Countertransference and therapy

Quantum mechanics is a science backed up with a mountain of evidence. The phenomena being studied by the field are being confirmed to exist and behave in the patterns the theories predict. Transference is a buzz word because it gives substance to something which you described well enough - 'How people act based on past experiences'. People are going to act almost always based on past experiences, that's what shaped them as people. The way I see it, and I'm well aware that I'm biased as a client here, is that word is there only to protect the therapist. Your feelings can very quickly become transference and get stripped of their core. Transference is implicitly connected to pathology.

Hal-The analogy wasn't comparing the phenomena itself. It was comparing the fact that there are labels to describe things that already exist (i.e., how people feel vs the universe around us).

Math is used to describe the nature of quantum physics and words/symbols are used to describe the nature of transference.

The analogy is still accurate.

Actually with quantum mechanics-there are a lot of theories rather than hard evidence (i.e., a cat is in 2 places at one time). Physicists disagree on the quantum theories just like psychologists disagree on their theories, like transference.

I claim there is no such thing as transference - just different modes of social interactions. Transference means that there is a thing out there that you possess or rather you Are it in your interactions with others. According to the aggregate of psychoanalytic theories the more you're aware of it and control it the more free you are etc. I would venture to say that there is 0 scientific evidence that such a thing exists. I don't deny though that there are specific patterns of relationships that emerge in our society i.e. a more knowledgeable and experienced person and a young padawan.

As for quantum mechanics there is absolutely rock-solid hard evidence that backs up the math. The difference is rather in the philosophical interpretation of the data not the data itself. Physicists don't disagree that there is such a thing as an electron and that it has mass and that it behaves in certain ways.

Psychotherapy is a form of social control that works in this peculiar circular way. You have a so-called theory of 'transference' and the therapist observes it alongside the so-called patient. The patient is in a malleable position, trusting and ready for the healing to begin. So it ultimately it boils down to what the therapist believes is the interpretation of the transference which could vary enormously amongst therapists and respectively the modalities they practice. AFAIK there are modalities that don't even use transference.

Transference and its usefulness in psychotherapy in the light of empirical evidence | Emilia Wegner, Hubert Suszek, and Norbert Maliszewski - Academia.edu

It took me about 5 seconds to find empirical evidence. There are billions and billions of psych grad students doing billions and billions of research studies. They have probably tested every point of the client t interaction.

Caveat lector: Empirical evidence is not the holy grail many say it is. It's observation based, and only as good as the quality of the observer and their ability to overcome any biases or presuppositions. And then you get into the people observing other people's observations...

So...if psych graduate students expect there to be transference in therapy, they will find it.

(The older I get, the more I like Socrates' approach to thinking: "I know that I know nothing.")

I have no objection to transference, though I don't think it has to be universal. My objection to countertransference is that if it is only the client perceiving it exists without corroboration from the therapist...isn't that just another form of transference?

Yeah its only a theory. Like evolution.

Or Newtonian gravity. Or parts of atomic theory. Or the Open Polar Sea.

All of those were superseded or improved when we had new, better knowledge. Who's to say a hundred years from now a psych professor won't start a lecture by saying, "now in 2017, our field was so backwards that it believed in transference?" To much hilarity from the students.

All I'm saying is, very little is set in stone. Except like stuff that's actually set in stone. So there's room for other opinions.

I'm reading that paper for sure. Just a short reply to therapists reading this forum -

I haven't read any studies, but I'm pretty confident that we are all pretty much acting and reacting to other people based only on our ideas of them that reflect past ideas and experiences of people in our lives who were acting and reacting to us based on their ideas of us that reflect their past experiences and people in their lives.

So that basically, no one really sees or knows anyone else (except for those mythical enlightened few). But in therapy, you get to be blamed for it, unless you luck out and get a therapist who isn't a d*ck about what is basic human nature.

Two things:

Seems therapists favor convoluted and tortuous explanations for things, rather than simple obvious explanations (occams razor problem). This helps with job security (and justifies their pay and position) because they can be the gatekeepers of reality like a guru or swami. The client must return next week to find out the "true" meaning of what just happened.

The way a therapist reacts to a client is assumed to be some sort of purified model that the client should study as representative of external reality. But it might be nothing of the sort, but rather the consequence of the unique interaction of those two people in the very specific and largely artificial environment of therapy. It's a bit like in vitro versus in vivo.

I'm sure they have countertransference in some fashion. Mine really didn't discussed if she had any and I'm not sure if I asked how genuine she would be. I think mine answers things based on my diagnosis as well. She might refrain from expressing herself as well. Perhaps it could also be part of her boundaries.

From the linked article:

"The activation of schemas and scripts is usually automatic and unconscious (Bargh, 1997). For this reason, the patient may not realize the activation of a schema but only feel the affect associated with a person. For the same reason, the analysis of transference may sometims be the only way to access the unconscious material."

Interesting assumption. Not all people are blind to their tendencies and patterns, and it doesn't take much intellectual sophistication to see that how you react to a therapist might have links to prior relationships.

Also in the discussion of outcomes, I saw no mention of placebo effect, nor of the likelihood that everyone involved (practitioners, patients, researchers) might be heavily biased, nor of the possibility that what helps people is just being listened to and understood, rather than being analyzed and interpreted by an overpaid pipe-smoker wielding speculative theories and unpredictable methods. And no elaboration of the nature and extent of adverse outcomes.

Interesting also that despite the acknowledgement of the risks and of the dubious nature of transference and all techniques and theories, the implied message seems to be same as always -- carry on experimenting with vulnerable people, keep taking their cash while doing so, and don't concern yourself with elaborating the risks.

The phenomena described as transference and countertransference are very common, everyday mechanisms of relating to the world via subjective perceptions, history, interpretations etc. It's just that psychology gave this terminology to them and they are being used in certain therapies. I find the terms a bit confusing though as they suggest that first always the client is the one who experiences the feelings and acts driven by them, and the T just reacts to it. In reality it is much more two-way, which is the natural state of things. I think a therapist not allowing any of his or her feelings and reactions show (think of the blank slate) can be just as upsetting and sometimes harmful as letting themselves carried away and acting out. I personally benefited a lot from the T sharing his feelings and reactions relative to me as information on what sorts of reactions people in general might have when they interact with me.

Couldn't have said some of this better myself.

I must say that I'm actually not returning next week but usually already the next day because I have four sessions per week. And yes, I pay for them out-of-pocket without any insurance. I guess I must see something worth in that when I'm willing to pay a large part of my income to that person.

I came to the same conclusion as you, although I have read studies. The way I see it is that these concepts don't really mean any more than what you've described here.

But it's broken down into parts and the interaction of these components is analyzed, and sometimes analyzed to death, to gain understanding.

This is so clear and understandable I'm going to print it out and put it on my refrigerator. Explains a lot. When I forget and get anxious about myself or other people I can look at that quote until, maybe, it gets ingrained.

Yup. Pretty much. We can only see others through the very unique pair of viewing glasses that we ourselves have made. All lenses have the potential to both clarify and distort.

I wonder if it is possible to look at a person through lens-less glasses?
Prolly not.