You are misrepresenting the study
as one which conducted an experiment with different treatment methods being performed on patients and the results then evaluated. This is not the case. The study cited by in the article was ethnographic analysis of people's experience with mental health services in Brazil.
Why are you lying?
I am not misrepresenting anything. I quoted the article verbatim and the article cited the study verbatim.
The relevant fragment is on page 10:
Though the socially attuned therapies described in this paper were not common or mainstream, they hold considerable potential. Young people who returned to the clinic, despite intense feelings of disappointment and mistrust, used the therapeutic encounter to engage in social and political debate and explore new modes of agency. Clinical interactions came to center not on treatment of disorder or symptomreduction, but on crafting self-worth, political awareness, and social influence [45]. What seems to have made a difference for young people were therapists who responded flexibly recognized the limits of their own positionality, and main-tained dialogic openness to unstructured reflection and the productivity of confrontation.
If you have a disagreement with my commentary then you should take it up with the article, on which it is based. I have no obligation to view the study in positive light especially as the conclusions and language used in it indicate its intentions. The study is pushes a harmful perspective on what therapy should and should not be due to ideological reasons.
This is not a study of how different kinds of the rapy produce different outcomes but a study of historical accounts of people's experiences with the rapists. You can criticize this study for being shoddy social science work based on questionable methods but not as one where patients were subjects to unorthodox mental health therapies. As for the article, it is overselling the claims made in the study.
That's not what the study examines. It examines the statistical effects of two general therapeutical approaches - one advised against by the authors and another promoted by the authors.
The approach that the authors promote was associated with
intense feeling of mistrust. And while the approach rejected by the authors may have been associated with similar attitudes it is not the same thing. Correct approach should not cause intense feeling of mistrust from the patient because then the therapy can never be successful.
The problem of therapy is the trauma in the victim's mind. The only solution is to help the victim resolve the trauma. Not to teach the victim how to feel less bad about it. Not to teach the victim how to not fall victim to discrimination or to see discrimination where the victim did not see it before. Therapy is not political and can't be political.
Therapy is about resolving the emotional consequences of a past incident. It is not about teaching how people should behave in future incidents.
It's like telling someone suffering from fear of water due to a drowning incident, that they should not panic when they're in the water and always demands that people are around watching out for them.
That's not facilitating the healing process. That's facilitating a narcissistic attitude of "I'm a victim, you need to care for me".
Therapy must heal the patient. Not the patient's surroundings.
Even if the patient's surroundings are somehow changed the problem of the patient's trauma doesn't disappear because it is entirely internal. Which is something that the authors of these studies and articles reject due to their pseudoscientific ideology and their own narcissism fueling it.
What these "therapists" are advocating for is aggression displacement to distract from the problem. That never works, and creates only people who do not think they have a problem because a society is the problem. They still have a problem. They simply reject it and go through life like that - suffering from consequences but rejecting the implications.
That's not helping. That's harmful. Not only to the patient but also to others.
And there is no better visual example than transgenderism which relies on the entire society conforming to the narcissistic delusions of the transgender individual including seeing what is not there, treating it as if it is a fact and always making sure that nobody else makes that mistakes. That's literal insanity taken out of the transgender person and thrown into society at large. To make the insane sane everyone must act like they've lost their mind.
Which is precisely my argument in the previous post. It applies to all cases just at different intensity.
Why the hell do I need to explain the basics to you since you feel yourself so competent as to lecture me?
