Quote:
Originally Posted by BudFox
As for adults with attachment disorders and so on, I think a major fallacy is this idea that therapists can be trained to work with such people. What does "work with" even mean? Usually it's implied to mean having a relationship wherein the client "attaches" to the therapist, learns how to have a secure attachment, then re-enters the world fixed. This ain't exactly scientific, nor even logic-based. It's more like a religious conversion. My guess is that this process is nearly always improvised, and thus is not really a "process" at all, but a psychological experiment, carried out on the backs of clients.
|
From all my reading of this forum and the literature, it does not appear to me at all that therapy is very successful with "treating" attachment disorders. Often it makes them worse. And those people who seem to benefit this way are probably already reasonably secure, to start with. Of course there are exceptions like in everything, but this seems more the trend to me. Working with the T relationship is also something that Ts claim way too often to keep clients going for a long time, with the promise that eventually the client will "work through" it. Also, all the cases where clients get therapy for the things that went wrong in previous therapy... I personally dislike that premise, it can go on endlessly as there can always be something upsetting, even if not disastrous, especially for people who have self-esteem issues are are not confident about handling relationships and breakups. It can redirect the focus from improving everyday relationships to something rather artificial.