Therapy and Biochemistry

I doubt if the technology is that good now.

That's why I added "ideally". I think there is lots of less-than-ideal therapy, to understate the case. I think we are in such early days of knowing what is effective therapy and what not, that unfortunate results can be expected often. I have experienced some of those personally.

That idea is supported by neurobiological concepts only in the most vague and hypothetical way. The client's biochemistry cannot be meaningfully measured, nor controlled, so all this talk from the psych biz about improving biochemistry via therapy is mostly unsubstantiated drivel.

Also over the course of years there are so many possible confounding variables in a person's life that it's impossible to know what has happened biochemically or otherwise. Biochemistry could have improved because the client moved away from a living environment where they were being bombarded by, for example, man made electromagnetic fields such as from wifi, which has documented and profound effects on biochemistry and CNS function.

Also i dont think anyone knows whether positive effects of talk therapy last rather than being merely palliative because when people go back to their real lives and leave thr system there is probably rarely follow up, and when feedback is solicited from therapy consumers seems it is often tainted by a million biases and distortions on both sides.

The talk therapy biz has tried to co-opt basic aspects of human interaction. They claim to provide some purified laboratory version of a relationship. In my experience what's provided is a convoluted mess that becomes addictive precisely because it is so unnatural. Personally, I would rather subject my biochemstry to something balanced and non-fake.

This is actually not true - I work on it in my research job. Not in therapy clients per se, but it is very possible to measure many different biochemical and other neurobiological mechanisms in humans. It is also possible to measure (and model), to a certain extent, how early life experiences can affect some of these. There is a large body of literature on this now (I have published a bunch myself), maybe I will find a few less technical ones and link here sometime later. Again, not in the context of psychotherapy. Designing studies to measure the effects of therapy has many challenges and limitations, but it is not much on the technical levels in our era to measure many different kinds of biochemistry. As for controlling these biochemical, neurochemical processes - that is also possible, in several ways, under experimental conditions.

BudFox, I appreciate many of your critical posts about therapy, but I am sure you know that sometimes you take it too far and attempt to criticize and put down things that you don't seem to be familiar with on deeper levels.

But I agree with the earlier criticism on articles publiched in popular psych - they tend to be grossly simplified and misleading. Saying generalized things in matter-of-fact (or vague, mystified) ways like all mental issues are caused by traumatic experiences, and therapy will restore these is not only inaccurate but also disturbing and annoying to someone who has some ideas about how these processes work. It's yet another marketing strategy, seemingly using scientific arguments, but not even scratching the true surface.

Yes, please do post some links.

If the biochemistry related to mental health could be accurately measured and meaningfully correlated with real-world mental/emotional/behavioral states... presumably lab testing for such chemicals would be widely available, to validate all the drugging and therapizing. There is no such testing to my knowledge, just a lot of conjecture and cunning marketing.

I am not an expert in anything nor do I work in the biz. But I'm not pulling this stuff out of my a*s (ok maybe a little). I have been researching some of this stuff for years, though informally and in scattered fashion.

Also I am not questioning that therapy can affect neurobiology, just questioning whether that actually means what people imply it to mean. If a therapist claims they have some reliable method for treating mood problems or whatever and they cite biological concepts, they are just playing games.

I wish you would write a book, that I could then dog-ear and carry around with me to counterbalance the mind games that keep me sucked into therapy. It is like a recognize how right you are with my brain lol. but I follow my brainwashing right back to session. It is crazy-hard to stop.

Here is a website on "neuroepigenetics", designed to tell some of the research to the general public with scientific interest, that has a lot of different things that are relevant to the thread topic. It also has podcasts, some of which are fun to listen to.

Neuroepigenetics is just a technical buzz word for biological mechanisms, and the scientific field studying these, that are sensitive to influences not directly encoded in our genetic material (DNA). These influences are what is quite well-known at this point in the context of nature/nurture and how our environment, social experiences, and especially early life experiences (since they target a still developing brain, which is more sensitive than the adult brain) affect us.

https://neuroepic.mcdb.lsa.umich.edu...-david-sweatt/

Many of the studies and researchers cited and discussed on the website above are ones that I know very well personally. There is also stuff about maternal care, which may be of interest to many on this forum I believe. Look under "Podcast Topics" for a variety.

If anyone would like to read more, I suggest searching for terms like "epigenetics, environment, nature-nurture". The web is packed with information on these, it is quite hard to link just a couple.

Basically, the premise of psychotherapy, based on the current knowledge, is that it may affect some of these neuroepigenetic mechanisms in some people (positively or negatively, it is not predictable at all as the initial state is not even known and there is a myriad of individual biological factors contributing). I am aware of ongoing studies on the epigenetics of psychotherapy effects, also quite a lot of studies on other things people use these days to help control or recover from mental health issues, such as meditation.

An interesting, very much brand new, line of research I also heard just a few months ago at a conference is related to revisiting and re-processing old traumas with speaking about them over and over (like in therapy), and how that can actually be quite counterproductive, destructive, and not healing at all. The observation (again, in neurobiological mechanisms) is that revisiting traumas in this way can often just reconsolidate and strengthen the painful memories via affecting the molecular mechanisms behind the formation and maintenance of the memories. Based on some discussions on this forum, this experience does happen to people, not even infrequently. I actually found in my own experience that I don't benefit much from revisiting old childhood stuff over and over, in great depth, but I am sure this is also individual like a lot of the experiences and biological structures.

Therapy is basically a designed, unnatural social interaction and can potentially affect neurobiology, like most natural social interactions. Again, it is just highly unpredictable and the effects might turn out both positive and negative, or even irrelevant to the problems it is trying to treat. There is obviously a great condensation of people with negative therapy experiences on this forum, and we often wonder how come the harmful effects can be so stubborn and hard to overcome. Well, this is how - they rewire these molecular mechanisms in unpredictable ways and then it can be very hard again to change them.

Thanks for the keyword "neuroepigenetics". I am going to look for it.

I can see why the prolonged exposure therapy works for fresh trauma in people with secure good attachments basically. Telling the story over and over makes it like a song you love at first but then can barely hear after you overplay it for a summer.

However, for childhood or complex trauma, it seems like a risky, dangerous enterprise to take down defenses of a lifetime and release a Pandora's box of horrifying stories for fifty minutes, and then send the client home. It's a dice-roll with the resources and coping sills of the client set against the power in the material. That is how it seems to me anyway. The clinical judgment of the therapist is so crucial. The whole thing is very risky, it seems like from my vantage point.

When you then add the possibility that neuroblologically it could strengthen the harmful memories and maintain them- the cure makes it actually worse- I do get worried and even more skeptical . There is so much suffering on this forum, and in trauma survivors.Does therapy alleviate that suffering ? I really don't know yet, and just a on a shadow line between hope and skepticism. I am not skeptical though that there is a neurobiological component to therapy.

Highly unpredictable... yes, and yet the industry's marketing paints such a rosy picture that I can only assume the people who write such things have no scruples, or are raging sociopaths:

"In psychotherapy, psychologists apply scientifically validated procedures to help people develop healthier, more effective habits."

"By the time you’re done, you will not only have solved the problem that brought you in, but you will have learned new skills so you can better cope with whatever challenges arise in the future."


Re: the nature of the harmful effects, I am interested in the biological aspects and have thought about this a lot, but at same time i think talking about therapy in scientific terms creates obfuscation. It's not a scientific practice. It's not a process. It's not treatment. It's not medical. I don't even consider it a legitimate practice in most respects (though I get that it has its place).

The possible damaging effects can sorta be predicted just by looking at the structure... feelings of rejection, shame, powerlessness, confusion, dysregulation, dependency, inferiority seem a logical outcome. Fundamentally, I see it as a vehicle for therapists to consolidate emotional power, while clients lose it.

And its addictive potential is obvious. Plus that is only half the story. Dependent clients can be cut off cold turkey. This is the big 1-2 punch. Provoke dependency, then abandon. A real winning combination. It's not enough to say therapy is addictive. It must also be said that the client can be discarded in that dependent state. No witnesses.

I would really recommend reading the book “The Boy who was Raised as a Dog” by Dr. Bruce Perry if you ever get a chance. I just finished reading this, and it explains a lot about how trauma affects the brain, and the process of rewiring the brain. It definitely helped me to understand patterns in my own behavior and why certain therapy approaches did/didn’t help me. It’s very fascinating to read.

I fully agree with you on being disgusted reading stuff like you cited above, on therapist websites, blogs, etc. It feels gross to me, not only because it is overly superficial marketing strategy using gross oversimplification, but also on a personal level... I always feel such things as insults to my intelligence. Do they really believe I will buy that stuff? But the thing is, I still hired them and paid them for a while, in spite of all the skepticism.

On the part that I've bolded - again, I agree. Therapy is definitely not a scientifically founded enterprise. These days, a lot of the people in the biz try to use the modern science to kinda underlie, rationalize and, most importantly, sell their "product". But it is not founded and making strong claims about the efficacy and premise of therapy, using neuroscience, is premature at best and unethical/dispespectful (even to science)/harmful at worst.

You see, I am a neurobiologist as per current profession (basic science, not about therapy or very clinical stuff), but I always hesitate to talk much about it, share very specific material (including articles and books I personally like) etc, in these contexts. I just feel this is not the right place to do it appropriately and, as I said, no matter how much I would love to, I don't have any significant evidence on my hands showing what therapy really does or does not. It's more speculation based on the much more solid evidence from basic neurobiology (like the stuff discussed on the website I linked above). I guess sometimes I am more just spontaneously protective/defensive of my particular discipline, but I know not to do it too much, from a lot of experience with interacting with people from all walks of life

The "dark side" of the therapy biz in this context, I guess just like for researchers like myself, is that we all want to do our thing, rationalize and sell it. It definitely does not justify experimenting with people in uncontrolled ways in a private practice, like many Ts do, then concealing/discarding the negative results and moving on as though nothing happened.

I really appreciate (and am fascinated by) all of the responses to this thread - but am especially appreciative of your comments. I've been reading a lot about the neurobiology of the mind over the past couple of years - and so much of it resonates with me - and it's helped me reframe why typical talk therapy and medication has never worked for me.

I plan to spend the next couple of days watching the podcasts you've linked to.

It's a tenuous link at best, and they really ought to shut up about it. Talking to a clergy person is going to affect neurochemistry, but I don't see priests and rabbis claiming to be applied neuroscientists.

BudFox - do you ever consider and try to understand viewpoints very different from yours? Experiences different from yours, including in therapy? Personalities different from yourself, maybe with different histories and outcomes. Or is your goal to represent your singular experience here? If so, I think it is fine, but your experience will not realistically question or validate that of others on a great variety, and I think the fair thing is to be open to that and acknowledge that.

For example, myself. I am undoubtedly critical about therapy - from the whole concept into it's details, including speculated mechanisms. But I do not share your experience with dependence and then painful abandonment by a T. I just don't. I have never had problems with attaching to someone and not being reciprocated in painful ways. I never even perceived my Ts behaviors as such - perhaps because I never even considered the development of such attachment in my therapy. It also never happened. My own issues around therapy were quite different, which I try to describe in posts, like you. I do my best to consider and try to understand a variety of histories, perspectives, experiences, and outcomes. But claiming only one truth and coming back onto others because they don't share your truth? I don't know... especially when saying anyone should "shut up". Why do you think/suggest your experience is the ultimate truth about therapy? Or anything. It certainly does not click with me much, for example, in many ways.

I am not talking about the biochemistry thing at all. It's your trying to impose a singular, unified picture on the topic of therapy.

This really scares me for all the good people out there looking for trustworthy help in vulnerable states because it is plainly true. It scares me for myself because I am kind of addicted to it and weirdly dependent even though it is not my trademark personality to be that way n other relationships.I have the 1 in the 1 2 punch.

Just as I feel that Budfox writes from a subjective place that is accurate for him and, often, for me, I think that Xynesthesia has observed and been able to describe the situation from "outside" the danger zone on another thread.

I understand that psychology, much less psychotherapy, is nowhere near as descriptive and predictive a science as physics. Or even biology. But it seems to me that some of the psychoanalytic writers have made some potentially useful observations. Too soon to call them discoveries or scientific theories yet, but some of them I have still found useful.

Two psychoanalytic theorists especially, are Hyman Spotnitz and Heinz Kohut. I think, and at this point believe, that their theories relatively accurately describe my situation before I went into my last therapy. That is, despite all the other therapy and self-examination, I knew more about my internal dynamic than I did 50 years ago but the basic mechanisms remained the same, apparently "stuck"?. Dissociation may explain why the "resistances" were so strong and unbudgeable. Perhaps a better therapist might have made more headway earlier, but I assure you I have done everything I could to cooperate, find more appropriate help when one therapy failed, etc., etc. In that sense I was "good" -- despite having parts in my "core" that I felt to be evil. And some others may feel that way about me, too, I don't know. To the extent that I have tried to understand and control those parts, I've not acted evil very much to my knowledge, though I am certainly overcome by guilt and shame when I do. And sometimes when I just feel those parts being activated.

The way "out" of this internal, subjective prison has also been suggested to me by Heinz Kohut's theory. I am subjectively very familiar with the dynamics of grandiosity and idealization, 2 of the 3 poles of the "self", according to Kohut. The third pole is the "alter ego" or twinship function. For anybody who might be interested I have written a review of a book in which I discuss this some more:

https://www.amazon.com/Narcissism-Se.../dp/1137491477

I think you misunderstood my post. I meant that therapists who push the therapy-as-neuroscientific concept ought to shut up about that, because, as you said, it's unfounded. I was agreeing with you. Maybe ask for clarification before making assumptions. Also you really should not be addressing me personally in a thread like this, it's totally inappropriate. Send me a PM if something irritates you, and maybe we can come to an understanding.

Not necessarily misunderstood... I think I was deviating from the thread topic too much in my mind, into larger contexts, reacted to that impulsively, and projected it onto you more than it belongs. I apologize for it. You stably represent a certain (important) perspective on this forum that may seem a bit strong for some, but I usually don't mind, understand that it us backed up by serious personal experience, and I appreciate how you own and embody it, whether I share it/agree or not.