I often hear from friends, family, and classmates: “Well, why do I need a psychologist?” Personally, I am convinced that if it doesn’t itch, don’t scratch it. In the sense that psychotherapy is quite long, quite expensive and will almost always be painful at times. There must be reasons to contact a psychologist. Entertaining interest is usually not enough. And why then? There is another point of view. I don't hear it that often. I read more. On the Internet, for example. This is from the area: “Here you are, psychologists, please advise. Well, it’s clear.... one “talking shop”. Indeed, psychotherapy is a conversational genre. And the product we offer is quite ephemeral. But still. As a result of long-term training (and psychotherapy is two educations, whatever one may say), personal therapy, supervision, intervision, conferences, literature and again training, therapy, supervision, etc., systemic therapeutic thinking is formed. And this is what makes it possible to provide real help. Let me explain with an example. A married couple applied. The reason is conflicts. The cause of conflict is the child. Or rather, different approaches to his upbringing. The son is two years old, according to his parents, he is hyperactive (this is already a common phrase, not worth a diagnosis, but the boy seems to be really smart). From dad's point of view, mom is too soft, and the boy must understand exactly what is not allowed, what is not allowed. She allows him a lot, screams and tears must be ignored, hugging the child when he does not obey means encouraging him. From the mother’s point of view, the child needs to be explained that contact with the baby is important, and she has the right to her personal style of relationship with her son. She sees that explanations and a calm tone give results, and believes that it is impossible to spank a child. They came for a specialist to explain to them who is right (although, of course, everyone came for confirmation of their rightness, and in a certain sense, each of them is right) Will they be able to agree? There are many arguments in favor. They respect and value each other. They are caring and involved parents. They are smart people who talk to each other. They generally have the same idea of ​​the child and a fairly adequate (common, which is important) system of values ​​in education, including the idea of ​​​​boundaries and prohibitions. And in fact, there is only one argument “against”. They are trying to solve the wrong problem. Therefore, they fail. The problem that prevents them from reaching an agreement is in their marital relationship. As it was very correctly noted in the book by R. Skinner and J. Kliese, “The Family and How to Survive in It,” with the appearance of a child in the family, priorities shift, the mother belongs entirely to the child for the first months, he needs all of her. But the child grows and the time comes when the father must return his wife to himself. She needs it, he needs it, the child needs it. If for some reason this does not work out, everyone suffers. The father is jealous of the child and is angry that she is too affectionate with him. The mother is forced to defend herself from her husband’s attacks and seek solace in her relationship with her son. The son sees conflicting, unhappy parents and cannot form an adequate idea of ​​his place in this family. And the way they try to solve the problem only makes the situation worse. What happens next is up to them. Because, as I mentioned, therapy is painful at times. To solve a problem, it needs to be recognized, examined, felt. Sometimes it is easier to conflict and blame the other. And yet, there are many arguments in favor. They respect and appreciate each other...