For a moment there i thought i could grasp the meaning of this article. However, once i go further down the lines, i got lost.

There are some part of me that understand the moral behind the story but the more opinions and ideas you throw out there the move difficult it is to absorb.

I'm still trying to find a way to transform an abundant amount of laborious informations into a meaningful yet simple phrase like
"Give a man a fish, and feed him for a day. Teach him to fish, and feed him for life."

Maybe i just forget so easily that all the things i've learn i have to relearn in order to learn it.
Oh...yea i remember now... that's called "slow". Slow i am.

Jane should not give the reigns of her life over to another party. Especially not her therapist.

If you gave her advice on one aspect of her life--her relationship--when the problems arising in her relationship life could also be inhibiting other aspects of her life, she may not discover how her distrust plays a role in her interpersonal skills, nor will she learn how to overcome this dilemma, and neither will she discover how she came to feel she needs to react in this way in the first place.

It's really easy to give uninformed advice. It's pretty detrimental to take it.

As her therapist, you can't ethically endanger her psyche by letting her take the easy way out rather than helping her to resolve life's difficulties through empowerment rather than elopement.

I agree with your article whole heartedly in the respect that many therapists I have come in contact with in the past never thought to give me tools (ie. the fishing rod!) to get me through my hardships. my situations were not entirely unique either and I found it unsettling that I was getting answers but ultimately getting no where.

However, being in a healthy and productive therapy setting today, I feel that 'advice' or coaching leading to what seems to be an unsolvable answer can still be beneficial to clients.

I feel that your article is too absolute, thought you did say the rule was situational.
But is advice not also a tool in telling someone what a safe outcome could be? By using your example, couldn't you give Jane advice consisting of pros and cons? Like, "you could tell him and this could be the end result.." "or you shouldn't tell him because" and then use her issue as a great example she could reference in the future?

Especially with an example like this, (mistrust), a topic of reoccurring habits, couldn't you just watch her make the same mistakes over, as people tend to be repetitious?

I'm certainly not suggesting becoming a yes man and answering each problem as a machine would. But instead, do you think it's possible to hold a healthy balance between tools, coaching AND advice?

But then again, it all depends on the skills and awareness of the therapist, I guess.

So what do you do when the person has nobody in their life they can ask such questions to and *get* advice? No friends, no family they can trust, no number they can call. Would advice be warranted then, when you're their only human contact other than strangers on the street?

This is not a hypothetical, mind you. Sometimes, a patient doesn't even know what a fish *is*.