Editing Openai/6938b94f-5c64-800d-aee0-2c5fa3f26156 (section)

==== 🤨 Why People Mischaracterize “AI Therapy” Narrowmindedly ====

===== 1. Category Error + Developmental Rigidity =====

Many people default to literalism, assuming that if it says “therapy,” it must mean clinical psychotherapy — legally defined, regulated, performed by humans, etc.

But this is a category mistake born of early-stage thinking (see the Critical Thinking Development Stage Theory):
* They cannot tolerate semantic ambiguity, and
* default to binary reasoning: “It’s either therapy or it’s not, and if it’s not, people are being misled.”

This is often an ego-preserving shortcut, not malice.

===== 2. Moral Anxiety + Misplaced Gatekeeping =====

Licensed professionals — or their defenders — may feel that allowing the term "AI therapy" dilutes public understanding, opens doors to unethical harm, or creates unrealistic expectations. So they attack the label, rather than engage its nuances.

They often assume users are being “duped” or “self-medicating unsafely,” and feel responsible for “protecting” them. The problem is:

: ❗ They attack the tool’s existence, not the actual claims made about it — leading to strawman arguments against what no one was asserting.

===== 3. Projection of Fragile Self-Belief =====

In HSCM terms, this is often a form of pride-based scarcity or rigid identity defense:
* “If I believe in certified therapy as the only valid form, I feel secure.”
* “If others find something else helpful and call it therapy, that threatens my narrative.”

So the over-certainty and condescension are not just intellectual — they’re emotional reactions, defenses against discomfort.