Peer pressure is not an adequate replacement for scientific study.
Scientific study was provided. A target was set. A target was met, twice to show it wasn’t a fluke. You may now move the target if you wish. You may now reconsider if that target was a valid one anyway. I really don’t want to pressure you into anything.
I’m just trying to set the seeds: therapy works, I’ve shown you it works. Society tells men that we shouldn’t talk about our feelings, that pressure results in the above post.
Your response is natural considering the social pressures we are under. There is a name for this social pressure: toxic masculinity, it is well discussed. But, even ignoring all the feminist mumbo jumbo, we have the studies, we have the results. Therapy works to lessen the number of suicides, we know it does.
Look at the story we tell ourselves:
Is therapy any better than a placebo?
Is a therapy session better for men than watching a YouTube video about mental health? taking a walk? Reading a book? Bingeing a TV series? Chronically masturbating?
Somehow, I doubt it.
Yes, therapy is better than all those things.
Therapy doesn’t work well for man anyway, and health professionals are still in the denial stage, blaming the patients for the failure.
The science says therapy is just as effective for men as women, we’ve known this for over 10 years. It’s a catastrophy. We need to communicate to men there are real solutions for us beyond ending it all. I’m not saying therapy is a magic bullet, but for the most vulnerable of men, we cannot be dissmissing the very real affect therapy (and the skills they develop there) has on achieving positive outcomes.
Perhaps talking isn’t the best marketing for therapy. Do we focus on the skills people develop in therapy? Is that more masculine? I don’t really know, emotional self sufficiency? Cognitive self sufficiency? Resilience Training? There has to be a way.
The science says therapy is just as effective for men as women, we’ve known this for over 10 years.
Confirmation bias. Therapy works for the people who decide to keep using it. The people who realize it doesn’t work for them stop using it, or don’t start to begin with.
We need to communicate to men
You need to listen to what men are communicating to you, rather than immediately dismissing their concerns as a “toxic worldview”.
Where I think this goes too far is treating attrition as if it invalidates the evidence entirely. Every behavioral and medical intervention has drop-off: antidepressants, physiotherapy, rehab, even exercise programs. That doesn’t make them placebos; it means they’re not universally effective.
Therapy “working” in the literature doesn’t mean everyone benefits. It means:
people who engage with evidence-based modalities show measurable improvement compared to controls
this holds for men at similar rates to women once access and engagement happen.
Listening to men also means being honest about tradeoffs: therapy won’t fix economic stress, it won’t work for everyone, it costs time and money. Those are as true for women as they are for men.
But telling men “it doesn’t work for people like you” goes beyond skepticism. It closes off an option that does reduce risk for a non-trivial number of men at their most vulnerable. How many men, given the option of an honest attempt at therapy and the skills learned there, wouldn’t be a statistic in this post?
You need to listen to what men are communicating to you, rather than immediately dismissing their concerns as a “toxic worldview”.
I have and specifically addressed it. It’s tragic the story we tell ourselves: “therapy doesn’t work for men” I was told… Yes it does, here’s the study that says it does. “Therapy is a placebo, as effective as sitting at home and masturbating” I was told. No, here’s the study that says it isn’t. I addressed where these feelings come from: the pressure society imparts on men.
What would convince you? Not science, you have that already, it didn’t work. What could change your mind?
What would convince you? Not science, you have that already, it didn’t work. What could change your mind?
Science says I don’t get to present my anecdotal evidence. I don’t get to discuss how it has failed me, personally, in the multitude of times I have experienced it. The explanation for that could be that I have failed; the explanation could be that therapy has failed.
Refreshing my position:
I feel I’m being told “Therapy is the way, the truth, and the light. No one comes to mental health but through therapy”. And I feel that this sort of worldview is far more toxic than anything I might have in my head.
The answer to the question you posed of me is “falsifiability”. An understanding of how therapy can fail, rather than a blanket assertion that it can do nothing but succeed. Therapy is presented as infallible; that if it doesn’t work, fault and blame lies primarily or entirely with the patient and their “toxic worldview”.
That’s not mental health. That’s religion. Therapy seems to work for the same reason that religion works. And it seems to fail for the same reasons that religion fails.
The conversation that we should be having isn’t how patients can succeed at therapy. It’s how therapy can better serve the patient. And for that, we need to ignore the successes, and look at the people it has failed.
Science says I don’t get to present my anecdotal evidence. I don’t get to discuss how it has failed me, personally, in the multitude of times I have experienced it. The explanation for that could be that I have failed; the explanation could be that therapy has failed.
It does, it is represented in the data. Not everyone experienced a positive outcome. Just more people experienced a positive outcome than in the control group. Negative outcomes are represented. Target set. Target met.
Therapy is presented as infallible; that if it doesn’t work, fault and blame lies primarily or entirely with the patient and their “toxic worldview”.
1st article, 1st paragraph:
Talk therapy sessions can help reduce the risk of suicide among high-risk groups, suggests a US study.
“Can help” not “will help”. “Reduce” not “eliminate”.
The language is specifically fallible Target set. Target met.
I feel you are clouded by your personal bias. Valid though your bias is. To feel like you put in the work and got nothing out of it must be harrowing. I’m sorry. That sounds patronising/condescending, it isn’t meant to be.
I went through some trauma therapy for a traffic accident, the exercises were stupid but I was bed ridden so I did them anyway, the difference was measurable. I have an annecdote and bias too.
The answer to the question you posed of me is “falsifiability”. An understanding of how therapy can fail, rather than a blanket assertion that it can do nothing but succeed.
That’s what the study did. It put a bunch of men through therapy and measured the results Vs a control group. Had the therapy group had no better results, then the hypothesis would be proven false. Target set. Target met.
The conversation that we should be having isn’t how patients can succeed at therapy. It’s how therapy can better serve the patient. And for that, we need to ignore the successes, and look at the people it has failed.
Respectfully, I am looking at the people the system failed. It’s the post. The conversation should be how do we get more vulnerable men through therapy (because we know it works the same way we know any treatment works: controlled falisfiable studies). Specifically, because we are currently doing nothing, and the language men use around this treatment that we know works) is actively harmful to men.
And, for those that do not respond to therapy (any therapy), what can we do for them? Not all patients respond to all treatments for any given condition, this is a known phenomena. Just as some patients drop out of studies is a known phenomena
I am genuinely sorry your expectations for what therapy could do for you were not managed successfully.
I am genuinely sorry you have been made to feel as if it was your fault you didn’t respond to the treatment. Very few treatments are 100% effective
That doesn’t mean it doesn’t work for everyone.
It doesn’t mean vulnerable men should be denied the opportunity to do something that we know has a higher chance (not guaranteed) of success than doing nothing.
It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do the thing that we know would have saved many (not all) of the lives represented by the corpses in the post.
It also doesn’t mean that, for those therapy fails, we shouldn’t try something else.
Respectfully
Scientific study was provided. A target was set. A target was met, twice to show it wasn’t a fluke. You may now move the target if you wish. You may now reconsider if that target was a valid one anyway. I really don’t want to pressure you into anything.
I’m just trying to set the seeds: therapy works, I’ve shown you it works. Society tells men that we shouldn’t talk about our feelings, that pressure results in the above post.
Your response is natural considering the social pressures we are under. There is a name for this social pressure: toxic masculinity, it is well discussed. But, even ignoring all the feminist mumbo jumbo, we have the studies, we have the results. Therapy works to lessen the number of suicides, we know it does.
Look at the story we tell ourselves:
Yes, therapy is better than all those things.
The science says therapy is just as effective for men as women, we’ve known this for over 10 years. It’s a catastrophy. We need to communicate to men there are real solutions for us beyond ending it all. I’m not saying therapy is a magic bullet, but for the most vulnerable of men, we cannot be dissmissing the very real affect therapy (and the skills they develop there) has on achieving positive outcomes.
Perhaps talking isn’t the best marketing for therapy. Do we focus on the skills people develop in therapy? Is that more masculine? I don’t really know, emotional self sufficiency? Cognitive self sufficiency? Resilience Training? There has to be a way.
Confirmation bias. Therapy works for the people who decide to keep using it. The people who realize it doesn’t work for them stop using it, or don’t start to begin with.
You need to listen to what men are communicating to you, rather than immediately dismissing their concerns as a “toxic worldview”.
Attrition and self-selection are real issues.
Where I think this goes too far is treating attrition as if it invalidates the evidence entirely. Every behavioral and medical intervention has drop-off: antidepressants, physiotherapy, rehab, even exercise programs. That doesn’t make them placebos; it means they’re not universally effective.
Therapy “working” in the literature doesn’t mean everyone benefits. It means: people who engage with evidence-based modalities show measurable improvement compared to controls this holds for men at similar rates to women once access and engagement happen.
Listening to men also means being honest about tradeoffs: therapy won’t fix economic stress, it won’t work for everyone, it costs time and money. Those are as true for women as they are for men.
But telling men “it doesn’t work for people like you” goes beyond skepticism. It closes off an option that does reduce risk for a non-trivial number of men at their most vulnerable. How many men, given the option of an honest attempt at therapy and the skills learned there, wouldn’t be a statistic in this post?
I have and specifically addressed it. It’s tragic the story we tell ourselves: “therapy doesn’t work for men” I was told… Yes it does, here’s the study that says it does. “Therapy is a placebo, as effective as sitting at home and masturbating” I was told. No, here’s the study that says it isn’t. I addressed where these feelings come from: the pressure society imparts on men.
What would convince you? Not science, you have that already, it didn’t work. What could change your mind?
Science says I don’t get to present my anecdotal evidence. I don’t get to discuss how it has failed me, personally, in the multitude of times I have experienced it. The explanation for that could be that I have failed; the explanation could be that therapy has failed.
Refreshing my position:
The answer to the question you posed of me is “falsifiability”. An understanding of how therapy can fail, rather than a blanket assertion that it can do nothing but succeed. Therapy is presented as infallible; that if it doesn’t work, fault and blame lies primarily or entirely with the patient and their “toxic worldview”.
That’s not mental health. That’s religion. Therapy seems to work for the same reason that religion works. And it seems to fail for the same reasons that religion fails.
The conversation that we should be having isn’t how patients can succeed at therapy. It’s how therapy can better serve the patient. And for that, we need to ignore the successes, and look at the people it has failed.
It does, it is represented in the data. Not everyone experienced a positive outcome. Just more people experienced a positive outcome than in the control group. Negative outcomes are represented. Target set. Target met.
1st article, 1st paragraph:
“Can help” not “will help”. “Reduce” not “eliminate”.
The language is specifically fallible Target set. Target met.
I feel you are clouded by your personal bias. Valid though your bias is. To feel like you put in the work and got nothing out of it must be harrowing. I’m sorry. That sounds patronising/condescending, it isn’t meant to be.
I went through some trauma therapy for a traffic accident, the exercises were stupid but I was bed ridden so I did them anyway, the difference was measurable. I have an annecdote and bias too.
That’s what the study did. It put a bunch of men through therapy and measured the results Vs a control group. Had the therapy group had no better results, then the hypothesis would be proven false. Target set. Target met.
Respectfully, I am looking at the people the system failed. It’s the post. The conversation should be how do we get more vulnerable men through therapy (because we know it works the same way we know any treatment works: controlled falisfiable studies). Specifically, because we are currently doing nothing, and the language men use around this treatment that we know works) is actively harmful to men.
And, for those that do not respond to therapy (any therapy), what can we do for them? Not all patients respond to all treatments for any given condition, this is a known phenomena. Just as some patients drop out of studies is a known phenomena
Gotcha. Therapy works. The problem is the men. Makes perfect sense. Thanks for listening, have a nice day.
I am genuinely sorry it didn’t work for you.
I am genuinely sorry your expectations for what therapy could do for you were not managed successfully.
I am genuinely sorry you have been made to feel as if it was your fault you didn’t respond to the treatment. Very few treatments are 100% effective
That doesn’t mean it doesn’t work for everyone.
It doesn’t mean vulnerable men should be denied the opportunity to do something that we know has a higher chance (not guaranteed) of success than doing nothing.
It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do the thing that we know would have saved many (not all) of the lives represented by the corpses in the post.
It also doesn’t mean that, for those therapy fails, we shouldn’t try something else.
You were very clear. Therapy didn’t fail these men. These men failed therapy. I understand perfectly.
That’s explicitly not what I said. I’m not sure I can say anything to mollify you. I am sorry you were failed by the system and by me.