From the author: In contrast to those discrediting the Gestalt approach, the very fact that there are many directions within our psychological professional community speaks of recognition of the complexity of human nature. It must be said that at the scientific and methodological levels the positive effect of the variety of theories and methods of working with clients has long been identified. Sensible psychologists (scientists, teachers, practitioners), while remaining in any of their paradigms, respect other directions. Even with fairly heated debates about human psychology, experts adhere to ethics and confront the facts, without attributing to another approach what, strictly speaking, is not in it. Misunderstanding and condemnation can arise at the level of specific people. This is where loyalty can end. But an entire direction in psychology (all psychoanalysis, all Gestalt approach, all neuro-linguistic programming) cannot be held responsible for violations (negligence) and errors (human factor). And again, an adequate person understands this, and if he wants to express his opinion about what happened, he will not discriminate the approach that has been formed over decades and already has its own status in psychological science and practice. I was trying to find an antonym for the word “discredit” to indicate the idea of ​​​​my article. But the Internet offers "whitewashing" - I don't really like it. I don’t want to whitewash. I just want to object to strangely minded psychologists. And I decided to do this through a description of my path to Gestalt therapy. I believe that my experience allows me to consider myself a person who professionally and soberly looks at psychology in general, and his direction in particular. My interest in the Gestalt approach arose during my studies in psychology. In the 90s, Eastern teachings were very popular, which talked about awareness, authenticity, and contact with reality. I liked the ideas, they resonated with me, but, being quite vigilant and cautious, I did not join any of the then numerous movements and calmly studied scientifically based psychology. I studied more than well. I am writing about this to show the level of my professional competencies already at the beginning. In the first years, during laboratory classes, I learned with great pleasure about the properties of our perception to distort reality. Gestalt psychology and the laws derived from it. That’s when the concept of “gestalt” was fixed, for now in connection with general psychology and narrowly with cognitive processes. Later, in reviews of psychological theories, I learned about a practical direction in working with people and their problems - gestalt therapy. I realized that Gestalt psychology and Gestalt therapy are more indirectly related to each other. But there is still a connection. How often in our work now we rely on experiments in the field of perception. I saw that the ideas of awareness, authenticity and contact with reality are being developed in psychology. In a large, serious book, K. Rudestama became acquainted with the basic concepts, the meaning of which has now deepened and expanded significantly. During the training sessions, we were offered exercises based on the basic principles of the Gestalt approach. I saw therapeutic techniques later - at my first Gestalt training after graduating from university. A hot chair, an empty chair, individual therapy in a group, mini-sessions, dynamic processes, experiences, living... I noticed my changes, saw what was happening to others and understood that this is exactly why I came to psychology. I started practicing immediately after graduating from university and almost immediately teaching and research were added to my activities. In fact, I am always in the field of official psychology and well distinguish scientific approaches from pseudo-scientific and far-from-scientific ones. Whatever the method is, if it is effective for a person in combination with environmental friendliness (does not destroy him and his relationship with the world, and for me it is also important - with God), I recognize the method and can use the elements in my work. ButGestalt therapy responded more than others. And when the first training program opened in our city in 2007, I went to study without hesitation. The nuances of my training with which I was dissatisfied relate neither to the method, nor to the program, nor to the Gestalt Institute and the Gestalt community as a whole. Now, in my own work leading groups, I take into account my experience in the program. The ability to think critically and not be “loyal” to colleagues remains. Yes, there is a “sense of leverage”, there is collegial ethics within, but there is also an understanding that in a huge professional community there are different people, including random ones and unsuitable ones. The advantages of professional community-organizations are that it is through them that the principle of “purity of ranks” can be implemented. In the field of psychology, which can easily be classified as a creative profession, there cannot be strict criteria for professional compliance, so the palette of personalities here will be very colorful. I deliberately wrote that the principle of purity of ranks is “possible”, knowing full well that not a single professional community (teachers, doctors, engineers, builders...) is able to guarantee it 100 percent. Psychological practice-oriented communities in the countries of the former Union have a maximum of 25 years is still young. Their internal regulatory procedures are developing and improving. But many years from now we will still be faced with situations of someone’s dishonesty. Or maybe some community-organization will fail and begin to rot. This also happens. But an entire profession and an entire direction in psychology cannot rot. And then again we reach out to specific people, and then claims should be addressed to specific people, but not to the whole movement. But apparently the laws of generalization are inexorable (“I see a teacher yelling at a student, I conclude that millions of teachers in our world are yelling at students") and shifting responsibility ("a person who has protracted an illness has a complication after treatment - the doctor is to blame"). In general, the idea to write an article was born in connection with attacks on the Gestalt approach in the form of articles "exposing a monstrous method" or a "sect" . Some of them have spread across the Internet, others simply hang on the personal pages of psychologists working in other areas. I saw a couple of them. In such cases, I think: I wonder what should happen to me so that I would write devastating articles about other psychological trends? Psychoanalysis, behavioral and cognitive psychology, art therapy, body-oriented approach, neuro-linguistic programming, transpersonal psychology, etc. Having full-time psychological education, extensive work experience, scientific and methodological experience, I can write about the essence and limitations of methods, options their “excesses” (which, by the way, depend on the specific psychologists who apply the methods, on the independent branches that have emerged, also organized by specific people). At the same time, I will be aware that I am not deeply inside the method; many of the nuances of working with clients through these techniques are not known to me. But to write a devastating article, full of depreciation, generalizations and biases, a special motive is needed. And I am always alarmed when I hear such accusations from psychologists against any approach in psychology. Not because it is not collegial (I am against excessive loyalty), but because for me it is either about the ignorance of the psychologist or about a special motive. When such articles are written by non-psychologists, I am calmer. Journalists have their own reasons (to create an “explosion”, find an explanation), traumatized or offended clients have their own (to express anger, seek justice or shift responsibility). Ignorance of trends in psychology, at least at an overview level, is quite understandable. It’s upsetting that the experts involved (and they are psychologists) can also speak negatively about the whole approach. And again I have a question: what is their motive? It is quite enough to express your professional opinion regarding actions.