New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | August 29, 2005

Christina Hoff Sommers and Sally Satel feel the pain of eager trauma counselors who discovered that, even in the wake of an event like 9/11, people bounce back pretty well.

Reason needs your support. Please donate today!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

← Right-Wing Anti-Intellectualism (Gene Shalit Test Edition) | Main | Food, Drugs, and Promiscuity →

See all 38 comments | Leave a comment

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.

|8.29.05 @ 9:33AM|#

I'm sure these locusts are packing their bags and licking their chops in anticipation of going to New Orleans later this week.

And they won't even think to bring some bottled water or canned food with them--you know, the kind of stuff that could actually help.

|8.29.05 @ 9:40AM|#

Help? Who said they were going to N'Awlins to help? The vampires are going to sate themselves on the misery of others in order to pat themselves on the back later.

drf|8.29.05 @ 9:47AM|#

Kind of like the South Park with Cheech and Chong?

In a Danish paper this morning, they indicated that this hurricane was caused by global warming (no stats, no evidence, no links. just the statement). (actually, they never provide any links, numbers, or anything else when they talk about that)

And in Der Standard comment board, people were complaining that there's hunger, etc. and the Amis are whining about this. (one did lament that this "most non american city" might get destroyed; while another wanted to know why didnt the tsunami get the same amount of coverage)

Jennifer - but those that do take in food and water will no doubt be chastized for selling it. :)

|8.29.05 @ 9:48AM|#

Solitude--

Yes, I know. Those poor people will have enough to deal with without a bunch of psychic vampires screaming at them for not feeling the proper emotions and expressing them in the proper way.

|8.29.05 @ 9:51AM|#

Jen: I know, I did, I just was pointing it out.

|8.29.05 @ 10:12AM|#

Ah, how I love the excluded middle: "Some counselors are unethical, and some counseling is unnecessary; therefore all counselors are unethical, and all counseling is unnecessary."

I just hope none of the hurricane victims turn to overeating to cope. Jennifer will go bonkers.

|8.29.05 @ 10:21AM|#

Who are you quoting, Phil?

|8.29.05 @ 10:32AM|#

Phil,

It isn't primarily about the lack of ethics of a portion of the counselling industry. It's about the inaccuracy of the underlying mindset of a large portion of the counselling industry (especially the 'trauma tourists' (love that)).

The viewpoint that humans are inherently fragile and will come to naught unless they are immediately and frequently plied with the entire array of buzzword compliant interventions is the real problem, and does a grave disservice to those in the counselling industry who truly are working to aid those who actually need that aid.

|8.29.05 @ 10:32AM|#

To paraphrase joe, Phil is arguing with the Jennifer inside his head.

|8.29.05 @ 10:38AM|#

That's great, FPM. Now, where among the first four comments did anyone indicate that they believe that "those in the counselling industry who truly are working to aid those who actually need that aid" exist at all?

|8.29.05 @ 10:40AM|#

Miss Jennifer:

I sense a lot of anger in you. Why are you so distrustful? You most likely do not even know. It will take years of intense therapy to unlock these issues, and years more to recover.

But now is the best time to start. And the first session is always FREE!

Let the healing begin.

|8.29.05 @ 10:45AM|#

I find conspicuous in it's absence any mention of the Scientologists in the article.

|8.29.05 @ 10:47AM|#

Phil,

Where in the first four comments do you get the idea that they're talking about anyone *besides* the trauma tourists? I read those comments as a stab against the morons masquerading as counselors, and not as a slight against the ones who actually serve a purpose.

You sound a bit sensitive to the idea that not all counselors are legitimate. You're not projecting your own fears and fragility, are you?

|8.29.05 @ 11:00AM|#

Soluditarian, the Jennifer who described all trauma counsellors as "locusts" "licking their chops" who "wouldn't think" of bringing anything that could "actually help" the victims because they're "psychic vampires" who engage in "screaming at them for not feeling the proper emotions" doesn't appear to be within Phil's head.

Nor is the, er, spanking fish warrior who posited the theory that believing any trauma therapists are able or honest is the result of emotional delusion.

|8.29.05 @ 11:02AM|#

I agree Jennifer, all psychologists are in fact vampires. Down with psychology!

drf|8.29.05 @ 11:13AM|#

joe: i read what jennifer wrote differently. i had it as the locusts = trama industry whores described.

And from reading the article, i didn't see an excluded middle - that there are dedicated and competent mental health workers. it was just that there are those who exploit trauma. Those were the locusts she could have been describing, and those types were the focus of the article.

thanks,
drf

|8.29.05 @ 11:17AM|#

joe,

If you can show me where Jennifer described "all trauma counsellors" thusly, I will agree with your assessment.

But that's not going to happen, is it?

|8.29.05 @ 11:18AM|#

Drf read me right. I'm curious as to what the hell point Joe and Phil are trying to make here, though.

drf|8.29.05 @ 11:20AM|#

Hey Jennifer - first time for everything :)

the chicago event was great over the weekend. Now do us proud and have a fantastic, kick ass NYC event!

cheers,
drf

|8.29.05 @ 11:25AM|#

I work in the MH industry (as an IT person). I can attest to the presence of more than a few "trauma tourists". THe impetus for it has a lot to do with grants. Basically, if you can tie whatever thing you happen to be into this week to whatever traumatic event happened lately in the form of a grant, then you have money. By way of example, there was a counselor here who got a hefty chunk of money to take her "Peace maze" (not sure if that is what she called it now) around to various community centers and churches. Other city employees were "encouraged" (read:coerced) into walking around an enormous basketball-court sized thing with a pattern on it while contemplating peace.

|8.29.05 @ 11:27AM|#

Ack. I should have mentioned that the "Peace maze" money had been money from a grant for recovery from the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon.

|8.29.05 @ 11:28AM|#

drf,

"And from reading the article, i didn't see an excluded middle - that there are dedicated and competent mental health workers. it was just that there are those who exploit trauma."

The problem is that trauma counselling itself was treated, in both the article and in Jennifer's comments, as "exploting trauma." Yes, I'm sure Jennifer doesn't consider people who meet in their offices with people getting over divorces and whatnot, or who work in pyschiatric hospitals with paranoid schzophrenics, to be dedicated and competant mental health workers. But the brush is still unfairly broad here.

|8.29.05 @ 11:29AM|#

that is, "...does consider counsellors who..."

|8.29.05 @ 11:31AM|#

This argument seems to concern the precise size of a middle ground.

How many trauma counselors can dance on the head of a pin?

|8.29.05 @ 11:34AM|#

Joe, and Phil--

When the first Abu Ghraib outrage stories broke, and posters made comments like "these soldiers ought to be [insert vile punishment here]," you didn't leap to the assumption that the posters were discussing ALL members of the US military. When the occasional cop-kills-an-innocent-citizen story comes up, and posters say things like "these cops are nasty bullies who. . ." you don't leap to the assumption that the posters are referring to ALL people who wear the badge. When there are threads about horribly abusive parents and posters say "these parents are total slimeballs," you don't assume the poster is talking about EVERYONE who's ever had a child.

So why are you choosing to make a similar all-or-nothing assumption here?

|8.29.05 @ 11:42AM|#

Jennifer,

Because the very legitimacy of having an army, holding captured enemy troops prisoner, or stationing troops to guard prisoners was never denounced in any of the stories or columns about Abu Ghraib.

Whereas this column's thesis was the denunciation of the fundamental principles behind counselling, and the self-interested corruptions behind its practitioners.

Never in any of the Abu Ghraib stories did I see the worst horror stories passed off as standard operating procedure for the US military, whereas that technique made up a good part of this column.

|8.29.05 @ 11:46AM|#

joe,

The brush may be a bit broad, but the onus of its application is entirely on the substantial portion of trauma counselors who abuse the concept of trauma counselling whose definition of trauma includes stubbed toes, and is exacerbated by the body of otherwise competent counselors who look the other way because it's good for funding. When the prevalent perception of the industry even provides for a term such as 'trauma tourist', it's a sign that a good portion of the counselling industry has slipped the tracks.

I also think the article wasn't as denigratory as you indicate, given that the first paragraph states the efforts of other psychological professionals to attempt (however futile those efforts were) to head off that very type of 'counselling'.

The counselling industry needs to police itself to ameliorate the negative perceptions they're getting from these kind of practices (and the expunging of the concept of a $190 'trauma tourist' certificate would be an excellent start).

|8.29.05 @ 11:48AM|#

Never in any of the Abu Ghraib stories did I see the worst horror stories passed off as standard operating procedure for the US military, whereas that technique made up a good part of this column.

Joe, here's the first two sentences of the column:

On September 14, 2001, three days after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, a group of psychologists sent an open letter to the American Psychological Association. The 19 signatories, all established experts in trauma research and treatment, were concerned that thousands of people in New York City and elsewhere would receive dubious, even damaging, counseling.

So no, this column isn't about denouncing the "fundamental principles behind counselling;" this is about legitimate counsellors denouncing a bunch of quacks.

|8.29.05 @ 11:54AM|#

joe-

As I recall from when I read the article in the print edition, the basic thesis was that most people involved in a serious incident do NOT need trauma counseling, and that in some cases trauma counseling may actually make things worse.

If those points are true, then anybody who heads to a tragic incident and tries to offer services to anybody and everybody on the scene is at best dubious.

An honest person can admit those points and still agree that a select handful of trauma victims may need counseling. Unless and until there's an easy way to spot those people early, the best approach is to refrain from sending counselors to the scene, and instead offer help only to those who continue to have difficulties some time (a few hours? days? weeks? whatever) after the incident.

Really, is there anybody here who disagrees with what I just wrote?

I suspect that both sides in this thread are itching to use trauma counseling as a proxy battle on the larger question of psychiatry and psychology. If that's what you want, well, so be it. I'll only say that I am much more sympathetic to the notion of mental health treatment than most people on this forum, and hence the disreputable elements tick me off to no end when they give mental health a bad name.

|8.29.05 @ 12:21PM|#

A second look at the article suggests that one of the problems is that it's ludicrously easy to become a "certified trauma therapist", simply by taking a class that many experts say contains harmful information. Yet in some cases (e.g. OK City), respected experts were kept out in favor of those with a more dubious certification.

There's lots to criticize in the current state of trauma counseling. The notion that some people who undergo trauma may need some help is a sound one. The notion that EVERYBODY needs counseling is ridiculous, especially when the counseling offered is potentially counter-productive.

But those who want a proxy battle are of course free to fight.

|8.29.05 @ 12:32PM|#

So, apparently, Jennifer is taking the side of the mental health establishment here against the fly-by-night guys.

Anybody still itching for a proxy battle?

I didn't think so.

|8.29.05 @ 12:32PM|#

am i alone in wondering why Sally ("The point of imposing treatment is to help patients attain autonomy") Satel is published in Reason magazine?
for example, see Thomas Szasz's article in Ideas on Liberty http://szasz.com/iol14.html

|8.29.05 @ 12:41PM|#

Good news! Dr. Robert Butterworth, a "California psychologist who has treated victims of natural disasters," is ready to help the victims of Katrina. He's totally legitimate, too; according to his list of credentials, he's had an appearance on Oprah, two appearances on Geraldo, and two on Jerry Springer.

According to the press release he put out today, Within hours of the Sept. 11th disaster trauma psychologist and media commentator Robert R. Butterworth, Ph.D., was giving ongoing psychological commentary to a traumatized nation. During those crucial days he was called upon almost daily on MSNBC. He also appeared frequently on CNN, CBS, NBC and Fox Network television conveying psychological hope to our nation.

Lest any of you suspect he may be a quack who doesn't know what he's talking about, he has THIS to say about Katrina's probable effect on children: "A young child who doesn't understand what is occurring during a severe storm like a hurricane can easily become confused and frightened as a result of these unpredictable events." In case anyone was afraid the kids would get confused and think Christmas came early this year. So if you're caught in this horrible storm, what's the best way to put your life back together? "Those individuals who recover the quickest from the psychological effects of disasters are those who are able to verbalize their feelings with others," said Butterworth. Even if you think you need some time alone to come to terms with how dramatically your life has changed, you're totally wrong. Find somebody to verbalize with, immediately, or else you're totally screwed.

http://www.expertclick.com/NewsReleaseWire/default.cfm?Action=ReleaseDetail&ID=9986

|8.29.05 @ 3:35PM|#

everyone:

it's "counselors" and "counseling"; not "counsellors" and "counselling".

you may continue.

|8.29.05 @ 3:37PM|#

unless you're using the british spelling. but i don't think any of us wants to sink to that level.

|8.29.05 @ 4:00PM|#

these parasites do serve a purpose in our rootless gesellschaft regime, ms jennifer. as cs lewis wrote, a man who loses his faith does not then believe in nothing; rather, he believes in anything. in the communitarian society our civilization was once fond of, if someone had a problem they could talk about it with the many family members living in their hovel. if that didn't help they could go to their priest with their problems, so long as their church dues were paid.

but in our enlightened times, each of us has become so enveloped in a husk of selfishness, ostensibly to protect us from dependence on others. but where do we turn when our quest for independence proves to be the illusion it always was? are we not like the girl in nightmare on elm street, whose escape from freddy is blocked by the very bars her mother put in the window to keep freddy out?

if schlutzes such as these had appeared, threatening the coherence of the community in those bygone days, they would have been burnt at the stake. feeling nostalgic, ms jennifer?

|8.29.05 @ 4:53PM|#

You're right, BD. And a further Google search shows me I was wrong to insult the fine Dr. Butterworth--how can I doubt a man who's been interviewed by such upstanding publications as the Weekly World News?

(Comes up on the first page when you type his name into Google.)

|8.30.05 @ 10:52AM|#

Jennifer, "My take on the article was that bogus counsellors were making the legitimate ones look bad"

If so, than I clearly misinterpretted your comment as applying more broadly than you intended.