Quote:
Originally Posted by Xynesthesia2
Sorry for not responding earlier, I have just seen this question. I think this could be a whole different topic for a separate thread if we really wanted to discuss in depth, but I disagree with the notion that some kind of transferential interaction will necessarily emerge in therapy and even if it does, dissecting that will have healing power and that whatever emerges will be a good model/representative of a client's patterns and relationships. I very much reject the idea that merely understanding and bringing things into consciousness can lead to change, as a basic therapeutic approach - if it could, so many self-aware people with mental health issues would resolve them much more quickly. I also do not think it is a good idea to probe into unconscious mechanisms endlessly (or excessively) - they exist for a reason, the brain is wired to have those and they serve important functions. I also heard from too many analysts that deep down clients relate to the T as a parental figure even if they don't think so. And I think the importance of diverse, complex social environment and influences are often minimized (or neglected) by psychoanalysts and everything is too heavily related to parents and immediate family of origin. There are also many things Ts tend to interpret about client behavior (e.g. intense desire for between-sessions contact) that can be way too simplistic, like it is related to unmet childhood needs or attachment. It can be, but can also be many other things.
What I rarely hear from psychoanalysts is that therapy can work (or harm, when that is the case) via the phenomenon of neuroplasticity and associated neurobiological mechanisms, that (like many social interactions and learning processes) it can rewire mechanisms in the brain, ultimately leading to changes in emotions and behavior. Saying that talking, awareness, relationship do the job is an example for what, I think, is very superficial in the era of current knowledge. I would not expect a psychologist to be a neuroscientist but, these days, it is kinda irresponsible to conduct mental health treatment without at least having some basics - I interviewed enough Ts who had no clue. This is one of the things I mean when I say therapy is often claimed to be too mysterious.
I am sure that some of the fans would say that I misunderstand some of these things or am not familiar with the this or that in the literature, but these are literally things I hear way too often (both from Ts and clients). It is possible that part of it is not the concepts but that they are not explained well. I don't really want to go down the rabbit hole with this topic as it's not exactly about OPs points, I am sure some of us on this forum could end up having some intense debates on it without actually getting to much consensus.
|
Until recently, all psychoanalysts were psychiatrists so the perspective has been more comprehensive than superficial in comparison with other modalities.
Freud was a neurologist and others influencing the field integrated both nature and nurture-Winnicott, a pediatrician, and Alan Schore are some notable examples.
I wonder, in your view, what they would do and say to be more responsible practitioners? And in comparison with other therapists, who are also not neuroscientists. They already go through far more training than therapists from other schools of thought.
I do think there is more focus on nurture than nature but see that is a good thing as psychiatry has split since it was no longer feasible to be trained in both. And psychiatry has failed miserably in recent decades, especially considering how other technologies have advanced. I would not find it helpful for my therapist to discuss plasticity and wonder how it would advance the therapy.
Jun 03, 2019, 03:54 PM
This is an old thread. You probably should not post your reply to it, as the original poster is unlikely to see it.
Linear Mode
