There was an interesting article in "Ami Living" (issue #62) about unlicensed advice-givers, whether they call themselves counselors, therapists, marital counselors, etc. The author interviewed three men who have no degrees and yet offer advice. To sum up:
pro licensing/anti unregulated counselors:
1) public protection - people have been hurt by self-declared practioners
2) the material studied for a degree plus the supervised training is invaluable
3) formal schooling plus a natural aptitude are a winning combination
4) the shtetl rav knew his limits
pro unregulated counselors:
1) there are awful licensed therapists, a degree is no guarantee of competence
2) a
chush (instinct, talent) for advice giving cannot be learned in school; those who are professionally trained often lack common sense and a listening and sensitive heart and go "by the book". Being able to give good eitzos (advice) is not something you learn in school.
3) formal schooling in which you must study ideas that are contrary to Torah is not an asset but a liability
4) they can be fine for most human relationship and personal problems
5) good for those who don't want to get involved in anything medical because of the stigma (even though psychologists and social workers are not in the medical profession)
What did people do before the field of mental health developed and became regulated? Of course there were always rabbis, rebbetzins, mashgichim, pastors, chaplains, and friends to turn to for advice.
The frum psychologist Dr Sorotzkin's answer to the question of what people did before psychology is the same as for antibiotics, "Some lived and some died." I think that is true now too, though not in the way he means it, with many people "dying" with the lack of help or outright harm perpetrated by some professionals.
He believes that all things being equal, the chances are higher that a trained and licensed therapist will be better than one who isn't. He thinks that licensed people are more likely to be effective and quicker to know what they can and cannot do. Sounds reasonable but until it's proven (and how can it be proven?) it's an opinion.
A frum psychologist quoted in the article said that the rav and rebbe of yesteryear "were guided by a strong sense of morality, spirituality and plain old common sense." He thinks that many of those trying to give advice today are lacking in all three. He also thinks that the advisors of yesteryear were focused on the person who needed help as opposed to today where many are as interested in being advice-givers as they in helping. "There is much less listening, much more advice-giving."
The professionals feel threatened by those who get referrals even though they did not put in years and money into a degree. When a social worker is quoted as saying, "A person should never do anything he is not qualified to do. A dermatologist would not promote himself as a brain surgeon," I am not impressed. What's the comparison? How is an counselor who gives advice comparable to one type of doctor who promotes himself as having another specialty?
This same individual is annoyed by congregational rabbis who counsel. What bothers him is the case, for example, of a couple going to their rabbi for marriage counseling and not getting the desired result and concluding that counseling doesn't work without realizing it was the unqualified rabbi who was the problem. This social worker apparently believes that anyone with a degree or license will give only excellent advice, which is wishful thinking.
If only a study could be done in the frum world about the efficacy of frum unprofessional counseling versus professional counseling, but that seems impossible
As for money, it didn't come up in the interviews in the article. A sidebar said that the mental health advisor (i.e. non-professional) rarely charges, volunteering the bulk of his work for the mitzva.
Posts
