>>81826133 (OP)If you want a MHP's perspective: I've always felt it was argumentum ad verecundiam.
Therapy is often synonymous with mental health, which is a broad category of science. And science often carries with it a sense of authority that others rarely question. So whenever they hear (or see) anything related to therapy, mental health, etc. there's admittedly a bad habit of people taking it at face value, and assuming that what it says goes, instead of doing further research to verify it.
And you see this a lot with anything related to science. How often do you come across some news report citing some research or study? And how often do you read said research, and discovered that it was misrepresented, or simply misinterpreted? Or how often do you DO find that it's represented correctly, but the report had to break it down for the lay man, thus so much was lost in translation? Or how often do you see the average Joe citing some study or research, but their interpretations of are isn't entirely congruent with the study or research itself, or it seems like they're simply cherry picking details from it? And, of course, how often do you see people taking them at their word despite all this?
This happens a lot, and what you're describing isn't too dissimilar (in my opinion), because people tend to hinge their understanding on therapy and mental health off of the authority and prestige that comes with them, but not so much the information itself.
And I see this a lot, as well, when somebody hears about a person in therapy: the assumption that they're either a healthy and responsible individual ("green flag"), or the inverse ("red flag"), even though this is always case-by-case, and seeking treatment of any kind isn't enough to place them into either category.
There's also a lot of bad science in mental health, I should mention, as mental health is, unfortunately, more subjective than physical health, so a lot of misinformation gets passed around.
