Such a great interview. It’s a pleasure to hear people talk as people and not as tribes, while the tribal nature of discourse was discussed. Very refreshing.
I had heard of equine therapy but only in relation to troubled teens (this had to do with a family member in the late 80s). It brings to mind our relationship to animals that have been tamed, or at least brought to heel, and our own wild natures.
Thank you for this well-done interview. I remember you talking about this weeks ago, though I did not read the NYT article. I'm still not sure I understand equine therapy, though it sounds like it sure works for some. And I have to add - Grand Junction is a beautiful, maybe under appreciated part of Colorado.
Really great conversation and interview , so glad you had her on here! I have many different thoughts given the topic and my career as a clinical psychologist in a liberal democrat leaning area. A few thoughts related to the difference between liberal elitist academia versus more boots on the ground , personal accountability styles seemed to be part of the distinction in how one practices therapy and conceptualizes patients. I know many colleagues that would identify as liberal but would resonate with Dea’s style which I found interesting as well. Also the fact that APA and many of the institutions in psychology are captured by left wing progressivism as of late and that has definitely altered the way many practice and how that tricked down to the patients who come in for therapy. Some of my initial thoughts. Anyway, great episode!
It took me a while to integrate my own thoughts about being a politically identified therapist but it makes sense. Considering that left leaning people tend to convert whoever they are interacting with (generalizing here but that's what I see going on at the moment), I would choose her as a therapist over any liberal identified therapist. She doesn't seem to put her patients in a box (meaning molding them to the social norm, whatever that is at any given time) which would be damaging. I switched for a gifted therapist two years ago (after being with a "regular" one for 10 years) and I saw a huge difference. Gifted therapist is gifted and works with gifted people.
I didn't think she looked like super republican, except maybe for the patriotic and military love side, and I think therapy is meant to help people figure out their shit, not for them to accept any weird thought without giving it a shake. Conservative have their feet a bit more rooted in reality sometimes.
Excellent discussion with Dea Bridge. The long-form podcast format allowed a lot more space for nuanced conversation than the NYT interview.
I think you hit on something when you described Bridge's approach as "normie" therapy rather than "conservative" therapy. In this context, the latter term is too reductive and even a bit misleading. What I got from Bridge is that she is trying to help people address their individual problems without automatically thinking of themselves as victims of larger political and social forces (sounds like common sense more than anything).
I have no way to prove this, but something tells me that the NYT editors were probably looking for something that Bridge didn't provide: a fire-breathing MAGA, Bible-thumper whose therapy approach consisted of telling people they were going to hell if they don't pray to baby Jesus.
Did your initial conversations with the editors give you a sense of what they were trying to accomplish or if they had a certain angle?
I enjoyed this podcast and the interview in the NY Times.
As a centrist-democrat in NYC with an MSW, I found Dea's approach to therapy consistent with my own. Some say the Devil is in the Details. I agree. If we went deeper, we might find differences (there always are). But would they be political? Others say God is in the Details, indicating the possibility of discoveries and deeper understanding. I agree. But to get to a deeper level is probably not do-able on a podcast.
The article and podcast give a nice introduction to an interesting, likable, professional therapist named Dea. But they bring us no closer to understanding whether there is a difference between conservative and non-conservative therapists that can be attributed to politics. Someone at the NY Times had an idea, but so far, there's no there, there.
Sorry for going off-topic but I'm not on Twitter and don't know how else to reach you. The last two weeks Katie Herzog and Jesse Signal have discussed drag queen story hour and the Balenciaga ads. They've gotten a lot of pushback from commenters who are parents and perceive K&J to be too dismissive of parental concerns.
The discourse is along the lines of "these two childless podcasters don't get it and never will as long as they remain childless."
Given that you:ve commented a lot on the topic of being childless, the question I pose to you is:. Have childless people renounced the right to express their opinion on cultural practices that may negatively affect child development?
Who gets to decide what is or is not appropriate for children?
Is the question presented here similar to the question of whether men should have a role in the abortion debate?
Such a good conversation. It was really refreshing to listen to a therapist who doesn't cast every experience in terms of trauma and is open to figuring out what might work for individual patients depending on their needs and their situation.
I love the fact that Dea just casually drops a reference to the Epoch Times during the final 3 minutes
Hey Meghan, this podcast persuaded me to subscribe! You're such a natural interviewer❤️
Such a great interview. It’s a pleasure to hear people talk as people and not as tribes, while the tribal nature of discourse was discussed. Very refreshing.
I had heard of equine therapy but only in relation to troubled teens (this had to do with a family member in the late 80s). It brings to mind our relationship to animals that have been tamed, or at least brought to heel, and our own wild natures.
Thank you for this well-done interview. I remember you talking about this weeks ago, though I did not read the NYT article. I'm still not sure I understand equine therapy, though it sounds like it sure works for some. And I have to add - Grand Junction is a beautiful, maybe under appreciated part of Colorado.
Really great conversation and interview , so glad you had her on here! I have many different thoughts given the topic and my career as a clinical psychologist in a liberal democrat leaning area. A few thoughts related to the difference between liberal elitist academia versus more boots on the ground , personal accountability styles seemed to be part of the distinction in how one practices therapy and conceptualizes patients. I know many colleagues that would identify as liberal but would resonate with Dea’s style which I found interesting as well. Also the fact that APA and many of the institutions in psychology are captured by left wing progressivism as of late and that has definitely altered the way many practice and how that tricked down to the patients who come in for therapy. Some of my initial thoughts. Anyway, great episode!
It took me a while to integrate my own thoughts about being a politically identified therapist but it makes sense. Considering that left leaning people tend to convert whoever they are interacting with (generalizing here but that's what I see going on at the moment), I would choose her as a therapist over any liberal identified therapist. She doesn't seem to put her patients in a box (meaning molding them to the social norm, whatever that is at any given time) which would be damaging. I switched for a gifted therapist two years ago (after being with a "regular" one for 10 years) and I saw a huge difference. Gifted therapist is gifted and works with gifted people.
I didn't think she looked like super republican, except maybe for the patriotic and military love side, and I think therapy is meant to help people figure out their shit, not for them to accept any weird thought without giving it a shake. Conservative have their feet a bit more rooted in reality sometimes.
Dearest Meghan,
Excellent discussion with Dea Bridge. The long-form podcast format allowed a lot more space for nuanced conversation than the NYT interview.
I think you hit on something when you described Bridge's approach as "normie" therapy rather than "conservative" therapy. In this context, the latter term is too reductive and even a bit misleading. What I got from Bridge is that she is trying to help people address their individual problems without automatically thinking of themselves as victims of larger political and social forces (sounds like common sense more than anything).
I have no way to prove this, but something tells me that the NYT editors were probably looking for something that Bridge didn't provide: a fire-breathing MAGA, Bible-thumper whose therapy approach consisted of telling people they were going to hell if they don't pray to baby Jesus.
Did your initial conversations with the editors give you a sense of what they were trying to accomplish or if they had a certain angle?
I enjoyed this podcast and the interview in the NY Times.
As a centrist-democrat in NYC with an MSW, I found Dea's approach to therapy consistent with my own. Some say the Devil is in the Details. I agree. If we went deeper, we might find differences (there always are). But would they be political? Others say God is in the Details, indicating the possibility of discoveries and deeper understanding. I agree. But to get to a deeper level is probably not do-able on a podcast.
The article and podcast give a nice introduction to an interesting, likable, professional therapist named Dea. But they bring us no closer to understanding whether there is a difference between conservative and non-conservative therapists that can be attributed to politics. Someone at the NY Times had an idea, but so far, there's no there, there.
Barbara Lesko
Great episode. I would like to know more about how her Christian faith influences her practice.
Meghan,
Sorry for going off-topic but I'm not on Twitter and don't know how else to reach you. The last two weeks Katie Herzog and Jesse Signal have discussed drag queen story hour and the Balenciaga ads. They've gotten a lot of pushback from commenters who are parents and perceive K&J to be too dismissive of parental concerns.
The discourse is along the lines of "these two childless podcasters don't get it and never will as long as they remain childless."
Given that you:ve commented a lot on the topic of being childless, the question I pose to you is:. Have childless people renounced the right to express their opinion on cultural practices that may negatively affect child development?
Who gets to decide what is or is not appropriate for children?
Is the question presented here similar to the question of whether men should have a role in the abortion debate?
Such a good conversation. It was really refreshing to listen to a therapist who doesn't cast every experience in terms of trauma and is open to figuring out what might work for individual patients depending on their needs and their situation.
This...this is the part where I can't say what I want to say.