I’m a therapist I had a couple of points where I thought Shrier was off the mark.
1. Telehealth is as effective as in person therapy and it greatly increases access to care. Especially in rural areas but for many people having to take an hour plus travel time off from work every week to get help isn’t feasible. A number of my clients move their lunch hour then talk to me from their car. I can give you numerous sources measuring telehealth’s effectiveness.
2. Intergenerational trauma is real but I learned of a different definition than what was described above. Traumatic event happens to generation A this greatly impacts their ability to parent generation B who then struggles with generation C. The effect does dissipate with time.
An example is WWII, my grandfather served on the USS Zeilin at Guadalcanal. His ship was attacked by Japanese bombers and nearly sunk. My grandfather was different after the war and ended up abandoning his family years later. My mom is a basket case and thats trickled down to my brother and I.
A fairly simple concept.
3. Shrier is complaining about woke therapists only. Which is fair since 90% of therapists are rabid progressives. Example: I’ve seen them push “healthy at all sizes,” which is a lie, to people recovering from anorexia. Yo-Yoing them from starving to death over to obese. Then telling them they could commit suicide if anyone questions their weight. No attempt at creating a healthy relationship with food. Only a woke therapist would do that.
Therapy is like a hammer, you can build a house with it or you can smash someone over the head. The problem isn’t the tool, its how its used.
Anyway I loved the book. Its mostly accurate. Although when this woke moment in history passes the critiques to Psychotherapy won’t apply anymore.
For all those claiming that Abigail Shrier is attacking legitimate therapy, please identify “the people who are actually trying to heal” those suffering from crippling mental illness, whom Shrier supposedly maligns. Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t see her ripping apart actual therapists. In fact, she quotes many in her work — many who are alarmed at the quackery and unethical practices of those who claim to be therapists, particularly in our schools. They’re throughout our schools, thanks to massive amounts of emergency funding from every level of government, and they’re roping in kids starting at the pre-school level. In Connecticut a pre-schooler by law (a law that predates Covid) can be accorded up to three mental health days per year if he or she needs it. My son, a licensed youth soccer coach at the development level (D1 and semi-pro) must deliver instruction as “a sandwich,” bookending the “you blew it” message with some inconsequential praise. Social Emotional Learning, a key manifestation of the bubble approach to child rearing, is a scourge that’s been in practice for more than two decades. Tragically ironic, for all this pseudo-therapy meant to undergird their resilience, kids are shooting up their schools, bullying and beating up their classmates, and killing themselves at accelerating rates. Something is deadly wrong. Credit Shrier for trying to identify it. I’d have hoped legitimate mental health professionals would stand with her. Looking at how the pediatric community rejected her attack on the transgender movement, I shouldn’t be surprised.
I think Shrier's position has merit. An obsession with how we "feel" can all too easily turn into unhealthy navel gazing, leading one to be more fragile and subject to their emotions. The field of psychology has promoted some of this molly-coddling. But, the field of psychology also promotes things like resilience and anti-fragility. The "compassionate" types in our culture have grasped onto the former, and see it as their raison d'etre to nurture those they deem to be fragile. I sympathize with the sentiment, but their execution is categorically wrong. Their methods (a laser focus on feelings, talking about feelings, seeing emotional outbursts as praiseworthy, "trauma-informed" language) ends up as Jung's Devouring Mother archetype. Their methods end up handicapping people. We need to end the trauma culture.
There's absolutely a need for therapists in our culture, but Shrier's point that the tools of therapy are being misused is correct.
One book that is a good complement to Shrier's would be The Best Minds, by Jonathan Rosen. In it, he describes the evolution of psychiatry and psychology, from treating the most mentally ill (which is hard!) to the "worried well" (which is profitable and easier).
This is why there is both a mental health crisis for the most deeply afflicted AND too much therapy to treat the normal human condition.
My worry is that therapists and therapy are a modern invention that is replacing (poorly) what humans have been doing for thousands of years. Instead of reaching out to your friends, family, or community, you can call some random therapist over FaceTime in your car. That person doesn’t know you or care about you, they have dubious credentials, they may be more mentally unstable than you are. It’s just a cheap fast food substitute for leaning on the connections that are meant to make you feel better and stronger. Instead of going to your best friend, your rabbi, your neighbor, you are talking to some stranger, whose incentive is ultimately to keep you coming back. I have yet to hear of a therapist who said “your problems are minor and you don’t need me - you just need to suck it up and move on”. The incentive for the therapist is not to strengthen you. It’s to “validate” your feelings and let you regurgitate and feel briefly better - but that doesn’t leave you more resilient of better equipped to solve your own problems. It’s just the junk food that makes you feel better only while you’re chewing it. Unfortunately, like almost all things in life, the most correct thing to do is usually the most difficult. Eat well, exercise, abstain from drugs, work hard, work on your relationships and upkeep them, get fresh air, sleep well, do saunas and cold plunges, pursue a difficult and fulfilling career, have productive hobbies. That’s so much harder than going to therapy, but also, so much more effective.
Bad Therapy is such an important read. I've already passed on the recommendation widely. My big concern: how can this be reversed? I suspect with a lot of communication and introspection, parents can focus on building resiliency. But that will be hard if your social circle is a cadre of "gentle" parents. But entire education establishment still thinks this social emotional dysfunction actually works. Is it going to take whole groups of like-minded parents creating new cooperative schools? Do we need a movement that's like a counter-programming PTA?
As a psychologist, I think her analysis is spot on. To illustrate how radically our orientations have changed, consider Abraham Lincoln’s observation about his childhood: “It is a great piece of folly to attempt to make anything out of my early life. It can all be condensed into a single sentence. … The short and simple annals of the poor.” The current endeavor to assume that most if not all of adult dysfunction stems from difficult or traumatized childhood leads many to cut off parents who were both dedicated and reasonable.
A great discussion. Shrier is cogent and seems to have great insight into our "let's find an expert to help" society. [Look at the damage "experts" caused during Covid.] We could do with a significant reduction in the amount of therapy in the US. As Shrier makes clear this is especially true for young people. The notion that schools have untrained employees - other than a PowerPoint session - assessing the emotional state of youngsters is appalling. Of course in a society where teachers and administrators feel free to encourage kids to adopt different gender identities and not inform parents is it any surprise this occurs?
Why isn't it just as plausible that the children of Holocaust survivors would be some of the most resilient people on earth - having learned first hand the power of perseverance and indefatigable will?
I like much of what Abigail Shrier shares, although I become mistrustful when she becomes dogmatic and seems to have an agenda. She creates a straw man with regards to gentle parenting. There was no need to do this and now I wouldn't recommend anyone listen to this podcast without a strong caveat. She chose only to focus on how gentle parenting can go wrong (as any parenting can) but had to have intentionally chosen not to pursue families in which this approach to parenting has gone very well.
Gentle parenting comes in many forms and much of it is authoritative. I know numerous young adults who are wise, compassionate, competent and successful people and were raised without punishments, time outs, yelling and threats. They were raised with respect, kindness and a relational parenting style. They're some of the most interesting and unique adults I know. Off the top of my head -- one is a farmer and soon to be a mother, another is a sign language interpreter, one is a professional musician, another doing very well at a UC college and another is the ED of a non-profit. All of them are strong, independent and full of zest for life.
As a Gen Xer who was spanked, grounded, threatened and yelled at, I knew I wouldn't duplicate a parenting style that made me sneak around, stop telling the truth to my parents, and left me on my own and at risk with many challenges. As much as I love my parents, I didn't have a relationship in which I felt I could go to them with my troubles and worries. My twelve year old has been raised without punishments including time outs, but with clear expectations. She shares her troubles and challenges with me. She comes to me when friends do things that go against the values we've instilled in her. She talks to me about boys. She isn't afraid to share her mistakes. She's been able to make her own breakfast since she was 2 years old, can't wait to get a driver's license, dreams about becoming a mother, competes in equestrian events, goes on trail rides by herself and just experienced a severe injury that required emergency surgery and lots of visits back to the surgeon. He commented on what a boss she is in how she has handled it all. She's hardly the disabled version of a human Shrier tells us gentle parenting will produce.
I have to say I am impressed with the self-awareness shown by Gwyneth. She is, perhaps, the exception that proves the rule that the way we bring up children now does them much more harm than the rather laissez-faire method employed, often by necessity, when I was a kid.
There seems to be quit a few apologists here. Thee fact is there is more of a problem now that therapy is deeply involved than in the results are worse
Anyone who espouses a theory that replaces individual accountability with any other factor and removes your control over life's ills and your own poor decisions will find a willing audience.
Anyone who espouses a theory that places individual accountability at the center of your life and insists on your own control over poor decisions will be derided for it.
"The slippage between metaphor and rigorous claim that characterizes much of our talk of “trauma” makes it very difficult to evaluate many of the claims... nothing good is accomplished by telling children they have inherited trauma from their ancestors."
The disconnect between "my personal experience" vs. what we as a society should implement ("impose," in a lot of case) for everyone as policy (formal or informal) is vast.
Where "woke" went wrong, where so much good intentioned progressive policy recommendations go wrong is they don't contemplate the broader (inevitable?) consequences, what the existence of a particular policy (or outcome of that policy) "says" to the rest of society, especially children and youth.
E.g., harm reduction in its most targeted form is literally about reducing the worst harm of death (via overdose) or physical disease (via dirty needles), but harm reduction as policy is *very harmful* for neighborhoods and communities b/c it doesn't even consider reducing the harm for those entities, doesn't allow for the observation that allowing for addicts to just use with impunity (yes, including not dying from ODing) on the streets is harmful for those entities, especially for the children in those neighborhoods (as the mom in the great article about Kensington in Philly noted).
I’m a therapist I had a couple of points where I thought Shrier was off the mark.
1. Telehealth is as effective as in person therapy and it greatly increases access to care. Especially in rural areas but for many people having to take an hour plus travel time off from work every week to get help isn’t feasible. A number of my clients move their lunch hour then talk to me from their car. I can give you numerous sources measuring telehealth’s effectiveness.
2. Intergenerational trauma is real but I learned of a different definition than what was described above. Traumatic event happens to generation A this greatly impacts their ability to parent generation B who then struggles with generation C. The effect does dissipate with time.
An example is WWII, my grandfather served on the USS Zeilin at Guadalcanal. His ship was attacked by Japanese bombers and nearly sunk. My grandfather was different after the war and ended up abandoning his family years later. My mom is a basket case and thats trickled down to my brother and I.
A fairly simple concept.
3. Shrier is complaining about woke therapists only. Which is fair since 90% of therapists are rabid progressives. Example: I’ve seen them push “healthy at all sizes,” which is a lie, to people recovering from anorexia. Yo-Yoing them from starving to death over to obese. Then telling them they could commit suicide if anyone questions their weight. No attempt at creating a healthy relationship with food. Only a woke therapist would do that.
Therapy is like a hammer, you can build a house with it or you can smash someone over the head. The problem isn’t the tool, its how its used.
Anyway I loved the book. Its mostly accurate. Although when this woke moment in history passes the critiques to Psychotherapy won’t apply anymore.
For all those claiming that Abigail Shrier is attacking legitimate therapy, please identify “the people who are actually trying to heal” those suffering from crippling mental illness, whom Shrier supposedly maligns. Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t see her ripping apart actual therapists. In fact, she quotes many in her work — many who are alarmed at the quackery and unethical practices of those who claim to be therapists, particularly in our schools. They’re throughout our schools, thanks to massive amounts of emergency funding from every level of government, and they’re roping in kids starting at the pre-school level. In Connecticut a pre-schooler by law (a law that predates Covid) can be accorded up to three mental health days per year if he or she needs it. My son, a licensed youth soccer coach at the development level (D1 and semi-pro) must deliver instruction as “a sandwich,” bookending the “you blew it” message with some inconsequential praise. Social Emotional Learning, a key manifestation of the bubble approach to child rearing, is a scourge that’s been in practice for more than two decades. Tragically ironic, for all this pseudo-therapy meant to undergird their resilience, kids are shooting up their schools, bullying and beating up their classmates, and killing themselves at accelerating rates. Something is deadly wrong. Credit Shrier for trying to identify it. I’d have hoped legitimate mental health professionals would stand with her. Looking at how the pediatric community rejected her attack on the transgender movement, I shouldn’t be surprised.
I think Shrier's position has merit. An obsession with how we "feel" can all too easily turn into unhealthy navel gazing, leading one to be more fragile and subject to their emotions. The field of psychology has promoted some of this molly-coddling. But, the field of psychology also promotes things like resilience and anti-fragility. The "compassionate" types in our culture have grasped onto the former, and see it as their raison d'etre to nurture those they deem to be fragile. I sympathize with the sentiment, but their execution is categorically wrong. Their methods (a laser focus on feelings, talking about feelings, seeing emotional outbursts as praiseworthy, "trauma-informed" language) ends up as Jung's Devouring Mother archetype. Their methods end up handicapping people. We need to end the trauma culture.
There's absolutely a need for therapists in our culture, but Shrier's point that the tools of therapy are being misused is correct.
One book that is a good complement to Shrier's would be The Best Minds, by Jonathan Rosen. In it, he describes the evolution of psychiatry and psychology, from treating the most mentally ill (which is hard!) to the "worried well" (which is profitable and easier).
This is why there is both a mental health crisis for the most deeply afflicted AND too much therapy to treat the normal human condition.
My worry is that therapists and therapy are a modern invention that is replacing (poorly) what humans have been doing for thousands of years. Instead of reaching out to your friends, family, or community, you can call some random therapist over FaceTime in your car. That person doesn’t know you or care about you, they have dubious credentials, they may be more mentally unstable than you are. It’s just a cheap fast food substitute for leaning on the connections that are meant to make you feel better and stronger. Instead of going to your best friend, your rabbi, your neighbor, you are talking to some stranger, whose incentive is ultimately to keep you coming back. I have yet to hear of a therapist who said “your problems are minor and you don’t need me - you just need to suck it up and move on”. The incentive for the therapist is not to strengthen you. It’s to “validate” your feelings and let you regurgitate and feel briefly better - but that doesn’t leave you more resilient of better equipped to solve your own problems. It’s just the junk food that makes you feel better only while you’re chewing it. Unfortunately, like almost all things in life, the most correct thing to do is usually the most difficult. Eat well, exercise, abstain from drugs, work hard, work on your relationships and upkeep them, get fresh air, sleep well, do saunas and cold plunges, pursue a difficult and fulfilling career, have productive hobbies. That’s so much harder than going to therapy, but also, so much more effective.
Intergenerational trauma just seems like munchausen by proxie
Bad Therapy is such an important read. I've already passed on the recommendation widely. My big concern: how can this be reversed? I suspect with a lot of communication and introspection, parents can focus on building resiliency. But that will be hard if your social circle is a cadre of "gentle" parents. But entire education establishment still thinks this social emotional dysfunction actually works. Is it going to take whole groups of like-minded parents creating new cooperative schools? Do we need a movement that's like a counter-programming PTA?
As a psychologist, I think her analysis is spot on. To illustrate how radically our orientations have changed, consider Abraham Lincoln’s observation about his childhood: “It is a great piece of folly to attempt to make anything out of my early life. It can all be condensed into a single sentence. … The short and simple annals of the poor.” The current endeavor to assume that most if not all of adult dysfunction stems from difficult or traumatized childhood leads many to cut off parents who were both dedicated and reasonable.
A great discussion. Shrier is cogent and seems to have great insight into our "let's find an expert to help" society. [Look at the damage "experts" caused during Covid.] We could do with a significant reduction in the amount of therapy in the US. As Shrier makes clear this is especially true for young people. The notion that schools have untrained employees - other than a PowerPoint session - assessing the emotional state of youngsters is appalling. Of course in a society where teachers and administrators feel free to encourage kids to adopt different gender identities and not inform parents is it any surprise this occurs?
Really good interview. Bari.
Why isn't it just as plausible that the children of Holocaust survivors would be some of the most resilient people on earth - having learned first hand the power of perseverance and indefatigable will?
I like much of what Abigail Shrier shares, although I become mistrustful when she becomes dogmatic and seems to have an agenda. She creates a straw man with regards to gentle parenting. There was no need to do this and now I wouldn't recommend anyone listen to this podcast without a strong caveat. She chose only to focus on how gentle parenting can go wrong (as any parenting can) but had to have intentionally chosen not to pursue families in which this approach to parenting has gone very well.
Gentle parenting comes in many forms and much of it is authoritative. I know numerous young adults who are wise, compassionate, competent and successful people and were raised without punishments, time outs, yelling and threats. They were raised with respect, kindness and a relational parenting style. They're some of the most interesting and unique adults I know. Off the top of my head -- one is a farmer and soon to be a mother, another is a sign language interpreter, one is a professional musician, another doing very well at a UC college and another is the ED of a non-profit. All of them are strong, independent and full of zest for life.
As a Gen Xer who was spanked, grounded, threatened and yelled at, I knew I wouldn't duplicate a parenting style that made me sneak around, stop telling the truth to my parents, and left me on my own and at risk with many challenges. As much as I love my parents, I didn't have a relationship in which I felt I could go to them with my troubles and worries. My twelve year old has been raised without punishments including time outs, but with clear expectations. She shares her troubles and challenges with me. She comes to me when friends do things that go against the values we've instilled in her. She talks to me about boys. She isn't afraid to share her mistakes. She's been able to make her own breakfast since she was 2 years old, can't wait to get a driver's license, dreams about becoming a mother, competes in equestrian events, goes on trail rides by herself and just experienced a severe injury that required emergency surgery and lots of visits back to the surgeon. He commented on what a boss she is in how she has handled it all. She's hardly the disabled version of a human Shrier tells us gentle parenting will produce.
I have to say I am impressed with the self-awareness shown by Gwyneth. She is, perhaps, the exception that proves the rule that the way we bring up children now does them much more harm than the rather laissez-faire method employed, often by necessity, when I was a kid.
There seems to be quit a few apologists here. Thee fact is there is more of a problem now that therapy is deeply involved than in the results are worse
Anyone who espouses a theory that replaces individual accountability with any other factor and removes your control over life's ills and your own poor decisions will find a willing audience.
Anyone who espouses a theory that places individual accountability at the center of your life and insists on your own control over poor decisions will be derided for it.
She seemed to offend the therapist,truth sometimes hurts
"The slippage between metaphor and rigorous claim that characterizes much of our talk of “trauma” makes it very difficult to evaluate many of the claims... nothing good is accomplished by telling children they have inherited trauma from their ancestors."
The disconnect between "my personal experience" vs. what we as a society should implement ("impose," in a lot of case) for everyone as policy (formal or informal) is vast.
Where "woke" went wrong, where so much good intentioned progressive policy recommendations go wrong is they don't contemplate the broader (inevitable?) consequences, what the existence of a particular policy (or outcome of that policy) "says" to the rest of society, especially children and youth.
E.g., harm reduction in its most targeted form is literally about reducing the worst harm of death (via overdose) or physical disease (via dirty needles), but harm reduction as policy is *very harmful* for neighborhoods and communities b/c it doesn't even consider reducing the harm for those entities, doesn't allow for the observation that allowing for addicts to just use with impunity (yes, including not dying from ODing) on the streets is harmful for those entities, especially for the children in those neighborhoods (as the mom in the great article about Kensington in Philly noted).
https://www.thefp.com/p/harm-reduction-kensington-causes-harm