For those in psychoanalytic therapy

I'm thinking here about the "authentic" psychoanalytic therapy whereby the therapist is a blank slate, talks little, and leaves wide open spaces for you to talk for the entire session. There is zero inter-session contact.

My therapy is more psychodynamic. He listens of course, and leaves huge spaces for me to talk, but I'd say it's about 60/40%, with his advice, reflections and questioning taking up the lesser space during our time together. Most days it feels a bit like a conversation. We communicate via email in between sessions but his emails are mere sentences and mine are several paragraphs.

How does psychoanalytic work for you? Did you "fall into it" or is this the style of therapy you chose? Do you enjoy the blank-slate approach because you don't have to deal with hearing any self-disclosures or hear advice when all you really feel like you need is to vent? Or do you hate this type of therapy but you're scared to start over with someone else? I'd like to hear about your experience in this kind of therapy.

Mine is psychoanalytical therapy.
I wouldn't class T as being a blank slate.
I fell into it after disastrous experiences with other orientations where the T's ego is very present.
Of course everyone has an ego, but I think people confuse the blank slate with a T leaving their ego at the door.
I wouldn't bother with any other kind of therapy, this orientation of therapy to me makes the most sense.

I am in psychodynamic, and I really think it fits me well. I wouldn't be able to handle a psychoanalytic "blank slate" T.

I spent two years in psychoanalysis with an esteemed practitioner: she was the head of the California psychoanalytical association and a 30 year veteran. I mention that to establish that she was highly experienced and respected in her field, she also was published and did some research.

Those two years were a big fail for me, but that was very much a result of our incompatibility and my needs for a different type of therapy.

For starters, I was dissociative. Dissociation made being present, self-aware, and communicative a challenge. I needed someone who could help me get grounded, speak up, feel safe.

The empty silence, distance between she and I, and focus on self-reflection was not helpful in the least. I already reflected on myself excessively, but without being able to gain any traction, the tail wagging the dog.

Her focus on the self as the source of impediments came across as judgmental rather than empowering: I was but a teenager when I began seeing her, and still very entrenched in the reality of being hurt by my parents, needing validation, not detachment.

Additionally, her memory was not the best and what was supposed to seem an attitude of blankness definitely veered at times into sleepiness and disinterest, so.... all in all, we did not click well.

I believe psychoanalysis has great strengths, when done properly, for the right symptoms/concerns, and with the right client/analyst pair. It certainly has come a long way from its origins.

But I wouldn't recommend it for someone who deals with a lot of anxiety, dissociation, or trauma, as I had those things and it was not suitable for me. Psychodynamic has been 100x more helpful.

P.S. I will mention, though there was typically no inter-session contact, in true psychoanalysis, the preferred arrangement is to have at least 2-3 sessions per week, to maintain the intensity of the process and discourage defenses from rebuilding between sessions.

My therapy is relational psychoanalysis.

There are a lots of different types of psychoanalysis.

My T engages in discussion, allows/encourages contact between sessions, and is definitely not a blank slate. He does his best to keep the focus on me vs. discussing him, but he has shared personal details about his life.

I have anxiety, depression, trauma, and dissociation and I find that the relationship in relational psychoanalysis has been the most healing of any therapeutic relationship that I've had.

We have to be careful not to paint psychoanalysis with one paint brush stroke. There are many variations and more modern applications that are not the blank-slate-see-you-5-times-a-week-lay-down-on-the-couch-free-association type.

I had a T who would just sit there maybe once on a while quip something. That was one year wasted. Not my T is inter-active. She listens most of the time but suggests,encourages and tells me her opinion. I prefer that because I have so many issues and need input on them.

Sent from my VS920 4G using Tapatalk

I was careful to state that was my experience and based on my individual issues and relationship with the therapist.

Perhaps you could compare your experience to psychodynamic therapy then, as I would consider the relationship you describe to more of a hybrid, that the elements you focused on don't speak to the heart of psychoanalytical practice and theory but are asides in response to my or others' posts. Or if you don't wish to compare, maybe you could speak to the psychoanalytical elements of your therapy that work for you to help explain the benefits to the OP, as I didn't benefit from them, so can't speak directly to that.

Of course, theoretical underpinings are huge, and we haven't discussed those much, but suffice for me to say, the relative rigidity of traditional psychoanalysis did not suit me.

I'm in psychoanalytic therapy. I don't lie on the couch, but it is just as "authentic" as analysis where you lie on the couch.* Psychoanalytic therapy is considered pure psychodynamic therapy, but the 2 are used interchangeably. The surest way to know if you are in analysis, in my view, is if the therapist is a certified psychoanalyst. There are many who practice psychodynamic therapy that is not that similar to analytic therapy.

My T is not blank slate, neither are most analysts that I am aware. I'm not sure how that rumour continues to grow, because most analysts are relational. Even Freud took his patients home with him-that doesn't sound like blank slate.

Yes, I fell into it. The first time I ended up in an analysts office, I learned more about myself from 2 sessions than I did from all the other years of therapy I had. It works well for me with dissociation and trauma issues. In fact, I found that analysts are the most trained, informed, and skilled therapists. My current T had 9 years of intense analysis after he got his PhD in clinical psychology; on top of that, he had years of training at a psychoanalytic institute. Former T over 10 years of intense analysis after he got his MD and started practicing psychiatry, as well as years at an institute. They learn ego psychology, self psychology, attachment/object relations, etc; even CBT now. They are also the most skilled at handling the most complex cases, imo, and are the experts in transference, which is the heart of psychoanalytic therapy. Analysts were the first to try to help borderline patients, for example.

With all the requirements to get certified, I feel safer with them. They have to be considered mentally sound to get certified. I guess the analyst spending a decade or so with them would know if they are fit to practice or not. I really do feel so much safer with them; that really impacts my therapy. Plus, I'm a very analytic thinker, so it works for me as a theory as well.

There is never-ending confusion about psychoanalytic therapy, so I'll leave some information here:

That was then, this is now: psychoanalytic psychotherapy for the rest of us [pdf]

A jargon-free introduction to contemporary psychodynamic thought

Writings | Jonathan Shedler, PhD

Leah, I know you had a bad experience, and I am not trying to dismiss your opinion, but I also don't want people to read this and think that analysis is not for those conditions, when it's really the contrary--for anxiety, dissociation, and trauma (with the right analyst, as Leah pointed out!).

Elyn R. Saks, a spokesperson for schizophrenia, often credits psychoanalytic treatment as helping to allow her a successful career:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/27/op...?emc=eta1&_r=2&

My panic attacks were very severe, and I have dissociation/DID, anxiety, OCD, and PTSD; I have found analysis most helpful.

Psychiatrists and others will also refer patients with DID for psychoanalytic therapy. In the field, psychoanalysts are known to treat the most complex patients. Many therapists do not have the capabilities to treat schizophrenia or other serious disorders, but my T and former T both treat patients with schizophrenia.

As usual, there are as many ways to practice as there are practitioners. Also these titles/labels do shift over time, and probably somewhat regionally, as well.

My T probably practiced psychoanalytic psychodynamic therapy, but that designation was not common then. In fact, there was active resistance to the idea that such an approach could even be compatible with "short-term" therapy (which just meant not 20 years, not 12 sessions). Though his way of practicing probably shared much in common with relational psychoanalysis, the label would be incorrect for him because he didn't train at an analytic institute.

My therapist is psychodynamic, for the first few years she was very much a "blank slate" but that really only works so far, I'm not an idiot so I quickly learned a lot about her just from sitting in the same room from her (no cyber stalking).

For me it has worked very well for me, though I'm sure it's not the right approach for everyone. Also my therapist is really great, well at least a great fit for me.