For example, instead of saying what you quoted (” ‘I’ve been given very bad advice in the past …’ “), you could start out a therapy session by saying “So, Dr so-and-so, I very much appreciate the advice which you’ve been giving me. I think I’ve not been very eloquent in stating what I want out of our discussions. I apologize for that. What I have been trying to say to you is that I am a skeptic. I think it would benefit me, greatly, to discuss any suggestions we come up with, as we go through our sessions. This might include discussing the ideas behind them, and the possible outcomes therefrom. Do you think we could do this?”

Make sure to thank your therapist, immediately afterwards, if he/she says “yes”. If the answer is “no”, then I would say to get a better therapist ASAP. You can always tell work that the therapist whom they assigned for you isn’t a good match for you, and that you’d like to find a therapist outside the workplace with whom to discuss matters.

I suggest presenting yourself as a “skeptic” because this is both a very natural thing and something which is viewed positively in most of North America. Analysis is a positive thing. Furthermore, it sounds like a skeptic is exactly what you are.

However, in response to your comment about generally finding yourself to be the “smartest person in the room”: I do find that often people are actually intelligent and do good work. It took me a while to truly recognize this. Now, I know to just seek what each person is good at: each person’s world-view and analysis helps to contribute to mine, in some way. Sometimes, it’s just via comparison in that I see their sloppy logic. Most times, however, I find something useful in our conversations.

I just saw the date on your post, so I’m not sure whether this is still relevant to you. Nevertheless, I will share it, just in case.

As one final note, “taking things at face value” is also what I would consider to be a good thing. There is no way to know what other people are thinking, and social/political cues vary from person-to-person. Therefore, expecting another person to act on your “hidden intent” based on social or political cues is simply poor communication. Taking statements at “face value” is the only safe way to go. (Even body language does not translate well between cultures.) In short, I would say that you could ask your work for clearer communication about what needs to be done. They probably do not want you to change what you perceive as your instructions based on your interpretations of the social and political currents. Perhaps speaking with them about this, and laying out some ground-work of expectations for communication, would be beneficial. This might involve, for example, explicitly listing which set of tasks accompanies a specific instruction. (Here is an example of this listing: if the instruction is to “deliver the internal mail”, the explicit listing of tasks might involve “Deliver the mail according to the following employee hierarchy, starting at the top: CEO, senior executives …. Then, place inter-departmental mail in the appropriate folder. …”).

Good luck.

Report comment

Report comment

Report comment

If you’re saying they are worried they are literally becoming not a person, I am confused and you will need to explain further. Do you mean they think they will become p-zombies?

Report comment

Report comment

I have a very smart friend who had a similar problem: she described it as feeling like if her therapist couldn’t even get past/see through the regular screen of bullshit conversation she could effortlessly maintain with him, how could he dig into any real problems?

Report comment

Report comment

Report comment

Report comment

As it is, I just need to find another good therapist in the middle of rural Idaho, AND convince the work therapist to actually give me a referral (since apparently no one in this town takes walk-ins).

Report comment