Posted by alexandra_k on January 7, 2005, at 18:19:10
In reply to Why is e-therapy supposed to be second rate?, posted by alexandra_k on January 6, 2005, at 17:43:43
From http://www.metanoia.org/imhs/ p.8
>Is this “psychotherapy”?
No. But it definitely can be therapeutic.>Naturally, everyone wants to compare e-therapy to traditional psychotherapy. If you can talk to a therapist online, will traditional psychotherapy become obsolete? Absolutely not.
>Therapists can provide only a small amount of help via the Internet — an amount so small that everyone, without exception, agrees that these online interactions are not “therapy”.
But why? Why only a 'small amount of help'? Is that because nobody has tried therapy properly over the internet or because the methods have still to be worked out?
I see no a-priori reason why internet therapy couldn't be a viable alternative (and not just a second rate one) to traditional psychotherapy.
Not for everyone, sure, but why not a better option for some? (And not just in virtue of inaccessibility or physical impairment)
>Many people find it very helpful to talk with a therapist online. But it will never replace the unique experience of forming a continuing face-to-face relationship with a psychotherapist.
Why not?
>Full-fledged therapy requires physical presence for the therapist to be able to do his/her job.
Why?
poster:alexandra_k
thread:438605
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20050105/msgs/439115.html