Should counselling be compulsory for trainees.

[Cherrypie]

Issey mentioned this up on another thread but I didn't want to veer of what she was looking for there so I have started this here..

Counselling is compulsory on my degree course but it seems it is not compulsory for all courses. I have already had long term counselling so I can of course see the benefits and personally I am really suprised that you can become a qualified counsellor through a route that may mean you have never been counselled yourself.

Issey was specifically talking about a psychodynamic route and as I understand that approach working with the transference is key therefore surely you need to know what is yours and what is your clients projections? Didn't Freud's training require analysis for 5 years for 3-5 times a week? Thankfully training has moved from such a rigid discipline that probably would bar most of us due to time and cost but is no therapy at all step too far?

On a personal note if I am honest I find the idea of having a counsellor who has never been through it him/herself a little bit scary and I would want to know they had some idea of what it was like to be in my seat. I feel it is beneficial for any approach where use of your self in the relationship is key to the therapy. I would ideally like to know that my counsellor is highly self aware, has been checked, cleaned and repaired if necessary!! Sorry about the dodgy analogy!

Maybe you feel its unfair or unnecessary that it is compulsory on some courses? It can certainly add huge amounts to the cost of training. I would love to hear your view though as I am not stuck in my view on it and I am open to all your ideas on it!

Cherrypie

[Jenny]

I would personally say that I find it essential. To me it's like a hairdresser who has learnt the theory of cutting hair but never practised it themselves. Or a dentist! I know you can practice in a controlled environment, i.e. in class, etc. but i too would like to think that counsellors have a great deal of self awareness in to themselves.. to go through that whole dreaded attachment thing.. to understand and empathise when the client (or at least I) do things like cancel then uncancel then cancel then uncancel sessions lol

So yes, i find it useful and dare i say necessary that counsellors have been through their own shit before they can help others go through their shit :toilet:

[mel]

Absolutely agree with you cherriepie.
Frightening to know that there are counsellors out there who actually believe in being 'good enough' never having had any counselling themselves. Frightening!!!

And it makes me angry too. I cannot stress enough how important it is to have perosnal counselling. My counsellor is also a jungian analyst and has been in counselling and analysis for 16 years herself.
When I get frustrated that I feel stuck in m y education (am taking some time off before starting my degree in psychody. counsleling) my therapist tells me that what I do now, the work with her in therapy, is the most important work I will ever do.
I just do not understand how someone can become a counslelor without having had long term perosnal therapy themselves.
I can only speak for myself but I am so passionate about self development that I could not live without it.

Like I said in the otheer thread (I hadnt seen this thread) the counsellor will only be able to take the client to the level she herself is. Not any further.
And if the counsellor has had no counselling herself than basically I feel it is cheating the client out of her/his money.
Talking I can do with my mates....

[geri]

it is essential to have your own therapy. i dont doubt that for a minute. when i started my training i had never done personal therapy and had huge issues with the fact that it was comploursy to attend therapy.the learning i received from personal therapy you couldnt put a value on it. now when i sit with clients it comes back to me how i felt when i was in that chair and it so helps to develop the relationship.i would have to say quite stongly any course that didnt include personal therapy i would avoid.its like sitting on a plane with a pilot who hasnt done their flying course!!!!!!!!!!!

[Issey]

Hi just found you on this new thread. Why on earth didn't you all say this on the other thread. This is exactly what I need to know. How you all feel what everschool of therapy you use.

[mel]

You will always find what you need by yourself at the right time ;)

[Cherrypie]

Hi just found you on this new thread. Why on earth didn't you all say this on the other thread. This is exactly what I need to know. How you all feel what everschool of therapy you use.

Hi Issey!

Oh dear I am sorry. I hope you are not put off posting as your views are valuable here. It was a bit thoughtless of me...well I thought about it afterwards of course and I did worry that my new thread might come across as walking away from yours and then talking about you elsewhere but that was not my intention at all. I just realised you wanted to discuss the chrysalis course and I did not wish to 'hijack' your thread with what had come up for me whilst reading it. It just seemed to spark of an interesting topic of debate seperate in a way to your query.

Please do join the debate here too! Have you found your personal therapy helpful? This course you mention is certainly not the only one not to require therapy as I was looking at the Human Givens Institute at one point as their courses looked really interesting and they run seminars that look very interesting too but they actually say in their blurb to AVOID other training courses that reccommend personal counselling as they feel its for disturbed or distressed indivduals. I was very, very suprised by this. It certainly sparks a debate. Perhaps the courses themselves have a self development factor within them but I still cannot see this would be the same as having the unique experience of one to one personal therapy.

It seems then that there are trained counsellors out there with possibly absolutely no experience of counselling at all and what I find worrying is that as a distressed client you have no idea of of the significance or importance of all this when you first walk into their room.

xCherrypie

[andyhp]

Well there does appear to be a consensus... a resounding yes for personal therapy.

Colours to the mast first. For me personal therapy was good. However, I didn't have it as part of my course or should I say it wasn't insisted on as part of my accredited course. Some had it while on the course, some did it before, some did it after, some, as far as I know, never did it.

So, where I stand is....for me it was good, it was necessary but for me 'it' had to be at the right time. which actually was between two courses.

Ok, that last comment gives a clue where I'm going I suspect!

Its essential, it's absolutely necessary...is it...who says?

Wel, most of you all say it or things like it but I do feel I'm hearing a lot of opinions being expressed as though they were hard accepted facts. There's nothing out there that even hints that 'it' makes for better therapists, ensures a better 'service' to clients or makes a single bit of difference at all as to how effective or not a therapist is. Why then is it essential or absolutely necessary...why is your truth true?

Few other queries.

Why do some courses that do insist on it state a specific number of sessions...how does that work then?

Are you saying all approaches should have it...heard a lot about psychodynamics what about someone doing a CBT course?

What about integrative courses...should they have 4 different 'kinds' to match the 4 different approaches they are covering?

What about someone on a Person Centred course who opts to have NLP, SFT or CBT...does that matter...why?

How can it be insisted on in a specific time frame...what if someone feels any 'issues' they may have don't require addressing at a particular time?

Are you saying everybody needs counselling /therapy...you're taking 'more' on yourself than I would if you are. The only person I can speak for is me. If you're not where does that leave the argument that it's essential/necessary?

Likewise are you truly going to claim that someone who hasn't had 'it' is not as good as someone who has...how can you know that...how can you make that judgement...who or what gave you that right or knowledge or power? I can't say I'm 'different' because I had it, because I can't know what I would have been like if I hadn't, yet some of the 'views' here seem to be telling me I would be a 'worse' therapist.

What if someone has had it before they came on their course for 2 years...should they be compelled to spend a lot of money having it again?

Is it possible some are mixing up personal therapy and personal development?

Used to be that all courses insisted on it...didn't seem to stop a lot of malpractice cases...maybe all the 'offenders' didn't have it... or more likely and in line with the ratio of those who have as opposed to those who haven't, most of them did and 'it' made no difference? Doesn't seem to now either does it?


So..where I stand on the question.. no, absolutely not.

[mel]

Well you wrote alot andy but I have to say you didnt say much in my opinion.

Likewise are you truly going to claim that someone who hasn't had 'it' is not as good as someone who has...how can you know that...how can you make that judgement...who or what gave you that right or knowledge or power?

You call therapy 'it'. Is it difficult to say the word 'therapy'? Or what does 'it' stand for I am confused.

I would like to ask you andy, why do you think clients go to counselling? And what is it you would like to happen for clients when they see you and take part in the counselling you give?
Is it self growth, self understanding and self awareness they eventually gain? Perhaps starting to take responsibility for self for the very first time?
Some might become aware of dysfunctional behaviour patterns?

All in all - most clients, who are prepared to put in the work and work on self, will eventually gain a better understanding of themselves.
And that andy, can only be of advantge cant it?

So I ask you... would you rather have a counsellor sitting infront of you who has enough self awareness to take you to a certain level [that includes the many endless blind spots we all have]or would you rather sit infront of someone who re-acts rather than acts. Someone who takes the rage and pain personal. Or someone who becomes scared of what he doesnt understand or what he himself fears. Someone who is co-dependent and unconsciously acts out on the client? Someone who thinks CBT is actually a therapy and wants to fix you?

Perhaps that is the core question... What does good enough therapy look like for you?
Perhaps it is good enough to fix something for the short run and put a plaster over it?

I personally prefer to work on a deep level, with the therapist. Through understanding the relationship with my therapist I can gain a better understanding of my self and a better understanding of my relationships in the outside world.

It is impossible wanting to do this sort of deep psychotherapy with someone who only has very little understanding and awareness of their own shadowside. It is not only impossible but also highly abusive of the client.
Because as sure as eggs are eggs, in long term therapy the client will 'act out' and push boundaries [that is the clients job]

So I agree, some counsellors should stick with CBT and NLP or what other three letter words they call counselling nowadays but when it comes to traditional and deep psychotherapy it simply cannot be compared with 'Teachings' like CBT.

It upsets me when I hear how many counsellors are not aware of the responsibility they hold when seeing a client. It is one of the most important jobs in my eyes and should be taken with the highest respect and importance.
And personal therapy SHOULD be taken at all times throughout training and after training too.

Or is it what I am hearing that you have reached a place where you cannot learn any more andy?

A therapist who knows his shadow side will not be afraid of the shadow side of others.
[Un]fortunately we all have an unconscious. And noone is safe from its 'symptoms', but it sure helps to keep working with it in personal therapy so it will not affect the client.

I think my signature summs it up pretty well.

[andyhp]

'It' refers to compulsory counselling/therapy as part of a training course.

It feels to me that much of what you have written is 'off topic'. The original question was about whether 'it' should in fact be compulsory on training courses. Your opinions on what you think is the best/deepest/not a sticking plaster/traditional form of therapy may be better expressed on a seperate thread.

Where you are on thread I feel you are stating your opinions as concrete facts or truths when they are only your opinion e.g. And personal therapy SHOULD be taken at all times throughout training and after training too. The fact that I may agree with you, as far as it goes for me, I don't think makes you right for anyone other than yourself.

I don't believe I or you have a monopoly on truth. What is right for you or for me, and it seems we do agree on the benefits of personal therapy, does not mean we can 'apply' our truth to others.

[nikki]

For me i cannot imagine that anyone could practice safely or well without having been in the client's seat. To experience how it feels to be vulnerable inparticular. Without my therapy i could never be practising the way i do and working at such a deep level with my clients. It is the therapy more than anything that has taught me to be a good enough therapist. I could learn all the theory there is to know but that wouldn't make me good at what i do. Through my own therapy i have learned to hold pain - i have experienced and worked through my own deep pain in the transference and due to that i am able to stay with and 'hold' my clients when they go to the depths of their own pain and despair without blocking their process because i cannot bear it. I can tolerate the confusion and not knowing and sit with their anger and hatred directed at me without becoming defensive. I can acknowledge my feelings towards them so i don't retaliate. I believe i could never have done this had it not been for my work on self in my personal therapy. This began on my course and i embraced that opportunity - it was right that it was compulsory - and i continued in therapy after that and have been in therapy for many years now. I know beyond a doubt that it would be impossible to practise as i do without it - it is the backbone of my practice and what has moulded me into a therapist who is safe and competent (but still has much more to learn - it never stops!!)

Some of those on my initial diploma course only went for the required amount of hours required by the course - they didn't engage with the process and are now very mediocre therapists without any clients and i would not ever recommend them as i feel they are potentially unsafe. I believe that we reap what we are prepared to put in!

So i believe it is right that personal therapy in training is compulsory. The job we do is very important - it is not to be taken lightly and to believe we don't need therapy is omnipotent and dangerous in my opinion. We enter courses knowing we have to work on ourselves - we agree to that - and any feelings of being forced or having no choice are just the things we should be working on in therapy!! Our anger regarding these feelings needs to be taken there so we don't take it out on out clients!! The more work we do on self the better we can help our clients.

It upsets me when I hear how many counsellors are not aware of the responsibility they hold when seeing a client. It is one of the most important jobs in my eyes and should be taken with the highest respect and importance.
And personal therapy SHOULD be taken at all times throughout training and after training too.

I couldn't agree more Mel!! We need to go back into therapy at regular intervals as required. Also the 30 or 40 hours required by courses is not anywhere near enough i believe

There's nothing out there that even hints that 'it' makes for better therapists, ensures a better 'service' to clients or makes a single bit of difference at all as to how effective or not a therapist is. Why then is it essential or absolutely necessary...why is your truth true?

What is it you are trying to defend for yourself Andy i wonder? It sounds like you are saying that therapy isn't effective - as you say that it makes no difference to the therapist's ability - then why do we have therapy then!!? Surely it is to make us more self aware and if we are more self aware we are more effective in relationships - including the therapy relationship? As a counsellor you must surely believe in the effectiveness of counselling?! If you believe it is effective then of course personal therapy will make a difference!!? Why else do you think we go to therapy!!? I think that 'it' makes ALL the difference. I am surprised that you seem to think there is nothing out there that says it is not important as to the efficacy of the therapist. I think if you look you will find much evidence to suggest otherwise!!

There is no way a therapist could practice as i do without intensive work on self in therapy - and it makes every bit of difference in my opinion (for the above reasons). You could not do the work i do without it - infact you would be dangerous. Even with the cognitive therapies the best therapists will be those who have experienced it and engaged with it themselves in their own therapy. The first question i believe any client should ask the therapist is how much work they have done on self in therapy - if it is very little i would advise them not to touch the therapist with a bargepole.

Nikki

[Old Wolf]

Hi All,
There feels to be an awful lot of anger and resentment flowing through this thread. I have read it all with great interest but can’t help wondering if defending so vociferously the idea that personal therapy should be compulsory is perhaps a cover for the fact that each person who does so is maybe denying their own need for therapy? To say that everybody in training should have therapy surely suggests that everybody needs or would benefit from therapy. Not a very sound assessment I would suggest. One thing that particularly concerns me is that there is a sense in all of this, a subtle suggestion that people who have had therapy are somehow superior to those who have not. If this is not a display of omnipotence I don’t know what is.
In fact this leads me to the most worrying part. Some of you write as though you have the ultimate take on truth, only you know what is right, if others do not agree they must be wrong? I sincerely hope you do not take that attitude with your clients. As a therapist I start off knowing nothing about my clients apart from what they tell me and that remains the case throughout their time with me. I may have a suspicion that there is an underlying issue that the client has yet to see but that is all it can ever be until the client confirms this for them selves.

Geri, one thing I have come to know more and more is just how unique we all are; no two of us are the same. So for me to assume that because I have sat in the therapy chair I will know how my client feels in it is, I believe, totally ludicrous and indeed dangerous. It poses the very serious and real risk that I would proceed on assumption and fail to hear what my client might actually be experiencing and trying to tell me.

Mel, who are all these counsellors that “are not aware of the responsibility they hold” and how do you know them?

Nikki, in your last paragraph you write “There is no way a therapist could practice as i do without intensive work on self in therapy - and it makes every bit of difference in my opinion (for the above reasons). You could not do the work i do without it - infact you would be dangerous.” I think it would be more truthful to say – There is no way I could practice as I do without…….. I could not do the work I do without it- in fact I would be dangerous. You cannot possibly know what everyone else’s capabilities or potential is and, in my opinion, to believe that you do is an indication of a closed mind. Another example of omnipotence.

Mel, you wrote “….the counsellor will only be able to take the client to the level she herself is. Not any further.” I would hope that I never take my clients to any level. I might accompany them on their journey and help them dismantle issues blocking their progress but, hopefully, I never lead them anywhere. For me life is a journey of self-discovery and that journey is unique to each of us. We all walk our own paths and each of us may experience things that seem to block our progress as we do so. My job as a counsellor is to help my clients uncover, understand and dismantle as many of those blocks as they need in order to continue with their journey. Once restarted their journey will continue far beyond where I leave them. Hopefully, my clients, indeed any clients will take what they have learnt in therapy and apply it throughout their lives; progress once resumed continues beyond therapy.

So, to end (and not waffle on all night) I think that if someone doing a counselling course finds it triggers things/issues they need help resolving then they should seek help i.e. counselling. As with Andy, I do not believe it is essential for everyone to undergo counselling as part of their training. Do I really want to know that my brain surgeon has undergone brain surgery? I think not.

So….that’s my two pennyworth! How are you all feeling now?

Old Wolf

[andyhp]

Hi nikki, thanks for your reply,

Well I feel that perhaps Old Wolf has said a lot of the things I was going to say but I want my say anyway!

The thing that strikes me about both this thread and the one on compulsory supervision is the way personal opinion is stated as though it was absolute fact. There seems very little ownership of what are personal thoughts as just that, personal thoughts. I am certainly not free of believing what I 'think' to be 'words carved in stone', I am human after all. My thoughts are not carved in stone though they are more 'words on water'.

Some of those on my initial diploma course only went for the required amount of hours required by the course - they didn't engage with the process and are now very mediocre therapists without any clients and i would not ever recommend them as i feel they are potentially unsafe. I believe that we reap what we are prepared to put in!
I've no problem with judgements, I actually think they get a 'bad press' in the therapy world, try crossing a road without them! I've got to say though that for me nikki this reads as judgemental and not in a way I perceive as healthy. Also, for me, it feels like you are playing a 'game' (in the TA sense of the word) or indulging in a 'pastime' (again in the TA sense). On your 'word' we are given the 'fact' that those on your course who didn't 'do it' your way are 'mediocre', unworthy of being recommended and 'potentially unsafe'. It seems for me that there also exists the implication that because you did do it the right way that you, by contrast, are not only the opposite of these but that you are in a position to be able to condemn these others from your higher moral and ethical position.

What is it you are trying to defend for yourself Andy i wonder? It sounds like you are saying that therapy isn't effective - as you say that it makes no difference to the therapist's ability - then why do we have therapy then!!? Surely it is to make us more self aware and if we are more self aware we are more effective in relationships - including the therapy relationship? As a counsellor you must surely believe in the effectiveness of counselling?! If you believe it is effective then of course personal therapy will make a difference!!? Why else do you think we go to therapy!!? I think that 'it' makes ALL the difference. I am surprised that you seem to think there is nothing out there that says it is not important as to the efficacy of the therapist. I think if you look you will find much evidence to suggest otherwise!!
Defending? Nothing except the right to ask any question I have and to have my own opinion on any issue I like. I also feel here you are game playing again. You ask a question and then 'shoot off' and make the points you want to make, each point it seems to me flows from your own previous point rather than any answer to any question. Your 'monologue' feels like it gets further and further down your 'path', the path you seem to believe wins your 'case'.

As for evidence that 'suggests otherwise' would you like to share that evidence with me? I think you will find some 'opinions' that suggest otherwise I doubt there is any evidence. You may be interested or maybe shocked, outraged and disbelieving to read the following abstract of a major study carried out at Birmingham University (UK) in 1999;

While no significant correlation was found between length of training or supervision and the therapeutic alliance score, there was a significant negative correlation between the amount of personal therapy the counsellors had had and the measure of the therapeutic alliance achieved with their clients. Further investigation produced other studies on personal therapy and effectiveness of counselling, in which at best no positive correlation was found between personal therapy and outcome, and at worst, personal therapy was negatively correlated with outcome.
These research findings challenge the assumption often made that personal therapy is a desirable if not essential aspect of counsellor training. The arguments for and against personal therapy being included in the training of counsellors are discussed.

Perhaps those mediocre, unrecommendable and potentially unsafe therapists might deserve 'a little slack' from you?

So, I have said my say. In my opinion not one of the questions I raised about 'it' have been even addressed let alone answered. That's ok, I would for sure like them to be answered or at least for someone to have a go but I don't feel anyone has to if they don't want to.

That this is an emotive subject is I guess obvious from the responses given, my own included. My feelings about it and my thoughts on it do not make me right though for anyone except me.

[nikki]

I hear you Andy. I guess it's about approach, and the way i choose to practice can only be done via self exploration in therapy. It needs to have a relationally based therapy to be able to practice that way - that is a fact. I have been in therapy for many years and am only just getting there - there is no other way to do it unfortunately! I am talking psychodynamic/analytic - for other approaches they don't have the same emphasis- but i still wouldn't touch them now. I am not saying they aren't effective but for me I have gone further than that and need more - that is how my process has gone. I need to work with the psyche and the unconscious process now and it needs someone who has really gone there to be able to go there with me. That's the basis of my arguement. I have been in therapy with a more person centred/cognitive therapist for several years earlier on in my career and it helped but only upto a point. But she didn't get the my pain in the transference and i was left in a desperate state. She cpouldn't go there because she hadn't ever looked deeper into herself - she didn't want to and that's ok but it held me back so i had to go out and find someone who worked in a different way. I need something more anaytic now to be able to 'hold' me. The quote you give i do understand but if you go into the analytic world you will see that training is actually based on personal therapy or anaysis - and that is where i am coming from. I guess i am talking more about in depth psychotherapy than counselling. I am about to embark on a big training to become a psychoanalytic psychotherapist and the core of the training is the therapy - as they said to me - without it the rest would almost be irrelevant. I hope i have made it clearer now. My words aren't based on being judgemental - it is fact that nobody (you, me, anyone) could practice that way without in depth personal therapy - and it begins a year before training - they won't even let me begin the training without it. I do understand that other approaches don't view it as so important - but i still think it is a real shame.

I believe that any therapist would be more competent with the more work he has done of self. I know a therapist who has trained as above and also does CBT - and she is far safer in my opinion because she can also spot much deeper problems and work with then too - she can really get in there and work with the pain if necessary. And that cannot be done without much work on self - not at the level i am talking about. I hear that perhaps you have no experience of this and may not even be interested in doing such work and that's ok - i do respect your opinions based on your own process. I hope you can do the same for me.

In my opinion not one of the questions I raised about 'it' have been even addressed let alone answered.

I don't agree - i think we are answering the questions - but of course we are speaking personally - and perhaps that isn't what you want to hear? I am not really sure what you would consider to be 'answering' the question. I see all of this post as relevant. Are you wanting it to stay rigidly to subject? that would be a shame if we had to do this because naturally a discussion will develop - but it is still all relevant and interesting is it not? What is it you are wanting?

Oldwolf : Nikki, in your last paragraph you write “There is no way a therapist could practice as i do without intensive work on self in therapy - and it makes every bit of difference in my opinion (for the above reasons). You could not do the work i do without it - infact you would be dangerous.” I think it would be more truthful to say – There is no way I could practice as I do without…….. I could not do the work I do without it- in fact I would be dangerous. You cannot possibly know what everyone else’s capabilities or potential is and, in my opinion, to believe that you do is an indication of a closed mind. Another example of omnipotence.

I hear you wanting to change what i said. I actually meant to say it that way because of what i have explained above. There actually is no other way a therapist could practice analytically in the way i mean without the therapy - and that is fact not just personal opinion. I do not believe that anyone can practice that way without the training - and the training is the therapy! Infact it is not actually possible to know how to practice that way without therapy with someone who is very experienced. Yes, we can have the ability but it needs the training (the therapy being the main part of the course) to be able to work that way. I am not there yet and i am not saying i am better than anyone else - but i also haven't spent years in therapy for nothing! - and those who haven't done that cannot practice the same way! - it's impossible.

With respect

Nikki

[mel]

Why anyone would become a therapist and not believe in the power of psychotherapy/counselling is beyond me.

So personal therapy for the client can be of benefit and deepen self awareness, but personal therapy for the counsellor is not really that important and from what I am hearing, will not make a blind bit of difference to how the counsellor relates and [re]acts towards their client.


I do wonder why so many counsellors [and yes I have met a few and do read about them on the BACP 'name and shame list' - unbearable to read at times] become counsellors and do not believe that they themselves could benefit from counselling.

I was very fortunate to have had tutors who understood just how important personal therapy is. Unfortunately not many courses have such understanding and self aware tutors.
And the one who will suffer is the client.

A therapist will not be able to embrace and work with someones darkness if s/he her/himself is afraid ... or even worse... still unaware of their own darkness.

It is impossible. And that, is a fact.

Hence we have 'therapists/teachers' who teach CBT and then we have some therapists who actually do not want to fix... but rather want to UNDERSTAND and help others understand themselves. And to understand others I have to understand self first.

I feel I have said all I want to say on this subject and I dont want to fight which I am aware of will be happening if I dont stop now.
I do get very passionate about this because a human beings life is a very precious and fragile thing to hold in your hands as a counsellor.

[andyhp]

Hi nikki,

And that cannot be done without much work on self - not at the level i am talking about. I hear that perhaps you have no experience of this and may not even be interested in doing such work and that's ok - i do respect your opinions based on your own process. I hope you can do the same for me.

I respect anyone's opinions...no, I try to respect anyone's opinions..and while yours may, in some respects, be very different from mine I do try to respect them. Again it seems to me though you are fantasising in some of the things you say. How can you 'hear' (know!) whether or not I 'perhaps' have no experience of something unless I tell you? (Btw using words like hear and perhaps to 'excuse' anything you say as 'I was only wondering' is an old trick although not one I am suggesting you are necessarily aware of).
Not only is there your very dodgy 'hearing' then, but you go on to tell me that it's ok that 'I may not even be interested' in something. Of course you still have no idea whether I had that something or not in the first place!!

Amazing process of fantasy fuelling fantasy!!

On reflection I think you have a point. You have answered some of the questions albeit, as you say, with opinion. Nothing wrong with qualitative answers though, some of the questions probably have no quantitative answers. I wasn't expecting them to have. May I ask you a question arising from my understanding of some things you have written...do you still say personal therapy should be compulsory on all training courses or is it that it should be compulsory on 'in depth' approach courses?

I have 2 other questions that may seem odd...do you post here under another name as well as nikki or, do you discuss your replies with another poster here?

[nikki]

Hi nikki,

And that cannot be done without much work on self - not at the level i am talking about. I hear that perhaps you have no experience of this and may not even be interested in doing such work and that's ok - i do respect your opinions based on your own process. I hope you can do the same for me.

I respect anyone's opinions...no, I try to respect anyone's opinions..and while yours may, in some respects, be very different from mine I do try to respect them. Again it seems to me though you are fantasising in some of the things you say. How can you 'hear' (know!) whether or not I 'perhaps' have no experience of something unless I tell you? (Btw using words like hear and perhaps to 'excuse' anything you say as 'I was only wondering' is an old trick although not one I am suggesting you are necessarily aware of).
Not only is there your very dodgy 'hearing' then, but you go on to tell me that it's ok that 'I may not even be interested' in something. Of course you still have no idea whether I had that something or not in the first place!!

Amazing process of fantasy fuelling fantasy!!

On reflection I think you have a point. You have answered some of the questions albeit, as you say, with opinion. Nothing wrong with qualitative answers though, some of the questions probably have no quantitative answers. I wasn't expecting them to have. May I ask you a question arising from my understanding of some things you have written...do you still say personal therapy should be compulsory on all training courses or is it that it should be compulsory on 'in depth' approach courses?

I have 2 other questions that may seem odd...do you post here under another name as well as nikki or, do you discuss your replies with another poster here?

Andy

I did not come here to be attacked by you - and your answers are attacks. I am not sure why you need to do that nor why you need to be so defensive but may i suggest you take it to therapy. I 'hear' you hate analytic approaches. Please don't take it out on me. I do not need to defend myself against you and it appears impossible to talk with you without you disecting my every word in a detrimental way.

I will not reply here again.

Nikki (the only name i have here)

[andyhp]

nikki,

I perceive most of your words as patronising, confusing personal opinion as fact and laced with shaky interpretations based only on your own fantasies of how you 'want it to be'. Others have also suggested similar things.

Nikki, have you considered that what you think you 'hear' and what is actually being said or what is actually happening might be different things?

I hope you 'hear' this...I'm not saying you intend to come across the way you do or that you're even aware of it, I have no way of knowing but, I am not going to 'accept' your interpretations, that you 'know' best, that because you do 'in depth' this or in depth that, that you somehow operate on some kind of higher level than myself or any other therapist or, that just because you believe something it follows that it is the only truth. If you in turn don't wish to accept that then don't.

If you choose not to reply...well, to be truthful, it matters very little to me.

[Cherrypie]

I probably cannot justify or fully explain this reply and I'm not sure how this will come across. I am worried about looking stupid if I am honest! Please forgive me for being a trainee and lacking in knowledge but here it is..

When I picked apart my reasons for backing up the argument for compulsory therapy I saw that my feelings about this topic were indeed based on emotion and not science but you know I have decided that kind of feels ok for me just now.. I can absolutely see what Old Wolf and Andy are saying in their counter argument however and I have found it really interesting to read as it has challenged me. It has taught me a lot about looking more deeply into what I believe about a certain subject and having to explain why?

I won't even begin to try and argue with universities findings as I am not smart enough (just yet!) and I don't have the time to search the internet looking for counter arguments so I shall just say it as I feel it.

I can also absolutely see that a counsellor who has not had personal therapy could quite possibly counsel me adequately and maybe even much better than a counsellor who has had personal therapy yet is still incompetent but give me two competently trained therapists one counselled and one not and without a shadow of a doubt I choose Mr Therapied.. Absolutely.

I believe he will be more likely to have a self awareness and possibly an empathy for me that cannot be found within any training course or through a self help book. I have no evidence or fact to back this up, it is purely my feeling. I also feel that though Mr Therapied may not know my exact process (of say a painful transference issue) but he will have come closer to it than Mr No Therapy. I feel that what goes on in the counselling room is quite a unique experience. I am basing this on my own experience of course..its all I have just now..but I don't know anywhere else in life where you can get this kind of awareness of self.

Now I don't want Mr Therapied to use his experience of his therapy as a blueprint for my pain but I do think it can be a guide..imagination and empathy are useful tools when we have not had a particular experience or been 'there' but I still feel that having been 'there' or somewhere near there is still a superior position.. Support groups on individual topics such as anorexia, abuse, depression etc thrive because there is something universally comforting in another human being really getting it, having some idea of how I feel however fleeting..it does not have to be exact but if you can say I know this process is hard for you because you have truly been where I have, even if for a moment, then I feel that means more to me than you simply saying you simply get the picture, you hear me or you feel my pain. In my experience if you have had therapy then I am personally more connected with you because of our 'shared' experience.

I'm not saying that counsellors who say have not had a close bereavement cannot counsel the bereaved etc as we can never have had every client issue (thankfully) but I strongly believe that if you have had this experience then you have an edge, your empathy will run deeper. In my opinion if a counsellor has had therapy he has a greater chance of truly and deeply understanding me... Even if it this is all a scientific nonsense, for me, something about insisting counsellors have personal therapy just feels right and if my therapy has taught me anything it has taught me to trust in my feelings..

I am really sad that this debate seems to have caused upset for you Nikki but I did want to thank you especially for your lengthy and interesting input and thankyou too to everyone else who has answered for their input also. I don't think any of us have the absolute truth do we but we are all entitled to our personal opinion.

I am particularly sad that you said you have felt attacked Nikki. I was really glad you joined the debate here as your real working experience is invaluable to me as a trainee. I found your posts and point of view really valuable just as I have appreciated everybodys input here on this topic.

I notice your 'badge' says you are new so I really hope you do come back to post sometime even if not on this particular thread.

Your thoughts and opinions are truly valued.

Cherrypie

[nikki]

nikki,

I perceive most of your words as patronising, confusing personal opinion as fact and laced with shaky interpretations based only on your own fantasies of how you 'want it to be'. Others have also suggested similar things.

Nikki, have you considered that what you think you 'hear' and what is actually being said or what is actually happening might be different things?

I hope you 'hear' this...I'm not saying you intend to come across the way you do or that you're even aware of it, I have no way of knowing but, I am not going to 'accept' your interpretations, that you 'know' best, that because you do 'in depth' this or in depth that, that you somehow operate on some kind of higher level than myself or any other therapist or, that just because you believe something it follows that it is the only truth. If you in turn don't wish to accept that then don't.

If you choose not to reply...well, to be truthful, it matters very little to me.

And that is your phantasy Andy - your phantasy of the person i have become in your transference. You obviously feel very intimidated but i also am not interested - not interested in power struggling with someone who only wants to attack me. Now leave me alone.

[mel]

nikki,

I perceive most of your words as patronising, confusing personal opinion as fact and laced with shaky interpretations based only on your own fantasies of how you 'want it to be'. Others have also suggested similar things.

Nikki, have you considered that what you think you 'hear' and what is actually being said or what is actually happening might be different things?

I hope you 'hear' this...I'm not saying you intend to come across the way you do or that you're even aware of it, I have no way of knowing but, I am not going to 'accept' your interpretations, that you 'know' best, that because you do 'in depth' this or in depth that, that you somehow operate on some kind of higher level than myself or any other therapist or, that just because you believe something it follows that it is the only truth. If you in turn don't wish to accept that then don't.

If you choose not to reply...well, to be truthful, it matters very little to me.


I wonder what you would do with those feelings of yours if you had a client just like nikki...

The reason people say 'hear' is because they can never be sure what is being said by the other. It invites for a response by the one who said it. Like "No, that is not what I meant to say. You heard wrong. Lets talk about it some more." You perceiving this as patronising is alarming....

There are two nice books out called 'On learning from the patient' excellent read and very insightful.
Perhaps after reading those books the understanding of the importance of therapeutic relationship and the therapists self awareness will become more visible.

[nikki]

Dear Cherrypie

I am so glad you were able to say that - and i know it took courage! It was a beautiful and heartfelt reply.

This stood out for me in what you said:

give me two competently trained therapists one counselled and one not and without a shadow of a doubt I choose Mr Therapied.. Absolutely.

I feel that what goes on in the counselling room is quite a unique experience. I am basing this on my own experience of course..its all I have just now..but I don't know anywhere else in life where you can get this kind of awareness of self.

give me two competently trained therapists one counselled and one not and without a shadow of a doubt I choose Mr Therapied.. Absolutely.

for me, something about insisting counsellors have personal therapy just feels right and if my therapy has taught me anything it has taught me to trust in my feelings..

I don't think any of us have the absolute truth do we but we are all entitled to our personal opinion.

Yes!! Personal therapy is about change and growth - a better awareness of self - and i believe it can only but help and enhance our practice. It is about being human - about human feelings, and of course it will help us in all relationships - it's about relationship - relationship with self and others - as is the counselling relationship. You say you need no studies or science to prove that - already you feel it. Hold onto that - that is what makes a good enough therapist i believe.

I agree with you entirely - that personal therapy should be part of any training course. I am so glad that you are keeping yourself safe and are bothered to be concerned about knowing how much therapy a prospective therapist has had - it is your right to ask that question. A therapist who realises the importance will be undefended in giving their answer. My own therapist has had 15 years of sometimes 3 times weekly therapy and it really shows. I also do not need science to show me that - i have seen it and i 'feel' it - my job is based on feelings and i know she can get in there with me and hold my pain. The therapists i had who hadn't done such deep work were good but only to the point they had gone - and when they then had to defend something for themselves we got stuck (and that was very painful)and we agreed i needed someone with more experience and who had gone deeper into their own psyche - and that is achieved by having intense therapy, i know no other way.

My therapist said to me once that psychotherapists who work psychodynamically/analytically do not generally try to defend their corner - because if others haven't been there they cannot understand it and will attack. It is a process of evolving i guess - and we all evolve in different ways. I made a huge mistake coming here and saying what i did (and opening myself for attack!) and my therapists words were proven!! It is something that has to be experienced in order to understand and i am proud to be experiencing it. Thank you for your concern.

I am so glad you already recognise the importance of therapy in training and you too embrace that - i wish you every success - you have a very kind and understanding way about you which i am sure will help you to succeed.

With support

Nikki

[andyhp]

Ahhh no...I'm afraid it doesn't work like that nikki. You don't decide for me if I will reply (reply to your post note) or not, particularly when in that post you talk about me!!

I had a vivid image of a child on reading your post...'it's not fair, you're not fair, I'm not talking to you ever again now leave me alone' and child storms from room and prevents any reply.

It's my transference is it? Of course it is, it could not possibly be anything you did or said, so it just must be my transference!

Ever read the Person-Centred practitioner Schlien? He wrote 'A Counter Theory of Transference' in which he likened transference to a shield used by some psychoanalytic practitioners to defend themselves from the consequences of their own actions. Client dislikes therapist, transference...client complains, transference...client disagrees, transference...client says therapist makes any mistake at all, transference. Bit of a Catch 22 really!

Anyhoo, it seems like you believe you are a victim? Well, I'm afraid I'm not accepting the role of your persecutor, I feel like you're trying to give me 'responsibility' and I don't want to accept it. Post, and I will decide if I reply or not.

[nikki]

Ok i will put it more clearly Andy. Please do NOT reply to me again in this way as it is attacking. I have no wish nor need to defend myself against you. Please respect that. Thank you.

[mel]

Ever read the Person-Centred practitioner Schlien? He wrote 'A Counter Theory of Transference' in which he likened transference to a shield used by some psychoanalytic practitioners to defend themselves from the consequences of their own actions. Client dislikes therapist, transference...client complains, transference...client disagrees, transference...client says therapist makes any mistake at all, transference. Bit of a Catch 22 really!

I am guessing this person centered practitioner studied and has had psychoanalytical therapy?
The thing is, from reading your post it sounds like you are [or schlien is] talkling about counter transference which the therapist has fallen into [which happens without good enough supervision and lack of personal therapy] and is now acted out.
With good enough supervision and personal therapy every counter transference as well as transference is worked through. It is part of the work. And is welcome in psychoanalytical therapy and not used as a shield.

So I come back again to my point of view. Personal therapy for a counsellor/psychotherapist should be a must in my opinion. While training and after training is finished.

[andyhp]

I don't know for certain if Schlien had or studied psychoanalytic therapy. I have a vague recollection that like Carl Rogers he was formerly a psychoanalyitc practitioner. Could be wrong though.

No, I don't think he was talking about counter transfrence when calling transference a shield (To be clear it is 'he' talking but Catch 22 was mine). I think he addressed it seperately but was of the opinion it (countertransference) was part of the same 'thing' because psychoanalytic theory claimed coutertransference only occured in response to the client's transference. Thus he said it still shielded the therapist from all responsibility for their actions/behaviour/feelings as their countertransference was only a reaction to the client's transference.


So I come back again to my point of view. Personal therapy for a counsellor/psychotherapist should be a must in my opinion. While training and after training is finished.

My opinion,
Personal therapy was, for me, good. However I do not believe it should, or can, be compulsory for all the reasons given previously.

From your previous post. I have read both the Patrick Casement books On Learning from the Patient and On Further Learning from the Patient. Casement's ideas on the therapeutic relationship are very different from mine. Neither book has made anything more visible for me. I liked his honesty in addressing his mistakes and his willingness to say that 'all' was only his opinion.