they report. And it's not like they have a red button that sends the men in white coats running into the room.

In normal therapy it's a multi-step process of notifications and follow-ups where a patient would have ample opportunity to raise objections, etc. If law enforcement is involved, they're not going to just cuff somebody and ask questions later unless you confess to murder in a session or something. And, maybe it's just me, but I kind of think mandatory reporting laws that kick in if someone admits to murder or imminent plans to murder someone are a good thing, not a bad one.

If you're working with a therapist through a hospital or whatever, they'll have a risk management department that will be involved in these scenarios. They're not going to support mandatory reporting or involuntary committing unless they feel it's necessary. If anything, those institutions are probably going to be biased against these things because of costs.

Independent therapists are going to avoid this because it's a huge hassle for them, too. Plus it's usually going to risk their relationship with that patient and possibly put them at liability if the patient decides to sue or go after them with their certifying board. (There is also risk, of course, if they clearly have a mandatory reporting situation and don't take action.)

I'm just curious, but have you ever been confined in a hospital because of a misunderstanding? This is something that actually happened to me, it was an awful experience and I was treated like shit and then left with debt collectors chasing me when it was all over (despite being vindicated of the accusation). I'd like to believe humans aren't capable of misunderstandings, but sadly this doesn't match my experience of reality.

It's honestly quite an astonishing revelation that you've said being cautious about these possibilities in this way is a certain red flag. That's basically a "thought crime" where being cynical of the system makes you an even bigger concern than someone who says they have a plan to end their life in the next 24 hours which apparently only earns a "might" be a flagging. Thus I choose not to interact, to the extent I can, with said system.

> Is there some huge wave of people being involuntarily committed I've somehow missed?

Sort of. It's more complicated than providers necessarily jumping through the formal hoops every time; it can be a mix of informal coercion, asking leading questions to prompt the necessary "red flag" answers, and putting up practical barriers to the person leaving even if they're "voluntarily" admitted on paper. [1] [2] [3] [4]

[1] https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/rosalindadams/intake

[2] https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/rosalindadams/largest-u...

[3] https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/pub...

[4] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9937983/

There's also often little punishment for a provider acting outside of consent or court order.

For half of my confinement, the health care providers had neither my consent nor a court order allowing care. Some of them chose to touch me against my will anyway. I presented a signed/sworn affidavit with the signatures of two doctors, another nurse, an HSI detective, and a federal judge showing they had acted before they had a court order or consent. The state board rejected the claim, stating medical care providers can provide care involuntarily even when the patient is alert/oriented/capable of informed denial of consent even when there is no order and in my case even when there was no evidence of altered mental state or mental disorder.

That is, the state board's claim is a health care provider can do what they damn well please under the banner of health care without consent, regardless of the (lack) of presence fo a court order or other legal basis otherwise. There's simply no punishment.

The interesting thing is, when they finally did get a warrant to act without consent, they refused to do anything further. By then, their legal department got involved and realized I was going to sue the ever living shit out of them when nothing was found. That is, in the end it was discovered for some health care providers they never gave a single shit about the rights of the patient; the only thing that talks is money.

It sounds like you need a lawyer not a therapist.

maslow's hierarchy of useful professionals for dealing with life's traumas

       therapist
      d o c t o r
    l  a  w  y  e  r
  s  t  r  i  p  p  e  r

The most important thing around therapy is to realize that therapists are people, and some are good at it and some..not so good. I have seen it work, and seen it be a total disaster, and who the therapist is seems to be a large percentage of that.

Not only that, but also there needs to be a good match between therapist and patient. A therapist may be the best ever with one patient, and terrible with another, depending on the personalities involved.

I think when someone is seeking therapy, they should be prepared to have to try out a few different ones before finding the right one for them.

Very good point. We had to do that with one family member who just does not respond well to men, as one example.

That's a great example. Or, some people respond better to a stern therapist, and some better to a gentle therapist, and so forth. And, as mystickphoenix said, what sort of therapy they offer makes a big difference.

One thing that a therapist friend mentioned was that if you go see one, and they're just not working for you, to tell the therapist what it is that isn't fitting well. They very likely know a number of different therapists and may be able to point you to someone more suitable.

In addition, pay attention the modalit(ies) of the therapist. If you've tried a few therapists and haven't found one that clicked, try one that emphasizes a different modality.

As an example: Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) vs. Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) vs. Freudian Psychotherapy vs. Ketamine Therapy vs. [insert whatever modality you'd like]

Pilots and airplane mechanics are also people, but when someone dies in a plane crash, it's headline news for weeks as we interrogate how the system failed.

Holding a system to this level of scrutiny is a choice.

I'd totally want a quality controlled AI therapist I could talk to on my own computer. Preferably run within a throwaway docker container or similar.

There have been a few (not docker containers but Facebook bots and such) and they perform in study as well as a real therapist does, that is to say not very well but sometimes it helps people. You can find a variety in apps on phones and such but its obviously a big data grab rather than the nice private medical data thing that we would actually want.

I get that it is trying to be contrarian to the popular book with a similar title.

I just fundamentally disagree. You need to vent sometimes, you need to get it out of your head and into the world. You need someone to lend an ear here and there. You can’t talk about certain repressed emotions with certain people either.

The trend seems to show we are more “connected” but more lonely than ever. How many people who frequent HN for example have someone they talk to about their life’s problems frequently? How many of those people want to be the person that only hear you venting without feeling used?

Therapists serve a wonderful purpose. Little strings attached, you can vent to someone and get feedback. Don't like them? Find a new one just like you would a friend or family member who doesn’t want to listen.

If America valued communities like they did many decades ago, we wouldn’t need as much mental health support because we would already be getting it. But therapy is a tool to be used and many do not ever utilize it. To generalize like this article is trying to do is a shame. There’s plenty of therapists that help people see the bottlenecks in their lives to then fix and become happier and no longer need it.

I will 100% agree with the idea of stress to strength. Pavlov famously did experiments late in life on breaking dogs down with enough stress only to reverse the effects with enough stress.

> “[Pavlov] spent the rest of his long life giving stress-induced nervous breakdowns to dogs, after which he would try to reverse the breakdowns, all the while keeping careful experimental records.

> “He found (1) that he could classify dogs so as to predict how easily a particular dog would breakdown; (2) that the dogs hardest to break down were also the hardest to return to their pre-breakdown state; (3) that any dog could be broken down; and (4) that he couldn’t reverse a breakdown except by reimposing stress.”

Oh and the most common way to resolve said issues? A relatedness or connectedness to something.

* * *

Your question would be answered by seeking help to see if it is right for you and for a common sense therapist to reject you if you’re doing fine. Sadly that is unlikely given incentives and the need to keep practicing.

They are great arguments but just feels generalizing something many don’t even do to begin with.

> To generalize like this article is trying to do

This comes off like you didn't read the article. The author instead seems to be speaking against a certain generalization that therapy is never a bad thing.

> To be clear, I am a fan of therapy, and as a practicing psychiatrist for almost 20 years, I have witnessed many patients improve in treatment. However, the therapy-is-the-answer model is problematic for several reasons.

The author is suggesting that therapy isn't always the answer to every problem. I think the author even agrees with you that therapy is often a good answer to many common problems.

Tough love / common sense therapists are fine, they don’t provide any solutions though.

Do parents need to spend more time with troubled kids? Do you as an individual just suck it up and move on to only have problems later in life? Generalizing in this way sounds like “not my problem”. In life you either teach people or put up with them. This article suggests people just become self-reliant. We all know that doesn’t just happen overnight.

Most professions that are noble ought to be putting themselves out of a job. Doctors, therapists, educators, etc. Not just passing the buck.

I think I would agree with the article more if it were framed "Maybe You Don't Need to Talk to Just Anyone", as in, you might only find helpful outcomes from the right therapist.

There are different approaches to therapy. The article points out some ways that talk therapy could actually make problems worse, not better. But a good therapist would recognize the kind of problem their patient is experiencing, get to know their patient, and opt for a treatment path or an approach to talk therapy that will not be detrimental.

And therapy goes way beyond "talking about your problems to a professional." Dialectical Behavioral Therapy, for instance, is a structured process that is often utilized specifically in cases where talk therapy would not be effective. [0]

Therapy isn't the answer to every problem, sure. It's not going to help me unclog the garbage disposal. But I think the generalization that most people would be better off with the support of a good therapist is a true one. And sure, that's just my own opinion - but it's my view that mental hygiene isn't that different from the other ways we maintain the health of our bodies, and most people don't seem to object to the generalized advice that everyone should see a dentist twice a year.

Some of the points this article raises, like the negative effects of rumination or the potential utility of stress, are already known to me because I learned about them from my therapist, advising me about them!

Choosing the right therapist can be a challenge though, especially if you don't know what a good therapeutic outcome should look/feel like. I think most of the advice in this article would be better applied to "how do I choose the right therapist" than "should I just completely rule out therapy."

[0]https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/treatments/22838-diale...

Thanks for explaining your perspective. This is a reasonable take to have. This is a good summary of your thoughts (your summary):

> I think most of the advice in this article would be better applied to "how do I choose the right therapist" than "should I just completely rule out therapy."

FWIW, I read this advice as, "How do I choose the right therapy?" which is similar to what you're saying. I can see how someone reads this as the latter, however.

I think that's a fair reading, but I think choosing the right therapy is best done with the guidance of a good therapist. Of course, educating yourself first helps a lot, since you can better recognize if that therapist knows their stuff and can more productively discuss the options with them.

> To generalize like this article is trying to do is a shame.

It seems to me that the article's author is trying to do the opposite of generalize. They are in fact saying that generalizing is not good; specifically that assuming everyone needs therapy for everything might not be a good stance.

Personally it reads like they are talking about a problem they perceive the world is doing. If therapy was the “go to” thing, wouldn’t more people be in it? Wouldn’t it be more accessible by now? Maybe 20% of people seek it in a year.

What about how many people see the “go to” thing as a sign of weakness? It’s just hard to make these blanket statements, that’s why I commented.

I'm not clear on why I should provide an email address to access a chatbot.

I think I'll stick with the one that comes with GNU Emacs (M-x doctor).

Hi there and thank you for your response!

Asking for users' emails as part of the signup process is a reasonable way to verify that your chatbot is being used by real people. I am sure to handle users' information with care and respect their privacy.

> I am sure to handle users' information with care and respect their privacy.

How? Is this data end-to-end encrypted? How long do you retain it? What will you do if a government shows up with a warrant or subpoena?

It's important to clarify that emails are only retained for the duration of the chat session and are not stored beyond that. This approach ensures that users' email addresses are only used for verification purposes and are not vulnerable to unauthorized access or misuse.

As a man, talk therapy has never worked for me. CBT helps me cope with negative emotions, but doesn't fix their cause (life under "capitalism" in the US). What's worked for me has been physical activity that doesn't involve a computer:

* bashing out heavy metal on a cello (think Apocalyptica but without talent)

* lifting weights

* pounding a heavy punching bag

As a result, I view advice to get therapy as I do the suggestion that I "touch grass"; they're the sort of thing people say because they don't have the guts to tell me to go pound sand.

As a man, talk therapy has worked wonders for me. No individual tool will fix the underlying cause, of course, and I also benefit greatly from weightlifting and other exercise.

If therapy is less immediately effective for men, that may signal a greater need for it, not a lesser one. Learning to understand and experience one's emotions is both a skill therapy can develop and one that is needed for therapy (or journaling, etc.) to be maximally effective.

And as a complete counter example, I find it useful but my wife does not. It doesn't seem to be a gender thing, but rather a personality thing, which may or may not line up along gender lines.

Have you considered "life under socialism in <civilized country>" ?

Haven't been able to find one that will give entry/work visas to self-taught techies without university degrees.

Personally I've never gotten anything out of "talking to someone." I'm not saying that people shouldn't do it, if it works for them. I just can't think of a single time in my life where I had a problem and I "talked about it" to a friend or colleague (let alone therapist) and then felt better about it afterwards. I guess I'm just too "action oriented."

When I was younger I had an issue with anger management. Today I suspect I might be on the high functioning autism spectrum, but we didn't know back then what we do today. Obviously if I'm right about that, then it also explains why "talking to people" doesn't work for me. But I digress.

In my youth it was common for people to say to me "You need to vent before things blow up, get a punching bag or something." I used to buy into this idea that if you keep things bottled up eventually they will build and you will explode. That is, until someone pointed out that if your method of dealing with anger is to punch something, you are training yourself to respond to anger with violence. When I started to question the "venting" hypothesis I found healthier and more productive (for me) ways of dealing with meltdowns and ruminations.

I think this idea can apply to "speaking with someone" as well. Again, I'm not saying that if there is a crises people shouldn't seek help. Just that speaking to someone, as far as I can tell, ought to have a purpose other than "I just need to talk." What does that mean, to "need" to talk? What are you looking to get out of the conversation? Do you need advice because you don't know what to do? Do you feel alone and isolated and need evidence that you are not?

Anyway these are just my personal thoughts and ramblings ... always do what works best for you and if there's an emergency don't consider the random ramblings of some strange idiot on an Internet forum.

> What does that mean, to "need" to talk? What are you looking to get out of the conversation? Do you need advice because you don't know what to do? Do you feel alone and isolated and need evidence that you are not?

I had the exact same experience as you, and have zero faith in the institution of psychology, but also had a recent revelation that led me to appreciate the "talk about it" angle.

In cases of things like perceived injustice, sometimes you just need some validation. Using CSA as an example, something may feel very wrong, but all other signs (and even perhaps the people around you) suggest that everything is as it should be. It creates a crippling cognitive dissonance. Doesn't help that everyone and their dog knows what gaslighting is these days-- and are generous in dispensing it.

You can't punch your way out of that situation; it's unhelpful in every way. The people around you may actually be colluding against you. You can't bottle it up either; it'll eat away at you and manifest in some nasty ways later. Short of faking your own death and moving to Thailand, the only way out of that fog is to solicit a second opinion from an outside, objective source so you can address it.

It's less about advice and more about closure. You feel like something is wrong, and you want to be told (a) you're crazy and here's a treatment plan, or (b) you were right all along and by-the-way-I-called-CPS.

(Of course, the kids are gaming this with therapists in telling only the favorable half of the story; you get out of therapy what you put into it. Bullshit in, bullshit out.)

> In my youth it was common for people to say to me "You need to vent before things blow up, get a punching bag or something."

This advice is very questionable, it subtly assumes that you are causing your own problems. It sounds really obvious, but if you have an actual problem neither venting nor punching go any way towards making the situation better. Venting is only a legitimate strategy to me when it makes you feel really good. Otherwise it is more or less useless.

A better approach is identify the problem -> test if the identification was correct -> have a good faith go at some alternative theories anyway just in case cognitive biases are in play and you can shake them -> attempt to resolve the problem. Talking to someone in the 3rd step, if you trust their judgement, is valuable.

If you're still having anger management issues (or depression, anxiety, whatever) - you should ask those questions to a therapist, who can help you find the best answers for you. Everyone needs something different.

The bottom line is that you need a way to get the repressed emotions out. Sounds like you have a way that works for you. This article is basically telling you to not seek help because you have a way of dealing with your problems today.

There are many types of therapy (CBT, DBT, etc.) where the focus is absolutely not on "just talking" or "just letting it out." Therapy can give you a structured toolbox of exactly those "healthy ways" to deal with emotions and emotional stress, and you can work them out and learn how to put them into practice, with an expert alongside you helping and coaching. It is a catalyst to learning those healthy mindset techniques instead of spending time yourself figuring everything out heuristically.

(good) Therapists are emotional intelligence coaches, they are NOT "shoulders to cry on," quite the opposite in fact.

I worked with a therapist doing CBT for a while, and have recently been working with a career coach. Neither of them ever let me "ramble" or "just let it out" with anything. They stop me and force me to unpack and separate the emotions from the thoughts from the reactions, and logically think through what is happening and how I can react in a more healthy way.

+1 CBT

my experience has been that it’s very “action” oriented, no BS or talking about the past. Feelings and emotions have to be grounded in reality, then you act.

The whole 'venting' steam engine model has always seemed to me in defiance of common sense and (as far as I know) the science. Gardeners, monks, or crafts workers are not stereotypically boiling with rage underneath. On the other hand people with everyday opportunities to seriously vent like violent criminals or professional athletes are typically among the most explosive personalities.

My philosophy is you are what you eat: calm, healthy environments and emotional states breed themselves.

> I think this idea can apply to "speaking with someone" as well. Again, I'm not saying that if there is a crises people shouldn't seek help. Just that speaking to someone, as far as I can tell, ought to have a purpose other than "I just need to talk." What does that mean, to "need" to talk? What are you looking to get out of the conversation? Do you need advice because you don't know what to do? Do you feel alone and isolated and need evidence that you are not?

I think you nearly lead yourself to the answer here - it can and should have a goal of learning and self improvement.

Personally, what I thought was most helpful about therapy was getting a "second opinion" on the things that I think and the way I think about them. While I used to think of myself as a highly rational, evidence based, logical etc etc person, I discovered over time via a helpful outsider that in fact I was subject to biases and disordered thinking in the same way that most people are, all the while thinking that I was being perfectly reasonable. Especially when it came to things that I had bad experiences with in the past, that I was afraid of and / or was trying to avoid unpleasantness around.

I found that I could rationalize (meaning: reverse engineer seemingly reasonable reasons for) my worry about things that hadn't yet happened and were unlikely to happen, often involving complicated lines of reasoning which hid various fallacies. I figured out why I was worried about those things in the first place (which funnily enough wasn't clear to me at the time), and how experiences bias thought and perception of likelihood. All this involved eating a lot of humble pie, and resulted in a greater understanding of people around me and why they behave they way they do too.

The second most helpful thing was learning to cope. There's probably stuff that's out of your control (e.g. stuff that happened in the past that's still affecting you, or just plain old facts of life) that you can't change. It's not that therapy magically fixes your problems per se, but perhaps you're making it worse for yourself: e.g. shame, embarrassment, self-blame, over-worry. At the risk of sounding woo-woo, Buddhists talk about the "second arrow" which is the unnecessary suffering you inflict upon yourself on top of the suffering that you already have to live through - that rings true for me.

Like any skill, you practice and learn through failure how to apply these things. I still worry occasionally, but I can now much more easily take a step back, evaluate, separate out what I can do and can't do about it, formulate a plan, ask for help, etc instead of turning into a nervous wreck who cannot do a thing. I now mostly worry the correct amount, which is the small amount that pushes me to do something productive about it :-)

I imagine this all sounds very abstruse if you don't have this problem and already worry the correct amount, but I'm writing this so that others in a similar situation and have an inkling that something's off (e.g. "why am I always so angry"), but haven't yet discovered what's going on can benefit. If anyone has questions about this, feel free to reply and we can chat privately.

Thanks for sharing. It's not abstruse at all, I guess I just didn't consider checking facts and perspective as "talking about a problem." There have certainly been times in my life when I've asked someone I trust and admire if I was missing something, had done something wrong or to help me come up with a plan of action.

Part of what shapes my experiences is that there are people in my life who have come to me to "talk about something" and when I offer them practical advise or an alternative perspective they either don't follow it or, worse, they get dismissive. As if solving the problem was not what they wanted, they just wanted to talk for the sake of talking.

Talking for the sake of talking is something that I have little patience for, as I can't relate to the "need", nor do I like listening to people talk in general (I might even go as far as to classify it as a form of misophonia since speaking voices actually bother me). For that reason, I don't really like talking much in general. The "return on investment" in terms of effort spent vs reward gained has just never worked out all that favourably.

But if we're talking about seeking out alternative perspectives, checking assumptions and beliefs and crafting action items then yes I've done that lots and would encourage everyone to seek that from time to time :)

As far as I'm aware, one of the main benefits of talking to someone is that when you hear your own words through your ears, rather than internally, different parts of the brain get a chance to process them, you get another point of view literally. Secondly, yes - another person can hear you who is educated enough and will be able to challenge your beliefs which are likely invisible and self limiting.

I’ve always found Eliza to be sufficient.

] OK... "I’ve always found Eliza to be sufficient". Tell me more.

I'd never tell anyone not to seek professional help, but I'm also highly hesitant to recommend it except in extreme circumstances (ie: self harm, psychotic episodes, etc).

The cynical / sceptical side of my brain often echos the quote "If you can't be part of the solution, there's good money to be made in prolonging the problem."

But the logical rational side thinks: hey, we pay for financial advice and legal advice, why not psychological advice?

So, you do you?

Maybe, if you're in need of therapy but aren't in it, you're already making your own excuses for not going. But just in case that's too taxing in your current state, here's a "helpful" article!

The important thing is not to talk to someone, but to talk about things that you can take action that will work. If you are talking about the right things, it will be useful to you. but it doesn't work and if you're talking about the same things, it's normal that it doesn't help.

In a hacker news/there is a business/reseach in here somewhere view I think a number of these therapy issues may be poorly understood biological diseases, not all but definitely some of them.

We are finding links with depression and anxiety with the microbiome and I wouldn't be surprised to find anger control issues to also potentially be linked with the microbiome. But the microbiome links may just be correlation and its really something wrong in the human and the immune system is impact the biome. A lot of people find L Reuteri "yoghurts" help for example but you can not buy them you have to make it yourself. There is a multiple billion business in this if you can find just one microbiome adjusting drug that improves these conditions.

I have long felt resistant to therapy because while there are some clear general human situations I face, so much come down to specifics, to how I take to the world and what I want & expect in community & my interests versus what is available, versus where other people are.

There's abstract situations here, but I'd rather have peers that really can see the basis I'm coming from, that have some ability to be on my side, as an alien apart from the world & wishing I saw more me & what I love so much reflected back in it.