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
Men are not the problem in any of this conversation I’ve read thus far.
Something can not work for you. That’s okay, it sucks and I’m sorry your experience was poor, truly, but it’s okay you need other mediums to help your mental health, and I hope you have a support sysyem. But it seems you’re saying because it didn’t work for you, it doesn’t work for men. That’s not true.
Oh, I’m particularly special? I’m unique? My own concerns aren’t shared?
Gotcha.
I’m guessing that only those men who find it helpful are the norm; the people for whom it doesn’t work are each special snowflakes that can and should be ignored by the system.
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.
No, no, no. You don’t get to go there now. You’ve spent all this time explaining to me that “the system” works. You’ve shown all the scientific data supporting it. That’s now an absolute fact. The system clearly works, so if I experience any failure, that has to be all on me.
I’m not sure I can say anything to mollify you.
You could scroll up. You’ve posted any number of scientific studies showing that therapy works. Scroll up far enough, and you’ll find a graph that says it doesn’t.
You could shift your focus away from “the system’s” successes and shift instead toward its failures.
It’s much easier to fix something that we know to be broken. Stop fighting people when you’re told how badly it sucks, and keep the focus on what it needs to change.
You could completely remove the word “toxic” from your vocabulary: 100% of the time, it is used accusatorily against the very people that “the system” has failed.
I want to be very clear about something, because I think it got lost.
I am not saying therapy failing you makes you wrong, broken, or culpable. Nor have I ever said that, please quote me. You havent provided a source for anything yet, I demand one now. Or stop with this pitiful attempt to portray me as something I am not.
I am saying that generalizing from personal failure to “therapy doesn’t work for men” causes harm at a population level even though that conclusion feels emotionally justified.
We know men under utilise mental health services. We know mental health services help men on aggregate. I am sorry it didn’t help you personally.
Those two things can be true at the same time.
A treatment can be fallible, imperfect, and even damaging for some people (allergies for example) and still be worth recommending when it reduces risk for many others. We don’t not use paracetamol for everybody who needs it just because you’re allergic.
My frustration is not with men who were failed by therapy. It’s with the narrative leap from “this didn’t help me” to “this shouldn’t be encouraged,” because we know where that road ends for a lot of men. The graph.
I feel you misrepresented so much in this discussion. The language around therapy is infalible, it wasn’t. You wanted scientific studies until you got them, having got them you didn’t read them. You thought therapy is treated as unfalsifiable, it isn’t. Was it you that suggested therapy is as effective as placebo when it isn’t. It might not have been, I don’t read usernames. I feel like you have gone out of your way to not read anything you don’t like, and interpret everything in the least charitable light you could.
Here you misrepresent so much of what I say it isn’t worth it to go line by line but to remind you you’ve consistently done it before, tell you you’re doing it egregiously now and leave it at that. Provide a quote.
It’s much easier to fix something that we know to be broken.
I am
We know men under utilise mental health services. We know mental health services help men on aggregate.
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.
It’s not men, its you specifically boo.
Men are not the problem in any of this conversation I’ve read thus far.
Something can not work for you. That’s okay, it sucks and I’m sorry your experience was poor, truly, but it’s okay you need other mediums to help your mental health, and I hope you have a support sysyem. But it seems you’re saying because it didn’t work for you, it doesn’t work for men. That’s not true.
Oh, I’m particularly special? I’m unique? My own concerns aren’t shared?
Gotcha.
I’m guessing that only those men who find it helpful are the norm; the people for whom it doesn’t work are each special snowflakes that can and should be ignored by the system.
deleted by creator
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.
No, no, no. You don’t get to go there now. You’ve spent all this time explaining to me that “the system” works. You’ve shown all the scientific data supporting it. That’s now an absolute fact. The system clearly works, so if I experience any failure, that has to be all on me.
You could scroll up. You’ve posted any number of scientific studies showing that therapy works. Scroll up far enough, and you’ll find a graph that says it doesn’t.
You could shift your focus away from “the system’s” successes and shift instead toward its failures.
It’s much easier to fix something that we know to be broken. Stop fighting people when you’re told how badly it sucks, and keep the focus on what it needs to change.
You could completely remove the word “toxic” from your vocabulary: 100% of the time, it is used accusatorily against the very people that “the system” has failed.
I want to be very clear about something, because I think it got lost. I am not saying therapy failing you makes you wrong, broken, or culpable. Nor have I ever said that, please quote me. You havent provided a source for anything yet, I demand one now. Or stop with this pitiful attempt to portray me as something I am not.
I am saying that generalizing from personal failure to “therapy doesn’t work for men” causes harm at a population level even though that conclusion feels emotionally justified.
We know men under utilise mental health services. We know mental health services help men on aggregate. I am sorry it didn’t help you personally.
Those two things can be true at the same time.
A treatment can be fallible, imperfect, and even damaging for some people (allergies for example) and still be worth recommending when it reduces risk for many others. We don’t not use paracetamol for everybody who needs it just because you’re allergic.
My frustration is not with men who were failed by therapy. It’s with the narrative leap from “this didn’t help me” to “this shouldn’t be encouraged,” because we know where that road ends for a lot of men. The graph.
I feel you misrepresented so much in this discussion. The language around therapy is infalible, it wasn’t. You wanted scientific studies until you got them, having got them you didn’t read them. You thought therapy is treated as unfalsifiable, it isn’t. Was it you that suggested therapy is as effective as placebo when it isn’t. It might not have been, I don’t read usernames. I feel like you have gone out of your way to not read anything you don’t like, and interpret everything in the least charitable light you could.
Here you misrepresent so much of what I say it isn’t worth it to go line by line but to remind you you’ve consistently done it before, tell you you’re doing it egregiously now and leave it at that. Provide a quote.
I am