“If your therapist does this, RUN!”

How did you feel reading the title of this post? 

Did you feel worried?

Excited?

Curious?

Anticipatorily angry? 

Headlines and other media “hooks” are often designed to use a few words to generate strong emotion and a craving to hear more. 

With this particular sub-genre, I’m not sure if it’s increasing lately, or if I’m just seeing more of it, but I’ve noticed professionals in multiple fields policing each other on social media.

 It looks a bit like this:

“Have you ever been in a therapy session/ doctor’s office/ classroom and then this happened? Well, that’s super problematic/ unethical/ a major red flag, and here's why. You should fire/ report this person immediately.”

Have you also noticed an increase in videos and blog posts with this tone lately? 

It seems to me like more and more professionals are gaining traction online by using their platforms to call out or even cancel either specific members of their field, or phenomena they observe. 

This provocative style of content is consistently rewarded by social media algorithms. It tends to generate attention, emotion, engagement, and a posture of authority. 

They’ll sometimes do this by “stitching” a video, and then attempting to disqualify the point, or even the whole person, based on the, often decontextualized, excerpt they spliced. 

Or sometimes they’ll tell a story, making it clear that they’re absolutely horrified by the way the other professional spoke or acted. 

It’s especially disconcerting when you notice that often, some of the points they’re critiquing are actually clinically valid alternatives to the way they practice. 

But you can’t point that out, or you risk “outing yourself” as one of the “unethical” or “ignorant” ones they’re warning about. 

To be clear, there are certainly times it’s important and necessary to publicly expose dangerous, exploitative, or unethical practices. What concerns me is when ordinary differences in philosophy or technique are presented with the same level of moral outrage. 

Another problem with this trend of righteously reprimanding minor differences or catastrophizing gray area practices is that it camouflages, distracts from, and thereby diminishes the real issues, “boy who cried wolf” style.

When any debatable decision is labeled a "major ethical violation," then the truly serious violations stop standing out. Clients become desensitized, and the language we need for genuine misconduct loses some of its meaning and force. 

It’s like how when too many behaviors are labeled “abuse” it dilutes the word and then people who are truly suffering from abuse or trauma get lost in the shuffle. 

Now, it might be a little hypocritical for me to write about this: 

Firstly, because this post that you’re reading right now is kind of (but not exactly) doing the same thing: calling out something that people in fields like mine are doing, with which I disagree. 

And secondly, because I’m sure I’ve publicly critiqued ideas and practices with which I strongly disagree too; maybe even in the same sanctimonious way that’s irking me now, as I see it en masse. 

It’s not that I think it’s wrong to debate or challenge ideas or alternate professional approaches- of course it’s not. In fact, it’s a crucial part of our dynamic “free marketplace of ideas.” Dialogue like that makes our work stronger, accountable, and healthier, and drives progress. 

But there’s a significant difference between respectful professional discourse and some of the contrarian one-upmanship that looks an awful lot like putting someone else down in order to spotlight the speaker as the virtuous, omnicsient one. 

That might look like the difference between saying something like:

“If you’re ever in a ____ (insert field) appointment, and your _____ (insert professional) says or does _____ (insert something this speaker disapproves of), that’s a sign that your _____ (professional) is not trustworthy/ competent/ moral, and you should immediately begin thinking about finding yourself a new ____ (professional).” 

As opposed to saying something like:

“I’ve noticed that many professionals tend to do abc for this issue, but here is why I believe that, for many clients, there are drawbacks to that, and xyz might be a better approach.” 

Of course, you might ask: 

“But the first one is an appropriate response to someone doing something that is genuinely illegal or grossly unethical, while the second is more for someone debating the merits of two legitimate protocols.”

To that I would reply:

“Yes, exactly. But the online culture of extreme righteous indignation, virtue signaling, black and white thinking, fast canceling, and ideological divisiveness is causing many professionals to lump more and more examples of the second category in with the first.” 

(I guess that didn’t really need quotes; this whole post is really in first person…:) 

Whether conscious or not, it sometimes feels like the subliminal message to the viewer is: 

“Look how bad those other guys are- they’re so wrong and harmful! You're so lucky you have wise and altruistic authorities like me to warn and save you from that. See? You can trust me! Work with me instead! Or at least, buy my product/ subscribe to my channel.” 

If this sounds a little cynical, maybe it is. 

And I’m not saying every time someone speaks strongly like that it’s wrong; sometimes they’re right in what they’re pointing out. 

But I am cautioning both viewers and professionals about this trend as a form of moral intimidation.

Or maybe a better term for it would be “outrage baiting.” 

When we see someone who appears to be knowledgeable, confident, and/ or credentialed expressing outrage about something, especially if it sounds eloquent and logical, it’s compelling, and that surge of intensity, in the seeming pursuit of truth and justice, can be contagious and influential. 

There are absolutely examples of exploitation and malpractice that an educated client, patient, or consumer should be aware of and seek to avoid or address. 

But the aggressive over-generalization of that concern to matters of personal opinion or professional variability can create paranoia and a breakdown of interpersonal trust that helps no one. 

Dedicating excessive amounts of one’s online space to vehemently “calling out” and “canceling” other professionals and practices of which someone disapproves is not a great look, even though it often does get attention, clicks, and clients. 

It’s more productive (although admittedly, less titillating or click-baity) to instead analyze and debate issues respectfully and to share information that is beneficial and useful, in a nuanced way. 

Healthy professions evolve and improve with continuous, collegial disagreement. 

They don't depend on everyone agreeing; they thrive on debating ideas honestly, acknowledging uncertainty, and distinguishing between true ethical violations and reasonable professional differences. 

Social media rewards outrage. Our professional integrity shouldn't.