Accepting what your T has to say

I think psychoanalysts are often especially prone to that. After all, if the client had okay childhoods, let alone mostly loving, supportive parents, they have no work to do as that kind of therapy is so focused on early life adverse experiences. I had arguments over this with my own psychoanalyst, even told him what he was doing (trying to twist things to convince a client that they were neglected, abused etc) could potentially be quite damaging if the client buys it. It can sometimes be illuminating to point out stuff someone is denying but there is a difference between that and projecting things into someone else's life that is not there or is not an issue for that person. My ex-T did this frequently and at the same time often ignored the real problems and some of the most useful insights I had, because they were not in the framework of his preferred theories and explanations.

If you dont understand what is being said here, what difference will another thread or PM make? Re-read these few posts til you do. Every inference is not an accusation, thats why they are two unique words. You have made this offer before, but i dont get the point. Is this like taking it to another room in chat? (I dont chat.) You are always free to start another thread, but i think the OP is caught up, FWIW.

I agree.

If this was directed at me, I have no idea what this means.
But I almost never understand what you are talking about. But worry not, I certainly shall not pm you.

Lrad, a lot of your post resonates extremely strongly for me. Right down to remembering exactly what my therapist's voice sounded like the time two years ago that I described a childhood experience as "maybe a little neglectful" and he chimed in with "That's neglect! That's the definition of neglect." For the record, he was completely right. And the way he said it--and the fact that it was highly uncharacteristic of him to label an experience of mine or be that vehement and explicit in how he made the point--really stuck with me. Over time, thinking back to how strongly he said that has been something of a touchstone for me when I've doubted that conclusion or felt like that label was unfair to my parents.

All of that is to say that while of course I can't speak to what any of your experiences were like, or what any if it means to you now, I know what it's like to be grappling with something similar. In my case, I thought I'd already processed those experiences and relationships sufficiently and had made peace with them. I didn't think there was much point in rehashing old stuff all over again, and resented the way talking about it seemed pointless and cliche. I was very, very wrong. Looking more closely at my childhood, how I feel about it, and how those experiences and feelings impact me today has been extremely helpful, and has unlocked some very surprising realizations about my patterns then and now. It's not about blame--it's about figuring out where I come from.

And in my case, trying to simplify it into an issue of blame was (and honestly, still is) a way that I tried to avoid looking at it more closely and tried to keep my distance from some really difficult feelings. I still reflexively cut myself off sometimes while I'm talking about childhood events, and start saying something like "but nevermind, what's the point in rehashing ancient history" or "oh, look at me sitting in my therapist's office blaming my mother, how original." I've finally come to realize, at least sometimes, that those arguments are rooted in guilt and shame and the ways I learned to take care of myself when I was younger, and while they still crop up with great regularity, I also know that they don't serve me well now.

So you don't have to let it be about blame in order to explore that part of your life and your feelings about it. You also don't have to explore it at all or have any feelings about it! But if it keeps coming up, it seems worth wondering how it impacts you, and over time maybe you'll notice some things that can lead you in a useful direction. You don't have to agree with your therapist's assessment of things--maybe he's right, maybe he's not. But if what he's said has stuck with you, it seems worth considering talking about it some more, and thinking about what it might be like if you were to start seeing it from that perspective, without dismissing whatever comes up.

My deep dive into my past (3x weekly analysis) taught me nothing I didn't already know, but instead habituated depression by dwelling in my most negative places. It also gave me a sense of entitlement--I expected the world to coddle me because I held so many victim chips.

I lost important lifelong friends feeling analysis made me so superior and living in such a pseudo world.

While I agree that childhood is part of our shaping, so are many other factors, our gender, society, our education, careers, peer, intimates and co-workers. We actually can join causes toward changing some of these conditions.

Ultimately my big self-absorption party was only detrimental. There were no practical changes in the present from living in the past. I think causality exploration in therapy is a parlor game. How can it be more than speculation?

I did free myself somewhat over time and distance from my early stifling, from minimizing my neediness (and the need to compete and impress) and through a few accomplishments. I don't think any mentor could have guided me; I had to find my own path. I "got to know myself" by going forward instead of backward.

I think therapy clients should do what they find useful. I don't consider it "resistance" or "denial" to focus on therapy projects other than going for the burn.

Lrad, my T also seems to have an unspoken aim in my sessions that is to get me to view my parents as emotionally neglectful I thought we had established that sometime ago, but she still labours it. I think that therapists don’t get everything right. I think that I myself have a good idea what I need in my sessions, and one of those things is for me to speak my mind in the moment in my sessions with her, including that it feels like she is labouring the point about the emotional neglect. In that respect it is not unhelpful her doing so as it gives me an opportunity to speak my mind, which I will hopefully take up any day now.

Nothing enraged me more than a tall colleague hit-and run patting atop my head and calling me “poor dear.”

Until it tips over, my glass always is half-empty, half full. My therapy review only covered childhood sorrows. I wonder how different it would have been to have reviewed joys and triumphs instead.

I'm really not sure why the stereotype persists that addressing childhood history in therapy means ignoring the present, or that addressing difficult situations means ignoring strengths. I know some therapists make those mistakes, but it's not inevitable.

My experience of discussing my childhood in psychoanalytic therapy has been that it's largely about making flexible connections between then and now, no tunnel vision on the past. Open exploration, not blame--I've always been encouraged to remember and discuss joys and triumphs as much as sorrows and traumas, though of course often those aren't straightforward categories. And getting a realistic picture of one's triumphs means having a realistic assessment of what you went through to get where you are.

This has been my experience as well. My therapist has welcomed all my experiences, good or bad, big or small.

The therapist might welcome them, but why spend your time and money paying a stranger to tell them about joys and triumphs?

Many of us have spent our lives never having our joys and triumphs acknowledged. Others deal with depression or self-esteem issues, and being able to even see those joys and triumphs much less talk about them is foreign to us. Others have made progress in therapy, and those joys and triumphs are our victories and evidence of progress and healing. I'm sure there are many other reasons those kinds of discussions are helpful and validating of our worth and strength and perseverance.

Because they're part of the whole picture. I was mostly thinking about positive childhood memories when I wrote that, and the fact that sharing happy memories helps give fuller context to the more difficult material and is part of how I know I'm not just paying a stranger to demonize my parents.

Yes, for those of us who may have difficulties with splitting or something similar whether we, or the therapists, know it or not, it seems like consideration of joys and successes could help to integrate things into a more complete whole. Yes, denial and repression, etc., of negative emotions and experiences can be a thing. But if/when the therapist, and therapy theory, focus only on that -- seems to me there are some negative consequences or side effects of that approach, too.

Yes, though I want to make it clear that splitting is not what I was thinking about at all (and is not something I have difficulties with). What you wrote makes sense. But it's not only people prone to splitting (and similar ways of framing things) who I think can benefit from sharing the fullest possible picture of one's present and past.

I agree with this. I think they can be useful in showing progress--particularly the triumphs. Though I think it can be useful for a T to understand what brings us joy as well--like my T knows that music, particularly live music, has a lot of meaning for me and can bring me lots of joy. So that helps him understand more if I'm talking about something involving music. And I think it gives him a better sense of me as a person--if I only talked about the negative, he might have less of a sense of how to help me. I guess it's part of knowing what motivates me, too. And the validation when I have some sort of triumph can feel good and affirming as well--with his confirming that something I did is progress. I mean, ideally, I guess I ultimately wouldn't need that validation/confirmation, that just my feeling I've made progress is enough, but it's helpful for me at this point in my therapy.

I don't know if this applies to you, but I was largely in denial of things that happened to me in childhood. I don't mean that I didn't know they happened, but I insisted they didn't matter and demanded they be classified as just bad stuff that happened that didn't really matter. The issue with this was that this outlook implicitly demanded that I disown and devalue my own emotions about the things that happened. I think I was trying to control and suppress the underlying pain by minimizing and distorting my past experiences. The irony is that I insisted that classifying certain things as abuse was a distortion of reality. I was playing mind games with myself to try to avoid experiencing painful emotions.

I'm not saying that talking about childhood experiences is fruitful or necessary for everyone. And I would certainly say it is painful to allow dissociated emotions to surface. For me, though, my emotions were previously limited to a single thing: anger. I don't want to live that way forever. It is scary sometimes feeling the emotions that I had suppressed. Feels out of control. Sometimes the pain makes me wish I could go back. However, I see now that it was there all along, if masked by anger. Now I can better acknowledge the underlying feelings. The therapist and I are working on figuring out how to deal with these feelings in a way that isn't hurtful to me or others. Suppressed feelings can never be resolved. I don't know if you are suppressing feelings, but it seems like a possibility. The way you talk about your experiences reminds me of myself.

Another value in talking about this stuff is that I think denial can sometimes end up hurting other people. Not always, obviously, but sometimes. If I insist that certain things that happened to me were ok and not a big deal, that implicitly says that me doing the things that hurt me is also ok and not a big deal. This allowed me to hurt C terribly while denying responsibility for the devastation I caused.

I don't deny my family difficulties in the slightest. And I've swam in them, stomped them, sauteed them and fricasseed them until I concluded they've stolen far too much of my life.

These ruminations don't help my work or my friendships, nor do they inoculate me, unfortunately, from"irrational" emotions.

If we're not inclined, I see no moral imperative for a total life inquest, nor have I observed anyone has done so now superbly rational.

Im interested to hear what he said.

The way this therapy is done is for character change rather than addressing symptoms, which involves integration of disavowed feelings and experiences.

In addition to what everyone else said, I would say overall, it can result in feeling more like yourself, being true to yourself, and having more autonomy.

I also found that through understanding, the past has less power over me now, and so my feelings and behaviors are less influenced by the past. When the transference dissolves, you sort of see things in a different light and can make better choices.

Wish I did this therapy years ago instead of later on life.

The therapist benefits by suggesting things were bad. Basic conflict of interest.

If I had listened to the therapy industry, I'd have been in therapy forever, because one "issue" leads to the next.

Childhood is a bottomless pit of content for therapy, and even the client's "resistance" to rummaging thru childhood can become therapy content. It's self-perpetuating.

One therapist told me "everything is grist for the therapy mill". It's a great business model.

Some people go thru horrible things and just get on with life best they can.

The second woman kept saying there was no normal when it came to families.

True. If there’s some metric for normal or any other psych label, someone please provide citations. I think what are labeled as grave “issues” (ie insecure attachment etc.) is merely being human.

Depends on the therapist... I worked with several that wanted me to share but there never seemed to be a point other than some odd kind of trauma voyerism.

Current T wants me to know what normal is so I have a baseline and he wants to offer repairitive experiences where possible. Where repairitive experiences are not possible he wants to be one of the people I feel safe turning to for support with what ever emotions come up for me.

Blech. I just don’t know. Today he said he thinks I know somewhere in the back of my head that it was “extreme neglect” and that he also thinks a big part of me doesn’t know. And he’s right - a big part of me doesn’t know what to believe. He said it’s important to talk about. To be continued, I guess.

That sounds like a classic sales pitch. Therapists are in an ideal position to appeal to fear and insecurity to sell their wares. Yet they are given wide latitude. They can assert almost anything, and most vulnerable or overwhelmed clients will express zero skepticism, because their emotions have been systematically tweaked by the $150/hr Svengali. Also, if a therapist tries to dictate what is important for the client... red flag. We know it's important to the therapist to keep talking about stuff, but the client... less clear.