self psychology

anyone heard of or done any self psychology?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_Kohut

i've just read this:

http://www.amazon.com/Analysis-Self-.../dp/0823601455

But it is hard going because the terminology etc is fairly unfamiliar to me...

I've heard of it. It was very much in vogue at some point (according to Wikipedia the 70's and 80's, esp.).

Haven't read Kohut's book, mostly read about it. Which terminology did you have trouble with?

Vautrin

i haven't read the book but found the link about Kohut's beliefs most interesting. i am hoping that the local library has this book. thanks, Alex, for contributing this. love, pat

Self psychology is a lot like Object Relations, so you might want to look that up too. Also, Kohut and Carl Rogers were contemporaries, and it's interesting that they really didn't seem to get along, and there is a feeling that they were at odds with each other a lot, but if you really compare Self Psychology and Person-Centered Counseling/humanism, it sounds like they are really saying pretty much the same thing most of the time too.

Hmm.

Thanks for the responses.

I don't really know how to spell these, but I'll have a go:
Cathexis
Imago (is that like an idea?)
Don't really know what those mean... Also, the book was about the narcissistic personality, but I'm thinking he meant that a whole heap more broadly than the DSM conception or probably even the traits mentioned in the DSM conception.

(So of course the million dollar question is 'how does this relate to me?)

He talks about idealising and mirroring / twinning for most of the book. He says it is unclear whether we should call these processes 'transferences' as he doesn't think the therapist becomes an OBJECT where feelings are transferred onto (or whatever) instead this is a PROCESS of the clients ego. Or something. Hard for me to understand some of this...

It is kinda interesting that he didn't get along with Rogers... I don't know much about Rogers variety of therapy... Maybe it was to do with Kohut's basic acceptance of Freud for so long...

I asked my therapist what kind of model he was used to working within (wasn't sure how to ask that). I know he does DBT in the community... Anyway he said 'self psychology' and I said I'd never heard of it. So I went away to have a look... He said it fits really well with DBT (focus on acceptance and empathy). But it would need to be supplimented a little... (with Putnam, I guess). I might ask him about these narcissistic processes next week lol. I'm not sure how much Kohut envisaged this being applicable to most people or how specific it is supposed to be to the treatment of narcissistic personality. I see he has written other stuff but apparantly that book has been the most influential.

He talks about object relations theories quite a bit... He seems very keen to distance his theory from object relations theories. I can't quite grasp the difference... Something about that object / process distinction or something. Dunno.

Idealisation and Mirror transference / twinning. Was Kohut really the first to talk about those? I've certainly heard of them but I never really understood twinning / Mirror transference before now. Something that I do though...

I was starting to wonder if my t was a bit of a crank because of how darned NICE he is... I'm glad I get a bit more of what he is trying to convey with that... The frustrations will come soon enough no doubt... I like it how Kohut says the therapist doesn't need to DO anything on that front, the frustrations will come all by themself.

I think he is being more careful to orient me to reality than he otherwise would be though. So I don't get lost in seeing him as a past abuser. Sometimes reality can be frustrating :-(

Oh well...

You'll find lots of good stuff if you Google "cathexis" and "imago." There is an Imago Therapy too. It's about relationships, but not limited to couples, although that's probably what it is most associated with. Another one that I like is Developmental Needs Meeting Strategy. I don't have my bookmarks on this computer, but you can probably find that on a search too if you're interested. Anyway, that's stuff that is kind-of all a bit similar in some ways. It all deals with relationships somehow - the way that you relate to people now, and how to get the experiences out of relationships that will give you what you need to further your development.

Kohut is talking more about the general kind of narcissism that everyone has than about Narcissistic Personality Disorder. I think that narcissism thing might have been a turn-off for me about Self Psychology, because it's not something that we like to see in ourselves. Everyone has it though, to one degree or another. Some too much and some too little.

You're right about reality being frustrating. One quote that I like (can't remember where it's from - maybe I saw it here in someone's siggy) is "I reject your reality and substitute my own." I think I could get in trouble for that though.

TC,
Rap

thanks for the additional info.....you've got me going now......p

Thanks I will have a look at google :-)

I like it when I look at different varieties of therapy and it seems like they are all saying fairly much the same thing, just with different terminology. Philosophy can be a lot like that too with theories all the way back from Plato, through the middle ages, etc etc all the way up to right now. Sometimes you see a swing too, like with our views on animals through history the intellectuals have swung from them having feelings to them being automata to their having feelings to their being automata etc. Right now we are in the 'they have feelings' line... Will it swing back? Perhaps... The truth lies somewhere in the middle (yes they have feelings but not some of the more cognitively sophisticated ones we have and thus they can't suffer in quite the way we can).

Seeing the similarity in different theories through the ages... I love that because it is like admidst all the controversy and dispute and disagreement... There is a core of something we have discovered. Like with different varieties of therapy converging on some of the aspects of the human personality / theraputic process...

:-)

I wonder if the 'narcissistic personality' that Kohut speaks of just is the ego that engages in idealisation and twinning. I certainly engage in those. Yeah, he does talk about the healthy narcissist too. It really is fairly good. Hard to get to the heart of it when the jargon is unfamiliar to me, however.

Brilliant quote!

:-)

I think I need to get in touch with my inner narcissist / grandiose self... I have an alter that has that function... I don't like being the centre of attention but if I could learn to like it (discover the part of me that does) then I would do better with seminar presentations...

:-)

Interesting. I have never heard of it. I am going to read up on it now. Thanks

I found this too:

http://www.therapistfinder.net/gloss...sychology.html

I think the notion is that we have these needs...

There were three different kinds of idealisation (ranked in order of severity). The most extreme was the 'out of contact with reality' one then there was the more moderate idealisation then there was just the good feelings that ensue from having someone who is fairly stable kind of stably there. That last one... I think that is considered to be a human need (sure infants need it but we need it throughout our lifespan). If people haven't had that as infants then that can lead to the defences that prevent us obtaining it as adults, however...

There were three different kinds of mirroring / twinning too (ranked in order of severity). The most extreme was the 'out of contact with reality' one where there is a full merger of the selfobject (experienced as the client being one with the therapist so that the therapist is thought to lack independent existence entirely). Then there was twinning (? I'll admit I struggled more with this than with the idealisation stuff). The therapist is thought to be similar to the client (similar strengths and desires etc) and then there is the alter ego identification (though maybe I got that and twinning around the wrong way) which is more... Identification with while being aware of differences or something like that... This too is meant to be a human need. And if we don't get it as infants then we develop defences that enable us to repress the need and the consequences are that we never manage to get that need met...

He talked a lot about infants having a narcissim / grandiosity. Liking to be the centre of attention 'mummy look at me!'. And sometimes our parents (because of their own needs) don't mirror our excitement and enthusiasm. They might bring things around to them (because of their own narcissistic needs) or they might react with disgust at our exhibitionism. And so... We repress our exhibitionism / narcissistic need / grandiosity. Instead of it being mirrored (and eventually our being able to channel the need - by the ego - into things like art or drama or some other variety of creativity) we think that it is 'bad' or 'shameful' and we repress it. So... Sponteneity / creativeness is curbed / lacking.

So... That is meant to be some of the cost of denying narcissistic needs for twinning / mirroring / alter ego identification.

I guess I like this theory because I find a lot of the psychodynamic literature that I've read to be fairly judgemental. A fairly black / dark view of humanity. This seems to be more uplifting. It also seems to be a lot more palatable as a process...

Kohut talks about 'optimal frustration' too. The notion is that the therapist should allow / accept the idealisation / mirroring transference. Not try and foster it and not try and reject it. Just accept it. Just by empathy... Those transferential processes should develop... If they don't develop then the therapist has failed to give appropriate empathy. (Hear the difference between that and the notion that if whatever is supposed to happen doesn't then the client is just too sick or defensive for therapy!).

Then... Because the needs are infantile (the client has problems because the needs weren't met as infants) REALITY CANNOT MEET THEM. So... There is GOING to be frustration as a fact of life (hence the therapist SHOULD NOT) purposely try to evoke it. The therapist simply CAN'T meet all the clients idealisation / mirroring needs and thus there will be frustrations. But if the therapist keeps up with the empathy the frustrations will be tolerable and eventually (by interpreting what is happening with the clients frustrations) the client will be able to use the ego to divert the frustrations into sublimation activities (like art and trying to help others etc etc).

At least... I think that is the general idea. Hrm. Analytic philosophy is typically hostile to psychoanalytic theory. I don't dare mention psychoanalytic theory at work ;-) But... There really is something to this... As an art... Not necessarily a science... But then Ainsworth did all this stuff with infants attachment styles and mirroring etc that brought the psychodynamic stuff on attachment within the realm of empirical psychology... So maybe as a science too...

Dunno... More 'world view' stuff (assumptions)... Theory space, world view, categorisation space than empirically testable, I guess.

Like how you can't test alchemy and modern atomic general theories directly but you can test the more specific theories that are developed within the general theories (like the specific theory that lead can be transmuted into gold or that water is H4O). Still... As far as general theories of human nature go... Why not... Be charitable and adopt a kind view of human nature that is uplifting...

Instead of the existentialism of Sartre, for example...

;-)

Kohut came on the scene when, as it later became clear, there was starting to be a shift in the view of many analysts (especially non-mainstream Freudian analysts) in the USA, anyway.

One of the main areas of shift was in the area of judgments about patient reactions, and also the degree to which patients have a view of the analyst that is somewhat real, as well as transferential.

One really important issue is that of so called "gratification." Strict Freudian psychology (eg, in the USA, ego psychology) had evolved pretty strongly theoretically in the direction of claiming that "gratification" of the patients' needs in the analyst setting was counterproductive, because it would lead the patient always to seek to have the analyst as a gratifying object. Thus the patients transference needs (or implicit requests for response, emotional or otherwise) would be met by "neutral" interpretations, rather than any emotional or other gratifying response.

Kohut was beginning to question the utility of this approach, by saying that analysts should accept and even mirror, rather than analyze, the patients idealizations. This would be considered a gratification.

The idea was that people with naracissitic personality disorder (ie personality disorders generally, but that one specifically for Kohut) had more psychic damage than other merely neurotic (hysterical) patients and therefore needed gratifications that would be unacceptable in patients who could benefit from analysis without that.

As time went on, these ideas were extended to patients generally, in areas of analysis where the ideas caught on-- or more and more patients were considered to have personality disorders and therefore to need this less severe form of treatment.

Etc. At least this is my version of it. At the moment.

Vautrin

I wasn't sure what all this in the encyclopedia meant so I contacted a friend that is a therapist with a rape crisis center and asked her what self psychology was.

She told me that with out all the footlong words that confuse me it just means looking at all sides of things - a persons self esteme, self worth, problems, learning how to take care of one self (self nurture or as others call it self soothing when in crisis for example my taking a bath when I need to relax)

She also said that any therapy program focuses on the person and how they feel about themselves and others and how to take care of themselves so in essence all therapy is considered self psychology because the person in therapy is working on building their self esteme and learning how to take care of themselves and so on.

So by my friends who is a state licensed therapist standards yes I have and am doing self psychology because I am looking at my problems and learning about myself and that I am worth something to myself and am learning how to take care of myself when Im in crisis.

Shot. Thanks for that :-)

I recall something or other about how psychoanalytic theory has been critiqued because it was developed around a certain clientele. Namedly: Neurotic white middle class women in vienna. The notion is that it was developed around and for them and it doesn't have applicability to other people. In particular, people with psychoses are unsuited to analysis and people with borderline personality disorder (for example) were also too sick to analyse.

In recent(er) years psychoanalytic theory has developed in order to take on some of those clients. While CBT is developed (mainly) around the 'big three' psychiatric disorders (depression, anxiety, obsessive compulsive) psychoanalysis has attempted to extend itself to disorders that are more severe than white middle class female neurosis.

The couch and free association and dream work (for example) isn't used as much these days...

I guess I'm borderline. Not enough structure and I disintegrate into something resembling a psychotic state. I've seen this happen... Observed it happening to myself. Psychoanalytic theories have taken this on board with providing more structure.

Neutrality... And I disintegrate into something resembling a psychotic state. I've observed this happening to myself too...

The empathy thing is a %#@&#! winner, I tell you.

:-)

There have been theorists (Jaspers, for example) who talk about how one can enter into a patients delusional world and draw them out... Dammit... I can't remember who was renouned for doing this... I used to know, dammit... Part of the phenomenological tradition of psychiatry (before the mass marketing of drugs lol).

The gratification stuff you talked about makes sense. How about this though (okay so I'm drunk at the mo and don't dare quote me on this in the morning)

One of my fantasies / dreams... Is to be held. Like a baby. Rocked in someones arms. Maybe... Like a three year old. Arms around someones neck. Holding on tight. Not a burden on them 'cause I'm too light. To be in someones lap. Being held.

That fantasy can't possibly be fulfilled. I'm too big, you see. Unless there is some giant therapist out there in the world it can never be met.

The therapist doesn't need to attempt to frustrate a patients needs / desires. The very nature of the patients needs / desires means the needs / desires are going to be frustrated. No point in trying to maintain a neutral stance and not meeting the patients needs that can be met - there are going to be so many %#@&#! needs that can't be met.

Can you turn back the clock and undo the abuse?

No.

Can you hold me in your arms like a baby?

No.

Can you be the parent I never had?

No.

Why try and frustrate me when you can't %#@&#! well fix it already? How the %#@&#! is frustrating the needs I %#@&#! well know you CAN meet going to fix it?

(I know there are some that probably shouldn't be met... Touch should be used with caution for example)

But why try?

It will happen soon enough.

I think that attempting for a 'neutral' stance will only be perceived as coldness and uncaring and automatisms. Why? Because we know needs didn't get met (thats why the person is in therapy). Neutrality... Will only be perceived as uncaring...

And really...

Isn't it?

Just a therapists defence... THough when the therapist is in the grip of a theory...

I guess that is why this view is supposed to help some of the patients that couldn't be helped by traditional psychoanalysis...

:-)

Like me

:-)

thanks myself.

i think there might be a few different senses of the term 'self psychology'...

the big words are hard. i'm struggling with them because they are unfamiliar to me...

i guess i'll google them at some point (when i can find the time) and try and get the hang of them.

the kind of 'self psychology' i meant was the kind that was developed by Kohut.

there have been other theorists who have worked on it since then, but my institution doesn't subscribe to the psychoanalytic journals and so it will take me a while to obtain any of that...

at the moment i'm making do with google and the library. i think i saw other stuff by Kohut (and by people since who have collated his work and written introductions etc) so i'll read up on them...

what i like about psychoanalytic theories...

is the notion that if you train to practice then you need to undergo a course yourself... and hence... clients who try and understand it are appreciated.

not sure that a client who has worked through the little activities of CBT (for example) is appreciated... i know i wasn't after round one...

we will see... i said i hadn't heard of it to my t last week... and i said i'd google it... he said that i could ask him whatever i wanted because we were in this together and he talked a bit about empathy etc. but i wanted to read... we will see what he thinks this week, i guess. if he asks... i feel a lot better with some sense of what he is up to. some people would say that i'm not trusting enough with respect to just trusting him to have the process under control. to me... figuring this out is part of my taking an active role in therapy. i figure we will get on better and understand each other more if we have the process in common. i tried to cure myself reading linehan already and what i learned is that it doesn't work that way. i need someone to travel with me. i need to be a willing participant, however, and i can't do that if i don't know what the plans are.

he isn't a kook, the empathy is for a reason.

last session...

i kinda know better... maybe it was a test (cringe) but... i KNOW they are parts of me. but at the same time I DON'T LIKE THEM AND I WISH THEY WOULD GO AWAY. i can assent to 'they are parts of me. i understand that'. and rationally: I DO understand that. But then i wish they would go away :-( It was getting near the end of the session and I was saying 'I wish they would go away'. I didn't get a response. I said it again. I didn't get a response. I said it again. Repeat a couple times.

Eventually... He said:

'We are getting near the end of the session so I don't have time to respond to that properly'

I said:

'You don't have to say anything. I was just expressing myself'. In a tone... I was pissed and defensive.

Optimal frustration, I guess. I felt embarrased :-( I think I blushed a little after seeing his reaction to that... I experienced it as a rejection. Time is drawing near and t only gives empathy on schedule.

What did I expect him to say?

'Yeah that must be hard for you, to have to try and deal with them' or something like that.

He didn't. So I retreated.

So he came in with a reality check.

It is making sense to me now. The process. I need it to make sense to me.

And... It is starting to :-)

I hope he sees this as a good thing. If the process can't be transparent (if he doesn't appreciate my trying to understand it) then he isn't suited to me after all... I'm sure he will come through on this... Not that I don't expect him to be surprised... Yay for my inner narcissist... I'll try not to beat myself up too much ;-)

You're welcome

"is the notion that if you train to practice then you need to undergo a course yourself... and hence... clients who try and understand it are appreciated."

And here in the USA it is not an optional idea but is a manditory part of the training for a person wanting to recieve their certification and or license to pratice in the therapy profession to enter and have a therapist during their studys, internship and during their 2 years of supervision.

Not only is it for the experience of being a client but is also there to help prevent the therapist from burning out on their clients problems, their therapist also helps them to learn how to manage their own time for their own problems and in some cases helps with teaching hands on approaches that they don't always get to practice in the classroom like role playing and other therapeutic approaches that they may use in practicing in the field.

Basically a therapist having a theraist is as much for teaching and learning purposes as it is for the experience of being a client.

By the way, I thought of something else that I should have mentioned.

One big difference between ego psychology (ie mid-20thc Freudian analysis-type psychology) and Objection relations theory, on the one hand, and self psychology, on the other, is a move by Kohut away from socalled "drive theory" to a theory of the development of a self distinct from the drives.

Most more doctrinaire Freudians focused on repression or mal-formation in the drives (primarily sex and aggression) as the causes of neurosis, and as what needed to be made conscious, and then properly reorganized, or channelled in a more positive or constructive way, for analytic progress to occur. This is also true of Object Relations, although object relations had a very different analysis about how the drives evolved and were shaped, which incorporated a relation of some sort of other Objects (ie people or parts of people).

Kohut, on the other hand, diverged from this view, by focussing on the development of the self through identifcation with and acceptable frustration by idealized others (or semi-others) and mirroring, ie that the self became understood, and developed through the internalizations and projections of itself, and the adequate mirroring or frustration of its own grandiosity by the other, or self/other.

But drive theory was something he was very concerned with separating himself from, thus the importance of distinguishing Self Psychology from Object Relations Psychology--

Vautrin

Cathexis generally means the process of investing someone or thing with emotional energy.

For example, you might cathexize your T-- ie invest him the energy that was once invested in your parents, but which became blocked because of various prohibitions or repressions that you underwent in order to adapt to whatever situation you were in. (Freud was less interested in the actual situation, theoretically at least, than the modes of repression or adaptation, the the drives underwent.)

So perhaps in order to unrepress or regain mastery of a situation, you might regress to some earlier stage of drive development (or you might be stuck at one, which would manifest itself in relation to your T). This would be analyzed ie interpreted within the analytic frame, until it gave way to a more 'mature" phase

Or you can cathexize objects, or parts of people-- etc.

Vautrin

Ah, I see. Yeah, what you are saying is fitting really well with what I have been reading.

I don't know much about different analytic theories... I remember reading something about how there was around 5 or 7 main schools of thought but I don't even know what they are and how they differ from one another.

I guess first there was Freud. Then there was Jung. Then there were a variety of other theorists who have all... Modified (added to, disagreed with certain aspects of) Freud... And hence the different schools.

I've read a bit about object relations. Is attachment theory part of object relations theory, do you know, or are they distinct?

So... Modern Freudian's call themselves 'ego psychologists'?
Maybe I should Wiki 'psychoanalysis'...

Had a pretty flat session today. Didn't tell him that I'd been reading. I want... Therapy to be about me. Me me me not them.
:-(
Yeah sometimes I need to talk about them... But sometimes I don't and when I don't I'm not sure how much good it does to indulge my 'stories'. Sigh.
I don't know if he would be seeing me if it wasn't for them.
I'm not sure that that is good for me...
Need to refocus.
Maybe it is that it is moving too fast...
He was flat today. Caught him looking at his watch after 30 minutes.
But then I was flat today too...
Maybe it was catchy.

Need to go home and take a little nap methinks...

He is off for two weeks over christmas / new year.

Also... Have a friend here who is starving himself to death, basically. I think... I think he needs... A caring t to talk to him. To help him feel a little happier about himself and about his life. Not to rescue or save him. Not to hospitalise him against his will. To talk to him. To care.

Other students here... Are seriously concerned. One guy used to be a doc in the ER and he said he had seen people hospitalised with a greater / bigger BMI index. So... He wants to call crisis services to come and assess him and... Section him under the mental health act and hospitalise him, I guess.

That doesn't sit well with me :-(
(I'm damned sure it won't sit well with the guy either)
Maybe I'm worried about all my past bad experiences with the public service?

I told t and asked him... What he thought we should do... I was trying to put the guy off calling CAT. I guess I was hoping... That he would say 'sure I'll see him' or 'here is a number of a colleague who is really terrific and give them a call I'm sure they would be happy to see him' or even 'let me ask around'.

But no. He said ringing CAT sounded like a plan.

Disillusioned?
Maybe.
(Yeah)
Why me? Why is he working with me?
There are so many people with so much need in the world.
I'm feeling very undeserving and self-depreciatory today.
I don't care if they don't go away. They can have this body.
I don't want it. My only condition is that they don't throw me back out to deal with the world when they %#@&#! up.

You asked lots of good questions, and there are just a few that maybe I can shed some light on. Remind me later if there is still something that you want me to try to look up, ok?

Freud's major theory and method of doing therapy is Psychoanalysis (aka Analytic). There were professional organizations and societies developed around this method, and they were pretty rigid about sticking to an exact protocol. When someone didn't do it exactly their way, they often kicked them out, revoked their membership, and generally trashed anything they had to say on the matter. There was some antagonism even between Freud and Jung, and others who were very closely associated with Freud. Freud wanted devout followers, not people to springboard off of him.

But more and more people began to see that there was a lot of good stuff in Psychoanalytic theory, even if there was a bit here and there that they couldn't get totally onboard with. So they developed their own theories with Psychoanalysis as a springboard. All of those theories that are based on Psychoanalysis but aren't Psychoanalysis are called "Psychodynamic." Psychodynamic theorists often consider themselves quite loyal to psychoanalysis although the strict psychanalists may reject the psychodynamic theories for not strictly following the protocol.

Attachment theory is a psychodynamic theory, but not a therapy all by itself. Self Psychology and Object Relations are a few more psychodynamic theories, as are Adlerian (Individual Psychology), and theories by Erik Erikson, Sullivan, Horney, Fromm, etc. Object Relations is based on Attachment theory. Here's a link on Psychodynamic approaches: http://www.ryerson.ca/~glassman/psychdyn.html#Others

Other theories were developed too that were more in opposition to Psychodynamic thinking. Psychodynamic theories look at development and the past. Behaviorism opposed that and said we really don't care about the past - it's all about the environment and reinforcers and observable behavior. They were very rigid at first in their own way, and have softened a lot. Cognitive-behaviorism developed, and recognized the connection between thought, feeling, and behavior (Bandura's Social Learning Theory is a good one).

And then there were the Humanists, who said that people are naturally good and just need to be allowed to be themselves, and all that therapists need to do is listen with empathy, unconditional positive regard, and genuineness. They said that people know what they need to do, they just get stuck because so many of others' expectations have conflicted with that internal sense of who we are.

Those are the basic trunks of the tree, and many theories have developed around those, on bigger or smaller branches of their own. If you want to know more about the theories, a great webpage (e-book) is http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/perscontents.html or you might consider taking a Personality Theory class.

Another psychodynamic theory that I think is really interesting is Psychosynthesis http://www.psychosynthesis-uk.com/ (at least I consider it psychodynamic, but I'm not sure everyone classifies it quite that way - there is a lot in there that is humanistic/existential too).

Wow - lots more than I intended to write. Well, take what you want from it.

Rap

Hey, thanks for that. I've done quite a bit of psychology but mostly cognitive neuropsychology and radical behaviourism. Did a couple of grad courses in abnormal psychology and theories and issues in treatment etc as well. I guess my uni was focused on CBT and alternative theories / views were often presented as straw men in a 'look how far we have come' kind of fashion. I never really got to learn very much about humanistic and existential theories or about psychodynamic / analytic theories.

I never really did much social psychology either, which is a shame in hindsight. If I could do another degree I'd be keen to pick up social and personality psychology, moral psychology (good overlap with ethics), and education for its 'human development through the lifespan' type courses. Apparantly the education dept. was a lot more sympathetic to other theories...

(I guess my uni was a bit distinctive in the sense that the major funding came from agriculture research hence the success of radical behaviouraism for the issues they were addressing)

In the meantime... I can do some reading, but I can't afford to get too distracted from my work.

I actually... Looked into doing my thesis on psychoanalysis (or pscyhodynamic theories). Wanted to look at how much you could translate some / most / all(?) into the language of the cognitive neurosciences (one criteria on scientific theories is that they are coherant with other currently accepted scientific theories). I was doing alright for a while but...

While the Id is kinda okay I was a bit boggled about what to do with the Ego and Superego. The dynamic unconscious... I've been finding a lot of stuff on that. People writing about how current science is vindicating the unconscious! It isn't though... The unconscious that cognitive psychologists talk about does not have the properties that the dynamic unconscious is supposed to have.

How should we think of these mental structures (Id, ego, superego, dynamic unconscious)?

Are they supposed to be structural and / or functional parts of the brain (will neuroscientists be able to locate them)?

Are they supposed to be structural and / or functional parts of the mind (will cognitive psychologists be able to vindicate them because of the predictive leverage that positing those entities grants us)?

Unfortunately... It is looking like no, no and no.

But folk psychology (with its entities like beliefs, desires, emotions etc) doesn't fear much better. Are beliefs supposed to be localised structures / functions that neuroscientists can find? Are they supposed to be cognitive structures that are useful to posit? Maybe yes to the latter but probably no to the former.

Some people say that psychoanalytic / dynamic entities are purely METAPHORIC. But if that is the case...

Art, not science.

Which is fine. Art isn't to be sneezed at. But... End of my project really so I had to leave it alone...

Though... I really do think I'll come back to it one day.