>This sentence reads to me like "It's not that professionals can't effectively use other peoples first hand experience , it's that they can't effectively use other peoples first hand experience".
It was reinforcing the point you were disagreeing with. They can make use of it, but not efficient use of it.
>They don't need to know exactly what's going on. It's impossible for anyone to ever know exactly what is going on in another person's mind. Psychology as a profession is completely useless if that's the bar for it being useful.
To use anecdotes: I've seen assistance from friend's and loved ones, who've experienced first-hand the illness, to have a more profound effect on the quality-of-life and recovery of the person suffering, than the average medical professional (psychiatrists, psychologists, counselors, etc. ranked in their own groups). There are some astounding medical professionals out there that will definitely be very helpful in getting someone "back on track," but in my experience, they're never covered under your average joe's insurance. That leaves the bulk of available professionals' quality to be lack-luster, and arguably, a waste of time -- even detrimental in some specific cases.
The bar for doctor involvement and vested interest is nearing the ground, in the U.S.A. Unless surgery or extremely specialized treatment is needed (chemotherapy, gene therapy, etc.), you'll almost always get better care doing the research and treatment yourself.
>I apologize if my response comes off as aggressive, but I strongly believe that propagating the idea that mental health professionals can't really help people is dangerous for those that would benefit from their help.
And I believe if you don't first become aware of shortcomings, you'll never be able to fix problems. And mental health treatment, as an industry, has a lot of problems.