Eh, psychology and psychiatry are still fairly young sciences. I'd say it's worth a shot, but people put too much faith in it. I've had family members in professional help forever with no noticeable improvements. They'll even admit to it.
My personal opinion is that, while sometimes useful, we just don't know enough about how humans work to really fix a large number of issues. People tend to go to psychiatrists persistently even after no track record of improvement out of the fear that they'll get worse. No one will ever recommend that anyone 'give up' on professional help out of the fear that saying so will make them responsible for the negative consequences.
True. I think the best way to approach it is to acknowledge that there is no certain outcome, and that the best you can do is to maximise the probability of success. If it doesn't work then it doesn't, but that doesn't mean that you don't try at all.
Pursuing therapeutic response without success may point (especially with continued "They'll even admit to it") to problems with the therapist specifically. Finding a "good" therapist is very difficult. Personalities "gel" or "click" or "culture is important to us at company _ with programming skills _."
Hypochondriac behavior with therapy should be treated as such, not discounted due to perhaps a false sense of "therapy is bullshit, everyone I know is in therapy." The tragic stories of "noone even knew he/she was depressed" of suicide exist for a reason in abundance.
The problem is how to measure improvement? I have personally seen cases where the person stopped treatment because of "no noticeable improvements", and it was disastrous. In certain conditions (bipolar, for example), just the fact that the patient is stable and somewhat functional is already a huge victory. Wouldn't that be an "improvement" over the alternative?
Comments
Eh, psychology and psychiatry are still fairly young sciences. I'd say it's worth a shot, but people put too much faith in it. I've had family members in professional help forever with no noticeable improvements. They'll even admit to it.
My personal opinion is that, while sometimes useful, we just don't know enough about how humans work to really fix a large number of issues. People tend to go to psychiatrists persistently even after no track record of improvement out of the fear that they'll get worse. No one will ever recommend that anyone 'give up' on professional help out of the fear that saying so will make them responsible for the negative consequences.
True. I think the best way to approach it is to acknowledge that there is no certain outcome, and that the best you can do is to maximise the probability of success. If it doesn't work then it doesn't, but that doesn't mean that you don't try at all.
Young in what regards?
Pursuing therapeutic response without success may point (especially with continued "They'll even admit to it") to problems with the therapist specifically. Finding a "good" therapist is very difficult. Personalities "gel" or "click" or "culture is important to us at company _ with programming skills _."
Hypochondriac behavior with therapy should be treated as such, not discounted due to perhaps a false sense of "therapy is bullshit, everyone I know is in therapy." The tragic stories of "noone even knew he/she was depressed" of suicide exist for a reason in abundance.
The problem is how to measure improvement? I have personally seen cases where the person stopped treatment because of "no noticeable improvements", and it was disastrous. In certain conditions (bipolar, for example), just the fact that the patient is stable and somewhat functional is already a huge victory. Wouldn't that be an "improvement" over the alternative?