5 ms·
> All of this suggests a tantalising alternative to both the medical professional’s and the layperson’s view of therapy: that what happens between client and th
by Nav_Panel 6y ago
> All of this suggests a tantalising alternative to both the medical professional’s and the layperson’s view of therapy: that what happens between client and therapist goes beyond mere talking, and goes deeper than clinical treatment. The relationship is both greater and more primal, and it compares with the developmental strides that play out between mother and baby, and that help to turn a diapered mess into a normal, healthy person.
Oh man, pop culture is rediscovering the use of psychoanalysis, finally! Transference is so important!
> I am referring to attachment.
Oh. God dammit.
Can't escape the vortex of "science", leading to the massive fragmentation of psychological frameworks, destroying the field's credibility.
- diffrinse 6y agoI'd argue pop culture started catching on when The Sopranos aired
- Nav_Panel 6y agoWell, Freud was big back in the day, and then fell out of favor. And psychoanalytic theory still gets used in media and lit crit (and in writing the shows themselves), but... not in what it was built for, therapy.
- greenshackle2 6y agoLast I checked it does about as well as all other types of therapies in studies. What does it say about the theories of mind underlying the different schools of therapy that they all work about equally well?
- Nav_Panel 6y agoAh, "Studies" whose language and inventories are already rooted in particular paradigmatic understandings of psychology. I would expect psychoanalysis to do worse, in the studies, than "regular" psychology! Damning that it doesn't!
- dkarl 6y agoOr when Hitchcock's Spellbound was released in 1945.
- ryanwaggoner 6y agoI have no idea what you're trying to say here.
- Nav_Panel 6y agoWhich part isn't clear?
- woodandsteel 6y agoYes, you might call this the psychoanalytic idea of transference. However, the psychoanalytic understanding of infant psychology, and the infant-mother relationship, is radically different from the one presented here. Furthermore, Freud developed his ideas in this area by a very indirect method, and before any real scientific investigation had been done. In recent decades a great deal of research has now been done, and it has made clear the Freudian view was quite mistaken.
- Nav_Panel 6y agoReally? I've been seeing evidence that, although Freud's concrete causal theories aren't correct (penis envy, etc), his metapsychology and structural models (particularly the work that surrounds his unpublished Project for a Scientific Psychology, a sort of proto-structuralist view of psyche) are being vindicated via neuropsychology. See https://headbirths.wordpress.com/2018/04/05/friston-on-freud/ https://headbirths.wordpress.com/2018/04/05/friston-on-freud... Also, plenty of psychoanalysts were aware of the failures in Freud's theories, so you end up with theorists like Klein and Lacan who correct them while still maintaining an overall consistent model, which is _the_ thing that modern psychology lacks.
- woodandsteel 6y agoThe question here is infant and child psychology, and for that you need direct observation. Freud didn't do this, and he came up with an infant psychology that in key ways was simply wrong. The same is true of Lacan. Klein was a step in the direction. Part of the problem is that the needed scientific methods did not exist. But in recent decades they have been developed, and so we now have a vastly better understanding. And that in turn has enormous implications for psychotherapy. As to neuropsychology, I am not familiar with that field, so my question is what does it have to say about infant psychology.