Random, Random 2.0

[Deuce]

I've always felt that a good, sincere friend can help more than any therapist - because the sincere friend's caring is genuine, and not conditional upon being paid money, not restricted to 45 minutes per week, etc., etc.

For those who lack such a friend in their life, perhaps a therapist might be able to help. But only if a good one is chosen, of course - and that's often a crapshoot.

1. It's not your friend's job to be your therapist. That's a HUGE burden to put on that friend (I've been that friend). They will now, if a really good friend, feel responsible for your mental state and it's a very heavy weight if the issue is serious. It's one thing to "share," it's another to use friends and loved ones for treatment of a potential medical issue.
2. Your friend is biased and untrained and may give you bad advice that potentially pushes you away from healing.

I completely and absolutely disagree with you. In the 'it takes a village' type of approach, we all have a responsibility to help each other. And who better to help than one who knows the person very well?
I am not saying that the friend should be forced or coerced to help. But if the friend is willing, and sincerely cares about the person, and there is mutual trust (as there is in any strong, sincere friendship), then that is a very big step toward being able to help.

I'm not talking about a 'medical issue' - I'm talking about psychological issues. As I've mentioned previously, one can be trained to deal with medical issues, as we are all very similar physically. But we are all very different psychologically.
I think that, because of the position you hold (which you've alluded to at times here), your perspective is naturally less than objective.
And I am obviously influenced by my own direct relevant experiences in the helping field, as well as by my observations within same.

A Friend is "untrained"?? How can someone who knows you and understands you intimately possibly be untrained? They have the entire relationship to draw on!
And if you claim that a complete stranger (therapist) is 'trained', then you must subscribe to the theory that there is a universal solution to every psychologically based problem - with which I also completely disagree.
We're not talking about stringing a tennis racquet - for which one can be trained, as there are only a few ways to do it efficiently.

Biased? Perhaps a friend may be biased - biased in favour of wanting their friend to feel better, and so they invest in that end.
Are you claiming that therapists are unbiased? Therapists are simply flawed human beings, as are we all. They, too, possess their own problems, judgments, prejudices, biases, etc. They are NOT perfect human beings who possess all the answers - though they are often held up to be, which can certainly be quite dangerous, as the client, not knowing the therapist at all, does not know what personal problems, biases, etc. the therapist may incorporate within their suggestions and advice. Thus the dangers of blind faith/trust I mentioned previously.
With a friend, the faith and trust is real and historically established, not blind.

In my (rather extensive) experience in the field of helping people, I have witnessed hundreds of times where 'professionals' (be they social workers, psychologists, guidance counsellors, youth workers, street workers, etc.) have helped people far, far more when they exit the restrictions of their profession and become personally and emotionally involved and invested than when they stay back and maintain a 'professional distance', which is obviously emotionally distant and very impersonal, as well as being very conditional (with things like time restrictions, monetary payments, etc.). While this impersonal, distant, conditional, cold approach may work for some (and I have seen it cause more damage, as well), it is my experience that the warm, personal, closer, loving approach works considerably better for the majority of persons.

"There are no experts in loving, no scholars of living, no doctors of the human emotions and no gurus of the soul. But we need not be alone; friendship is a precious gift, and all that we need do to see is remove the blinders." - Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson.

[ti-amie]

[JazzNU]

I would love to see a train cut through The Rockies.

I will pass on that. In theory it's great and scenic, in practice, still scenic I guess, but a bit terrifying. Speaking as someone who has been on a train traveling next to a ravine.

Acela is great and a good first step for the US in high speed rail, but because of the area it runs in, it can't hit the max speeds it is capable of, area is too populous.

[Deuce]

I've gone through part of the Canadian Rockies by train (the parts of the Rockies where the tracks are built, obviously). It's nice and scenic and all... but what I noticed was that they weren't as high or as spectacular as I'd seen in photos. I think that's because the train passes amongst them at a certain elevation - and so if you're already at a certain elevation when you see the Rocky mountains right beside you, it's not the same as seeing them from the bottom of the mountains.

I will also say that riding the train along the Fraser Canyon is both spectacular and frightening. We did it at about 3am in the moonlight, and it was breathtakingly beautiful. The train is right on the edge of a cliff, and looking out the windows on one side, you see only the depth of the canyon to the river below - you see no man made or natural structure that would hold the train there if it were to derail.
The train moves comparatively slowly along the canyon's edge... and the train employees told me that they schedule that portion to be done at night - when people are sleeping, and when the view is obstructed by darkness for those who remain awake (I had the advantage of a full moon) - because doing it during the day made too many people sick.

[mmmm8]

I've always felt that a good, sincere friend can help more than any therapist - because the sincere friend's caring is genuine, and not conditional upon being paid money, not restricted to 45 minutes per week, etc., etc.

For those who lack such a friend in their life, perhaps a therapist might be able to help. But only if a good one is chosen, of course - and that's often a crapshoot.

1. It's not your friend's job to be your therapist. That's a HUGE burden to put on that friend (I've been that friend). They will now, if a really good friend, feel responsible for your mental state and it's a very heavy weight if the issue is serious. It's one thing to "share," it's another to use friends and loved ones for treatment of a potential medical issue.
2. Your friend is biased and untrained and may give you bad advice that potentially pushes you away from healing.

I completely and absolutely disagree with you. In the 'it takes a village' type of approach, we all have a responsibility to help each other. And who better to help than one who knows the person very well?
I am not saying that the friend should be forced or coerced to help. But if the friend is willing, and sincerely cares about the person, and there is mutual trust (as there is in any strong, sincere friendship), then that is a very big step toward being able to help.

I'm not talking about a 'medical issue' - I'm talking about psychological issues. As I've mentioned previously, one can be trained to deal with medical issues, as we are all very similar physically. But we are all very different psychologically.
I think that, because of the position you hold (which you've alluded to at times here), your perspective is naturally less than objective.
And I am obviously influenced by my own direct relevant experiences in the helping field, as well as by my observations within same.

A Friend is "untrained"?? How can someone who knows you and understands you intimately possibly be untrained? They have the entire relationship to draw on!
And if you claim that a complete stranger (therapist) is 'trained', then you must subscribe to the theory that there is a universal solution to every psychologically based problem - with which I also completely disagree.
We're not talking about stringing a tennis racquet - for which one can be trained, as there are only a few ways to do it efficiently.

Biased? Perhaps a friend may be biased - biased in favour of wanting their friend to feel better, and so they invest in that end.
Are you claiming that therapists are unbiased? Therapists are simply flawed human beings, as are we all. They, too, possess their own problems, judgments, prejudices, biases, etc. They are NOT perfect human beings who possess all the answers - though they are often held up to be, which can certainly be quite dangerous, as the client, not knowing the therapist at all, does not know what personal problems, biases, etc. the therapist may incorporate within their suggestions and advice. Thus the dangers of blind faith/trust I mentioned previously.
With a friend, the faith and trust is real and historically established, not blind.

In my (rather extensive) experience in the field of helping people, I have witnessed hundreds of times where 'professionals' (be they social workers, psychologists, guidance counsellors, youth workers, street workers, etc.) have helped people far, far more when they exit the restrictions of their profession and become personally and emotionally involved and invested than when they stay back and maintain a 'professional distance', which is obviously emotionally distant and very impersonal, as well as being very conditional (with things like time restrictions, monetary payments, etc.). While this impersonal, distant, conditional, cold approach may work for some (and I have seen it cause more damage, as well), it is my experience that the warm, personal, closer, loving approach works considerably better for the majority of persons.

"There are no experts in loving, no scholars of living, no doctors of the human emotions and no gurus of the soul. But we need not be alone; friendship is a precious gift, and all that we need do to see is remove the blinders." - Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson.

Would you leave it to a friend who is not a teacher teach your children? Maybe, if they had some particular predisposition to it. But generally, you'd want some sort of teacher to be doing the schooling, no? How's this different. Not everyone is equipped. Or, going back to my physical therapy example, I'd let a friend give me a back rub for fun if they're good at it (no dirty jokes please ) but if I had back pain, I'd want to see a trained masseuse or physical therapist.

BTW. My job is consulting multinational companies about their talent management strategy, it's not remotely in the mental health field. I"m not biased in this area beyond general life experience, I just see a lot of data come through.

[Deuce]

Or, going back to my physical therapy example, I'd let a friend give me a back rub for fun if they're good at it (no dirty jokes please ) but if I had back pain, I'd want to see a trained masseuse or physical therapist.

As I've stated numerous times already - when it comes to our physical make-up, we are all very similar. But when it comes to our psychological composition, we are very different. Ergo, while it is possible to train someone to help heal physical ailments - even if the two people are complete strangers to each other -, it is not possible to train people to help heal psychological ailments when the two people are strangers to each other. That is why a friend has a decided advantage in being able to help - because the friend knows and understands the other person.

I don't see your teacher example as being relevant or pertinent... but, that said, I did state earlier in this discussion that I believe that many (likely most) of the so-called learning disabilities that children are labelled with (by professionals) are in fact teaching disabilities...
And I have absolutely no problems with home schooling, which removes the professionals from the equation. The best ratio for efficient teaching/learning is 1:1. The further we get away from that ratio - as in traditional schools -, the less efficient the teaching and learning is.

I simply don't believe that professionals are inherently experts in their field - or that they're automatically competent, even. My life experience has proven over and over that quite often, they are neither experts nor competent.
And in the area of psychological well-being, I strongly believe that genuine understanding, trust, love, and caring are far more effective than is the distant, cold, calculated, conditional approach of professionals.

I've experienced and observed far too much to change my mind on this.

.

[dmforever]

Seeing a therapist/psychiatrist/psychologist/analyst and talking to a friend are wildly different.The former is sworn to confidentiality. The latter isn't. A good former doesn't have an agenda. A friend usually does, even if that agenda is well-meaning. The former focuses solely on you. While you may talk to a friend for a while about a problem or condition that you have, at some point the friend will expect a give and take. The former has training and has studied how the emotions and the psyche work. The latter hasn't. The former doesn't have a personal relationship with you outside of the office. This offers some degree of objectivity. This objectivity is not necessarily cold and/or detached. Usually they are friendly and warm. Also, as has already been said, a friend may be completely unequipped to handle, or unequipped to handle well, what a person brings in.

Of course people should have friends to confide in. That's super important. But comparing a friend and a therapist et all is a total false comparison.

But why don't you ask people who go to see a therapist et all? They would be the ones to know. It's not like we don't have close friends who we confide in. But for the above mentioned reasons, and others, we choose to talk to friends AND a therapist et al.

Kevin

[Deuce]

It's easy to simply re-hash how the pro-therapist lobby markets themselves. It reads like a therapist's promotional pamphlet. Kind of like a beer commercial in that it lists all of the potential positives without mentioning any of the very real potential dangers and negatives...

Once again - my real life experience over more than a quarter century within the field of helping people - which includes many, many different people of different ages and backgrounds, some of whom have gone to therapists, some who have not, some who have been helped by friends, some who have not been, and some who have experienced several different approaches, has led me to the conclusion I have expressed here in several posts - in which I am fully confident.

[Suliso]

I would love to see a train cut through The Rockies.

I will pass on that. In theory it's great and scenic, in practice, still scenic I guess, but a bit terrifying. Speaking as someone who has been on a train traveling next to a ravine.

Why should it be terrifying? You just cut a base tunnel at the bottom of the mountains and you hardly notice them. Here we have a 55 km tunnel going under the Alps. 19 minutes and you're already on the other side. Of course the scenic aspect is lost, but the speed is the point in this case.

[ponchi101]

It could be terrifying if you have a TGV doing 300 KM/H with a cliff on one side
After you mentioned Spanish trains, I remembered that I did take Segovia-Madrid in an AVE (Spanish TGV). Wonderful ride. Super smooth and only slowed down when it went into two separate tunnels. Total time, a bit under 40 minutes.

[meganfernandez]

It could be terrifying if you have a TGV doing 300 KM/H with a cliff on one side
After you mentioned Spanish trains, I remembered that I did take Segovia-Madrid in an AVE (Spanish TGV). Wonderful ride. Super smooth and only slowed down when it went into two separate tunnels. Total time, a bit under 40 minutes.

I'm going to Spain soon and am trying to decide between train and driving to go between Madrid, Asturias and Bilbao... Is someone on this board super familiar with Spain?

[ponchi101]

The AVE's in Spain are wonderful. The thing about driving is that in Spain you have 1,000 little stops that are charming. Specially, for the food.
Try to mix it, if you can. Both experiences are great. Do one leg on train (maybe the long one, as you don't want to waste a full day in a car) and drive the others.

[Suliso]

It could be terrifying if you have a TGV doing 300 KM/H with a cliff on one side
After you mentioned Spanish trains, I remembered that I did take Segovia-Madrid in an AVE (Spanish TGV). Wonderful ride. Super smooth and only slowed down when it went into two separate tunnels. Total time, a bit under 40 minutes.

I'm going to Spain soon and am trying to decide between train and driving to go between Madrid, Asturias and Bilbao... Is someone on this board super familiar with Spain?

It depends what you want to do in Asturias and Bilbao. Do you intend to travel between the two? That would be very long with a train albeit possibly scenic. High speed rail is only partially finished in that direction from Madrid. If you want to explore Asturias and the Basque country starting from Madrid I'd advise to take a train to Bilbao or Oviedo and rent a car there.

[meganfernandez]

It could be terrifying if you have a TGV doing 300 KM/H with a cliff on one side
After you mentioned Spanish trains, I remembered that I did take Segovia-Madrid in an AVE (Spanish TGV). Wonderful ride. Super smooth and only slowed down when it went into two separate tunnels. Total time, a bit under 40 minutes.

I'm going to Spain soon and am trying to decide between train and driving to go between Madrid, Asturias and Bilbao... Is someone on this board super familiar with Spain?

It depends what you want to do in Asturias and Bilbao. Do you intend to travel between the two? That would be very long with a train albeit possibly scenic. High speed rail is only partially finished in that direction from Madrid. If you want to explore Asturias and the Basque country starting from Madrid I'd advise to take a train to Bilbao or Oviedo and rent a car there.

The AVE's in Spain are wonderful. The thing about driving is that in Spain you have 1,000 little stops that are charming. Specially, for the food.
Try to mix it, if you can. Both experiences are great. Do one leg on train (maybe the long one, as you don't want to waste a full day in a car) and drive the others.

Thank you guys! I was wondering if Madrid, Asturias and Basque is too much for 8-9 days. Madrid and Asturias are musts. Then I just hate to not go to San Sebastian or a cider house if I'm that close. I've always wanted to do to a sagardotegi at a cider house and we'll be there in season. In Asturias, we don't have specific plans. Just want to see Olviedo for sure. Would like to stay at a parador or two during the trip, too.

I was hoping we would happen across other interesting spots on a road trip. So you both think train from Madrid to Olviedo then car to Basque, maybe taking a couple days to make our way over there? Then drive back to Madrid? The thing is, my husband hates to be in the car for more than threre hours.

[Suliso]

It might be expensive to rent a car in one place and return in another, albeit I have not checked. It definitely makes no sense to have a car in Madrid itself.

As for times train to Oviedo (fastest) is 4 h 40 min, about the same as driving. To Bilbao trains are rather slow (5 h), driving would be only four (many locals fly). It's about a 3 h drive between Oviedo and Bilbao. Perhaps still makes sense to take a train to Oviedo, rent a car, go to all the places you want and return for a train trip back to the capital.

For fast trains you have chosen the wrong corner of Spain. They're way faster than this when going to Barcelona and points south (Seville, Alicante, Valencia, Malaga).