[psychiatric1]

I've been seeing a psychologist for therapy for the last couple months. As a psychology major currently in college, I basically knew what to expect the therapist to say, and generally what his goals and plans would be.

At the university I attend, we are assigned randomly to one of about 10 clinical psychologists. What shocked me the most is that the psychologist I've been seeing still uses the psychoanalytic approach. Even after this has been largely shown to be of little benefit, I assumed that this technique would be very rarely used.

After talking for months about my development, infancy, parenting, human nature, and a range of his own theories about child development, I just don't understand how anyone could ever find this type of therapy useful. At most, I've heard some admittedly fascinating theories about development, and that seems to be about the extent of it.

I'm just wondering, has anyone actually been to a therapist using psychoanalytic techniques? Was it helpful for you? I ultimately went to see a therapist for anxiety and depression, but he couldn't seem to get off the topic of my previously diagnosed ADD.

[unaluna]

How is he using psychoanalytic technique if he is talking so much? I dont understand what your complaint is, or what youre asking really.

[nicoleflynn]

Originally Posted by psychiatric1

I've been seeing a psychologist for therapy for the last couple months. As a psychology major currently in college, I basically knew what to expect the therapist to say, and generally what his goals and plans would be.

At the university I attend, we are assigned randomly to one of about 10 clinical psychologists. What shocked me the most is that the psychologist I've been seeing still uses the psychoanalytic approach. Even after this has been largely shown to be of little benefit, I assumed that this technique would be very rarely used.

After talking for months about my development, infancy, parenting, human nature, and a range of his own theories about child development, I just don't understand how anyone could ever find this type of therapy useful. At most, I've heard some admittedly fascinating theories about development, and that seems to be about the extent of it.

I'm just wondering, has anyone actually been to a therapist using psychoanalytic techniques? Was it helpful for you? I ultimately went to see a therapist for anxiety and depression, but he couldn't seem to get off the topic of my previously diagnosed ADD.

My t really doesn't use a specific technique......eclectic as it were, whatever fits the client. Since you went to him for a specific issue, I would think he would have addressed that. Do you plan to see another therapist?

I am also a student....social work and eventually my Master's in Counseling.

Nice to "meet' you here!

Nicole

[HazelGirl]

1. It isn't as disproven as the CBT people would have you think. It is actually more useful than they want you to believe, but the insurance companies push CBT because it's cheaper. But it doesn't work for everyone.
2. Traditional psychoanalytic therapy isn't very useful, true. But if your T talks a lot, he probably isn't doing traditional psychoanalytic therapy. He is probably either psychodynamic, which is modern psychoanalysis and is much more effective. Or he is something like an attachment therapist, who pulls from childhood development and many other things to help their clients.

I think it depends on the person. Some are more in need of psychodynamic therapy, while others steer more towards CBT, or just simply behavioral. There's no one way to do it; that's the beauty of it all; you can mix several and craft it specially toward each patient. *shrug*

[stopdog]

None of it is real science in my opinion. They just guess and hope from I have seen. If you don't like the style, perhaps you could ask to see a different one.

[Depletion]

My partner sees a psychodynamic therapist. It is the best thing that ever happened to him. The frame work fits him perfectly.

[unlockingsanity]

There are other forms of psychoanalytic therapy other than the traditional one you're referring to. I'm in relational psychoanalysis. It's not a 5 time a week, blank slate approach.

Modern psychoanalysis very different.

We make goals and work towards them, but also consider how previous experiences have coloured my choices and behaviours. Learning how to change involves understanding why you are the way you are so that you can choose to make better choices in the future. I have never felt as well understood as I do with my current therapist. Other therapists said they understood, but they didn't. Real understanding (even from someone who hasn't had your experience) is a very healing thing.

Just because CBT is the most pushed treatment does not mean it's the best treatment.

[sunrise]

psychiatric1, I read some advice somewhere from an eminent psychologist (I am blanking on his name), and he recommended that students of psychology undergo several rounds of therapy with different therapists of different orientations so as to give them firsthand experience with different approaches. Since the psychoanalytic approach is not as common these days, what a great learning opportunity you have been given! Even if the psychoanalytic approach is not your cup of tea, hopefully your knowledge will grow from this experience.

[unlockingsanity]

Originally Posted by sunrise

psychiatric1, I read some advice somewhere from an eminent psychologist (I am blanking on his name), and he recommended that students of psychology undergo several rounds of therapy with different therapists of different orientations so as to give them firsthand experience with different approaches. Since the psychoanalytic approach is not as common these days, what a great learning opportunity you have been given! Even if the psychoanalytic approach is not your cup of tea, hopefully your knowledge will grow from this experience.

It's very interesting. Where I live, if you pay for therapy, it's mostly psychodynamic/psychoanalytic approaches you will find. If you get if free through the government, it's exclusively CBT/DBT.

Originally Posted by psychiatric1

At the university I attend, we are assigned randomly to one of about 10 clinical psychologists. What shocked me the most is that the psychologist I've been seeing still uses the psychoanalytic approach. Even after this has been largely shown to be of little benefit, I assumed that this technique would be very rarely used.

There are several of us here who are in psychoanalytic therapy, including me.

Do your professors tell you that the psychoanalytic approach provides little benefit, or is that a conclusion you came to on your own? That is certainly not true.

I'm just wondering, has anyone actually been to a therapist using psychoanalytic techniques? Was it helpful for you? I ultimately went to see a therapist for anxiety and depression, but he couldn't seem to get off the topic of my previously diagnosed ADD

I didn't know this type of therapy existed until relatively recently. I'm irritated when reminded of the misconceptions out there, because I felt mislead by my psychiatrists after spending years in other types of therapies that did not help, while not being informed of the different types of therapies out there, such as psychoanalytic therapy. It has been most helpful to me, and I think my life would be much different at this point had I found this therapy sooner.

This type of therapy is more holistic and transformational as opposed to therapies that target symptoms that are often sub-components of bigger issues.

If you can open your mind up a bit more about this, I'd recommend that you read an overview of the psychoanalytic approach written by a psychoanalyst:

http://jonathanshedler.com/writings/

Concluding that psychoanalytic approaches are outdated and ineffective is sort of like saying that anxiety and depression are caused by a 'chemical imbalance'. It's generalizing, simplistic, and reductionist; probably bias from your university professors?

Take care.

[psychiatric1]

Originally Posted by skies

There are several of us here who are in psychoanalytic therapy, including me.

Do your professors tell you that the psychoanalytic approach provides little benefit, or is that a conclusion you came to on your own? That is certainly not true.


I didn't know this type of therapy existed until relatively recently. I'm irritated when reminded of the misconceptions out there, because I felt mislead by my psychiatrists after spending years in other types of therapies that did not help, while not being informed of the different types of therapies out there, such as psychoanalytic therapy. It has been most helpful to me, and I think my life would be much different at this point had I found this therapy sooner.

This type of therapy is more holistic and transformational as opposed to therapies that target symptoms that are often sub-components of bigger issues.

If you can open your mind up a bit more about this, I'd recommend that you read an overview of the psychoanalytic approach written by a psychoanalyst:

http://jonathanshedler.com/writings/

Concluding that psychoanalytic approaches are outdated and ineffective is sort of like saying that anxiety and depression are caused by a 'chemical imbalance'. It's generalizing, simplistic, and reductionist; probably bias from your university professors?

Take care.

I appreciate the responses. I guess that I must have fallen victim to some professor biases, as he was once a clinical psychologist himself. He has often stated that psychoanalytic therapy has been shown to be largely ineffective, yet is still practiced as an approved method of care.

Like someone said earlier, as a student, I am incredibly thankful to have experienced that style of therapy. There is no doubt that it has expanded my knowledge, and he really did keep me fascinated. However, I found no personal benefit from the therapy itself; I probably just respond better to other types, like CBT. It makes more sense to me to look at the problems I'm having and learn to tackle them, versus gaining "insight" on a possible explanation as to why the problems are there.

[Lauliza]

I think it depends on the person and what issues they are presenting with. If you are seeking to treat a specific phobia, control self harming or build skills, and you are motivated to change, CBT based therapy will work. For young kids and teens, behavioral therapy is excellent. Then for others there's the more psychodymiv approach. It depends on your goal and your personality. CBT is the only therapy with empirical data to back it up, but its also the only therapy that can actually be measured. So it doesn't mean other therapies aren't effective, it's just harder to define what success means. I think a lot of therapists draw from different techniques since there is no one size fits all approach.

[Lauliza]

Originally Posted by skies

There are several of us here who are in psychoanalytic therapy, including me.

Do your professors tell you that the psychoanalytic approach provides little benefit, or is that a conclusion you came to on your own? That is certainly not true.


I didn't know this type of therapy existed until relatively recently. I'm irritated when reminded of the misconceptions out there, because I felt mislead by my psychiatrists after spending years in other types of therapies that did not help, while not being informed of the different types of therapies out there, such as psychoanalytic therapy. It has been most helpful to me, and I think my life would be much different at this point had I found this therapy sooner.

This type of therapy is more holistic and transformational as opposed to therapies that target symptoms that are often sub-components of bigger issues.

If you can open your mind up a bit more about this, I'd recommend that you read an overview of the psychoanalytic approach written by a psychoanalyst:

http://jonathanshedler.com/writings/

Concluding that psychoanalytic approaches are outdated and ineffective is sort of like saying that anxiety and depression are caused by a 'chemical imbalance'. It's generalizing, simplistic, and reductionist; probably bias from your university professors?

Take care.

It is not uncommon for professors to lean toward CBT based therapies since they are just more widely used. But usually it's the old school Freudian psychoanalysis they are referring to as ineffective. Modern psychodynamic therapy is quite different. Often it's an integrative approach that works best, which means a combination of different styles depending on the client and their issues. A teenager who is self harming is not a good candidate for psychoanalysis, at least not if you want to stop the actual self harm. Even if that's not the issue for many, psychoanalysis is just not their cup of tea. I've has experiences with psychoanalysis as well and it was not for me, I couldn't get into it. But there are so many therapeutic techniques out there that to reduce therapy to CBT/Analysis is a also a huge oversimplification. If you want people to be open to psychoanalysis then you need to be open to other types of therapy as well.

[feralkittymom]

Just a quick response on my way to work: while psychodynamic approaches may not be a good fit for you, there is evidence based research showing the effectiveness of such approaches when appropriately chosen.

Originally Posted by psychiatric1

I appreciate the responses. I guess that I must have fallen victim to some professor biases, as he was once a clinical psychologist himself. He has often stated that psychoanalytic therapy has been shown to be largely ineffective, yet is still practiced as an approved method of care.

Like someone said earlier, as a student, I am incredibly thankful to have experienced that style of therapy. There is no doubt that it has expanded my knowledge, and he really did keep me fascinated. However, I found no personal benefit from the therapy itself; I probably just respond better to other types, like CBT. It makes more sense to me to look at the problems I'm having and learn to tackle them, versus gaining "insight" on a possible explanation as to why the problems are there.

Thanks for coming back and clarifying.

This type of therapy takes looong to yield major change, imo. It took me 6 months just to form an attachment with my therapist, and as someone here has said once before, the real work really doesn't begin until after that bond is formed. I can only go once per week, and I expect to be doing this therapy for at least 5-10 more years.

I think the real benefits of this type of therapy are afforded to those with attachment problems and/or personality disorders. Those who had a good enough childhood might not realize as much benefit. I have a history of abuse and neglect, and I don't feel safe doing any other type of therapy. It's also so much of an art and very individualized to the client.

Glad you could be open to the concepts; I hope you stick around here for awhile.

Originally Posted by stopdog

None of it is real science in my opinion. They just guess and hope from I have seen. If you don't like the style, perhaps you could ask to see a different one.

Agree. I very much agree.

Originally Posted by Lauliza

But usually it's the old school Freudian psychoanalysis they are referring to as ineffective.

Lauliza-

if you read some of the material on the link I posted, you'll see more context to the history. See, that doesn't make sense at all. Why would professors even say that about therapy from the Freudian days? When we talk about the efficiency of automobiles, we don't refer to the
Ford Model-T!!

(eta-I forget, but I may have taken that analogy from a paper in the link I posted)

[Lauliza]

Originally Posted by skies

Lauliza-

if you read some of the material on the link I posted, you'll see more context to the history. See, that doesn't make sense at all. Why would professors even say that about therapy from the Freudian days? When we talk about the efficiency of automobiles, we don't refer to the
Ford Model-T!!

Because they teach you the history of all of the theories/ theorists so you have a background. Freud is the one who started it all and many of his theories are very much alive in one form or another. It's his technique that isn't used anymore. Other than that I've never heard a professor make a blanket statement that modern psychodynamic therapy is good or bad. It's simply one of the many options that may or may not work.