Is therapy intellectually satisfying?

[printscreen]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I'm curious whether doing therapy provides intellectual stimulation. Research-- sure. Does therapy provide the same gratification and sense of discovery?

For any therapists- Surely helping clients requires ongoing refinement of one's techniques, and constant interrogation of what works and what doesn't. Is this a tiring process? Does it get boring? Are all clients too much the same for the "learning" to be truly interesting?

Or is there a sense that therapy really does have enough challenges to stay interesting?

I'm curious because primarily I like the idea of doing therapy but can't really imagine what it would be like after a couple of years or more.

 

[Pragma]

I'm curious whether doing therapy provides intellectual stimulation. Research-- sure. Does therapy provide the same gratification and sense of discovery?

For any therapists- Surely helping clients requires ongoing refinement of one's techniques, and constant interrogation of what works and what doesn't. Is this a tiring process? Does it get boring? Are all clients too much the same for the "learning" to be truly interesting?

Or is there a sense that therapy really does have enough challenges to stay interesting?

I'm curious because primarily I like the idea of doing therapy but can't really imagine what it would be like after a couple of years or more.

I think it depends on how you do therapy. If you are truly a consumer of the literature and take an interest in the unique backgrounds of your clients, it could be very stimulating. I personally found doing therapy with low SES folks with lots of comorbidities to be very challenging and stimulating. But also emotionally taxing, and sometimes frustrating.

 

[deleted176373]

I think it depends on how you do therapy. If you are truly a consumer of the literature and take an interest in the unique backgrounds of your clients, it could be very stimulating. I personally found doing therapy with low SES folks with lots of comorbidities to be very challenging and stimulating. But also emotionally taxing, and sometimes frustrating.

I agree, it can be very challenging. Part of the challenge is to constantly be formulating and integrating while carrying on the conversation with the client. While, some techniques are less intellectually stimulating than others, overall, I feel quite satisfied conducting therapy sessions with clients.

It's different than research, in that you have to think on your feet, where you might have more time to ponder a thought in a research environment. So I don't think that you are comparing apples to apples with regard to intellectual tasks. I think that both are satisfying but in very different ways. The beauty of getting a Ph.D. in clinical psychology is that you get to experience both.

A big mistake would be to believe that clients are all too similar.

M

 

[Ollie123]

Some cases certainly are more stimulating than others, and some populations moreso than others.

Like I said in the other thread, I find certain aspects of therapy stimulating. Conceptualization and planning are very stimulating - actually implementing the intervention accordingly much less so. Unfortunately, the nature of therapy is such that generally speaking, it is difficult/impossible to do the former without also doing the latter. Supervision is perhaps more heavily focused on the former, but its still quite different from actually being the therapist. Its just not like medicine where one can look at objective information, do the thinking, and then have someone else go hang an IV bag with the appropriate treatment. Even an incredibly thorough supervisor who watched every single minute of video from all sessions (and reality is that this generally won't happen even in grad school, let alone beyond) is not going to be in anywhere near the same position as the actual therapist regarding planning due to our inability to know for certain what the next session (or even the next minute of a given session) will look like.

I find it interesting to talk to people and learn about them, their feelings, their cultures, what makes them tick, etc. But I don't find the therapeutic relationship/context inherently more interesting than other social contexts, and there are plenty of other outlets for fulfilling that interest.

I actually disagree (sorta) with Mark. I agree its important not to assume all clients are the same. However, there are unquestionably themes/patterns that arise over and over again (both within and across clients). Recognizing those themes is fun for me, actually seeing them play out repeatedly is when I tend to get bored. In summary: I think there are challenges, some of it is fine, but I would quit the field long before I would even consider doing it all day, every day. Not all intellectual stimulation is the same - therapy can fulfill some types of it, but not others. As Pragma noted, I find it better if taking an EBP approach and really digging into the literature, but just like supervising is very different from being a therapist, reading literature is very different from generating it.

 

[deleted176373]

I actually disagree (sorta) with Mark. I agree its important not to assume all clients are the same. However, there are unquestionably themes/patterns that arise over and over again (both within and across clients). Recognizing those themes is fun for me, actually seeing them play out repeatedly is when I tend to get bored. In summary: I think there are challenges, some of it is fine, but I would quit the field long before I would even consider doing it all day, every day. Not all intellectual stimulation is the same - therapy can fulfill some types of it, but not others. As Pragma noted, I find it better if taking an EBP approach and really digging into the literature, but just like supervising is very different from being a therapist, reading literature is very different from generating it.

Well clearly, there are common themes, otherwise we would not have much of a science here, would we? 🙂 Now, that said, clients rarely act/react in the same exact manner when those themes play out. There are always little variations and subtleties that make each client different. To avoid the potential boredom, I do look for these subtleties, and often times this is where I might find a particular strength or weakness for the client.

Granted, for instance, depression is depression. People with depression tend to act in a number of ways and remain depressed due to a cycle that is usually predictable. I was thinking even that I disagreed (somewhat) with myself as I posted what I wrote. However, I do believe that the individual differences are where important differences between client A and client B often exist. This is what I was referring to, not to assume you know the whole story when you see a theme arise, because often times you can miss important details.

M