If you’re a therapist and you think you might not always be, it is in your best interest to train in approaches you think might help you in your future, non-therapist life. The opportunity to train in this way will not be available later. It’s strange. If you’re interested in particle physics, you can go to a lecture. If you are interested in glass blowing, you can take a glass blowing class. You really can’t “know” how psychotherapy works unless you train, and you can’t train unless you’re accountable to to institutions that will take you slowly and carefully to a point in which you are actually in front of another human being in this particular way. There is no recreational psychotherapy. Because it’s dangerous.
This was a unique read! I'm intrigued by the possibility that manipulation could be a neutral descriptor in certain cases. On the other hand, perhaps there is a distinction to be made between persuasion and manipulation, where the former has a transparency that the latter lacks. When I've felt manipulated, I think it's because the other person had intentions I was not privy to, and that they were obfuscating. Bringing in the social work piece the way you did, asking whether it's possible to have a collaborative conversation when one person's quality of life depends on their responding in a particular way, feels very important. Maybe this is an inherently manipulative dynamic, and maybe that's acceptable when people need to make changes to keep themselves and others safe and healthy. Maybe it's more honest to say, yes it's manipulative and I think it's justified, than to obscure the power dynamic with more flowery language. Maybe representing a mandatory, high stakes conversation as collaborative and respectful of autonomy is the most manipulative action you described in your essay. In any case, thanks for the food for thought!
This was a unique read! I'm intrigued by the possibility that manipulation could be a neutral descriptor in certain cases. On the other hand, perhaps there is a distinction to be made between persuasion and manipulation, where the former has a transparency that the latter lacks. When I've felt manipulated, I think it's because the other person had intentions I was not privy to, and that they were obfuscating. Bringing in the social work piece the way you did, asking whether it's possible to have a collaborative conversation when one person's quality of life depends on their responding in a particular way, feels very important. Maybe this is an inherently manipulative dynamic, and maybe that's acceptable when people need to make changes to keep themselves and others safe and healthy. Maybe it's more honest to say, yes it's manipulative and I think it's justified, than to obscure the power dynamic with more flowery language. Maybe representing a mandatory, high stakes conversation as collaborative and respectful of autonomy is the most manipulative action you described in your essay. In any case, thanks for the food for thought!