Yeah, that's the right split. The research design would need to treat them separately.
there are so many people who go to therapy for years and get worse. nobody talks about this.
People do talk about it - the research on therapy non-response and deterioration exists. The issue is it doesn't generate engagement the way success stories do, so it stays in the literature.
therapy saved my life so I initially hated this title. but reading the description I understand what's actually being asked and I think it's a fair question
As a clinician I find the title inflammatory but the underlying question is legitimate. There is a real body of research on iatrogenic effects in psychotherapy - certain approaches, particularly those focused on intensive trauma narration, can increase distress rather than reduce it for some populations. That's worth investigating properly.
The iatrogenic angle is what I'm most interested in. There's also a separate question about whether the broader cultural adoption of therapy language - "triggered", "trauma", "boundaries" - as everyday vocabulary changes how people interpret their own experiences. Jonathan Haidt has written on this but I want to see the underlying research.
I think it's two different questions mixed together. Therapy (clinical intervention) vs therapy culture (the language and framework spreading through social media) probably have very different effects and shouldn't be studied as one thing.