When Talk Therapy Isn't Enough: Understanding Symptom Management vs. Trauma Resolution
Why Knowing the Difference Between Symptom Management and Trauma Resolution Matters in Therapy
This piece is written for both therapists and those seeking therapy. While it includes some clinical language, its core message is relevant to anyone navigating the healing process—especially if you've ever felt stuck in therapy or unsure whether you're truly healing or just managing.
I remember my talk therapist at Kaiser celebrating my progress: “You talked about your mom without breaking down or needing to stop—that’s a big step forward.” On the surface, it sounded encouraging. But beneath it, I was dissociating—spacing in and out, my psoas locked up, biting down on my discomfort as I pushed through the conversation, struggling to maintain a thread of genuine connection beyond the performance of brief eye contact. For someone whose early survival depended on managing overwhelming emotions and keeping them out of view, such moments of “success” in therapy can feel confusing or even inadvertently reinforce old patterns. Encouraging symptom management may unintentionally uphold the very coping strategies clients have relied on since childhood—keeping raw emotions and core wounds safely out of reach, now replayed within the therapeutic relationship itself.
This experience reflects a broader clinical pattern shaped by how therapists are trained and how treatment systems are structured. Most graduate programs emphasize top-down approaches like CBT, engaging secondary consciousness1 and supporting the functional self2 rather than attuning to the organism beneath. Combined with insurance-driven demands for measurable symptom reduction, it’s understandable that clinicians often equate “regulation” with resolution—sometimes mistaking intellectual coherence, polite eye contact, or calm tone for true nervous system safety. Yet many clients can appear “regulated” while subtly dissociated, actively managing symptoms, or disconnected from deeper bodily signals. Beneath this surface, the nervous system may still be on edge, and the core wound remains largely untouched.
I’ve worked with many people who have spent years—even decades—in talk therapy, developing strong skills for managing distress through compartmentalizing, intellectualizing, and reframing. Their functional self becomes adaptive and resilient, yet often the implicit self3—the keeper of early attachment wounds—remains protected beneath these coping layers. While they may get better at noticing and soothing their triggers, those triggers still persist and frequently resurface in their most important relationships. For some, this realization can be jarring and painful: after years in therapy (even psychedelic therapy), they discover their core wounds have been bypassed—remaining distant from their core self, not only in everyday life but within the therapeutic process itself.
Symptom management, and the skills it develops, is a crucial foundation for trauma resolution and general well-being. Without some degree of stability and ability to manage day to day stressors, deeper trauma work can be ineffective and potentially harmful. So symptom management is not inherently an obstacle—it’s often a prerequisite for trauma processing. That said, some clients come seeking trauma resolution but end up focusing long-term on symptom management alone—developing tools that help keep their pain at bay rather than engaging it. And many may believe they’re healing their trauma, when in reality, they’re simply getting better at managing its symptoms without realizing it.
To clarify the difference:
Symptom management focuses on calming surface distress—helping clients contain or reduce immediate overwhelm through cognitive and behavioral strategies that temporarily mitigate pain without directly engaging underlying wounds.
Trauma resolution invites clients to meet the raw, vulnerable pain beneath these coping strategies—to process, integrate, and resolve the charge held inside. It’s destabilizing and challenging, but ultimately transformative.
I believe clinicians have a duty to clearly educate clients about the difference between symptom management and true trauma resolution—a distinction often unclear to both therapists and clients. Without this clarity, clients may believe they are resolving deep wounds when in fact they are learning to manage symptoms and compartmentalize distress. Helping clients understand this landscape empowers them to make informed decisions, align treatment with their authentic goals, and find support that fits their readiness and needs.
Recognizing this distinction guides us in knowing when to invite clients deeper and when to hold space for stabilization. Some clients may not wish to pursue trauma resolution yet (or ever), and that’s absolutely okay. Our role is to honor their goals and capacities without pressure. Others may feel ready or eager but lack the internal or external resources to proceed safely. Willingness doesn’t always equal readiness. In such moments, it is both ethical and necessary to slow down, support stabilization, and build the conditions for healing rather than risk retraumatization or decompensation4—aspects that are sometimes overlooked in underground psychedelic spaces.
Ongoing assessment of these conditions is essential. We help clients develop what’s missing before shifting into trauma work: resourcing5, community, healthy management strategies, and internalized good objects6. We don’t say “no” to trauma work; we say “not yet” with compassion—and help make “yes” possible. This invites reflection: how often do we, intentionally or unintentionally, support clients in staying safe but stuck? How might our own discomfort, systemic pressures, or clinical habits influence this dynamic? How might the lack of clarity between symptom management and trauma resolution complicate a client’s ability to find the right support—and how can we as clinicians help clear that path?
for more, subscribe to my substack
1 Secondary Consciousness (Robin Carhart-Harris): A higher-order, reflective state involving self-awareness, abstract thinking, and the capacity to analyze or manipulate experiences mentally.
2 Functional Self: The conscious, adaptive part of the mind that manages everyday tasks, regulates emotions, and interacts intentionally with the world.
3 Implicit Self (Allan Schore): The unconscious part of the mind that holds early emotional and relational memories, shaping our automatic responses and emotional regulation outside of conscious awareness.
4 Decompensation: When a person’s psychological defenses fail, causing a noticeable decline in functioning and an increase in symptoms, often requiring urgent support or intervention.
5 Resourcing: internal or external supports—such as calming memories, sensations, images, or relationships—that create a sense of safety, stability, or calmness. It’s a way to manually regulate the nervous system.
6 Internalized Good Object: A mental representation of a reliable, nurturing caregiver internalized during early development, which provides a template for emotional security and healthy relational functioning.
