Do you smoke?

[worm]

Still the most dominant theory in western medical practice for use in overcoming addiction and trauma.

Do you eat, drink and talk?

There's no way to disprove his theories Feral, which is ironically the biggest reason he gets rejected. Of course those that reject him are in denial, just as those that reject Skinner have learned to do so and those that reject Marx are clouded by their class conscouisness.

[The Nal]

Why did someone -1 this? Do they like humour?

[feral chile]

Why did someone -1 this? Do they not like psychological humour?

[worm]

Yeah, I've never liked Freud since reading The Interpretation of Dreams. Biggest load of hogwash I ever read, full of really tenuous links - he dreamt of a ladder which he must have associated with being off the ground, this is associated with being carried by his mother, the ladder is an extension of his penis which he fantasized was being held by his mother therefore the dream was a sublimated oedipus complex.

Edited February 15, 2011 by worm

[feral chile]

The particular analysis doesn't matter as it's up to the patient to identify with it. What does matter is that someone (Freud) realised that the mind was hidden from the self through a series of elaborate associations. The only bit I've ever really had a problem with is the assumption that the mind is an irrational, unkind and insane entity when free of the self.

[feral chile]

Still the most dominant theory in western medical practice for use in overcoming addiction and trauma.

[worm]

yes, but it's not up to the patient is it, it's the therapist imposing their ideology on the patient. At least, as narrow as behaviourism is, the patient defines the problem, and the therapist deals with that problem. They don't tell the client that they really have a different problem.

[worm]

If a doctor tried to spout Freudian psychobabble at me I'd...not be very happy with him.

I don't think talking about oral fixation would be very helpful in trying to help someone give up an addiction associated with tobacco, drugs or alcohol. I'm pretty sure the physical dependence is the defining factor.

Though as a behaviourist, I'd be looking at situational triggers too.

[feral chile]

Having a therapist imposes ideology onto the patient. Being called a patient is the enforecement of ideology. The patient accepting the definition of patient is part of an ideological system. There's no escaping it.

True.

It's this system that Freudian analysis looks at to see what the patient is willing to accept and what not to accept. If it reveals some damaging aspects then they become the focus until the patient becomes aware of them, thereby empowering them. Cognitive behaviourism works in much the same way, but without the realisation that it is part of the ideological system speaking about what is and what is not the case.

yes, but if a client goes to a behaviourist/cognitive behaviourist and tells them they have undesirable behaviour/thoughts, the therapist will work with them to eliminate those bahaviours/thoughts. They won't try to tell them that the reason they're acting this way is really because of something else. That's behaviourism's strenth, and also its limitation.

True. There's no such psychological disorder and never has been. I've no idea why you've related it to Freud particularly.

Not particularly to Freud, just the danger of thinking you know what the patient/client's hidden problem is, especially when you've already refusing to accept the alternative.

No, they're part of the self as it refers to the mind. They are all part of the elaborate mind-self association. The unassociated mind is suppossed to be completely irrational and utterly self-unaware. I just find it a nonsense.

Don't know - isn't that similar to Sartre's for-itself? The action is free, then we reflect on it? So the awareness and judgement are secondary. Strangely, I don't find Sartre annoying at all, and he's all theory. Maybe he just writes better.

[feral chile]

You'd rather the language of the dominant ideology? Most psychoanalysists listen rather than speak to the client and only give suggestion in a humanistic language. You seldom hear a GP spouting medical jargon. I think you may have a few misconceptions about Freudian analysis.

[Ed209]

only just noticed that therapist is "the - rapist". Interesting

sorry, keep going ...

[worm]

maybe. I just imagine it as something potentially dangerous and largely unconstructive - if i presented with a problem, I really don't see how being told/led to believe that when I was 2 I secretly wanted a penis would actually resolve anything. or whatever penis envy is about.

Edited February 16, 2011 by worm

[feral chile]

Which is of little use to the 'client' if those thoughts are concurrent with the dominant ideology.

You mean like the assumption you just made above? We are part of an ideological system and it's ridiculous to believe that we aren't or that a client in need of help is in fact empowered to know their problem, when the evidence clearly suggests that they have a problem identifying with the dominant ideology.

[worm]

But if you don't allow the client to define the problem, aren't you leading the client? Even stating that the client is unable to identify with the dominant ideology is leading them. And providing them with an ideology.

Edited February 16, 2011 by worm

[feral chile]

I've answered this already.

By accepting them as a patient you're defining their problem for them. The client coming to you as a patient is identifying them as a patient within the dominant ideology. In doing so, they are providing you with their problem according to the dominant ideology, so you'd think that as an expert you should know what that ideology is.

I've answered this too.

That isn't psychotherapy. That's empowerment and encouragement. It's not cognitive behavioural therapy at all.

Goals and aims are part of the current ideology that we accept in our sense of self. You need to find out where their sense of self has come from and what it is constructed from before you can assess their goals. Therefore, as a psychotherapist, you need to know how the mind functions in terms of its desires etc and why it has turned to those particular thoughts and forms of thinking that have arrived at those goals. Primarily, you need to understand the logic and the thought process that has led to an idea from which possible choices have presented themselves to the person in question.

Cognitive behaviourism does this too. All psychology does. None of them are about helping the person get what they want - apart from a better sense of self.

This isn't Freud versus behaviourism, it's psychology versus autonomy.

Edited February 16, 2011 by feral chile

[worm]

Don't really understand this. it's about reducing unhappiness isn't it?

Edited February 16, 2011 by worm

[feral chile]

No. Reducing happiness can be done by letting someone get what they want. Sometimes, in fact most times, what they want is a symptom of the problem. Think of the immediate happiness and subsequent pain involved in the cycle of a drug addict.

Happiness has no psychological validity. As Freud recognised, the ID will be enraged if the ego gets too much satisfaction.

It's not about that at all. It's about people functioning better within society.

They come to the therapist because they have accepted somewhere along the line that they have a problem that they cannot understand. The therapist does not sort it for them, they show them what it is and then counsel them.

If you mean psychology as in a psychologist and psychiatrist as in therapist then I understand what you mean. But what you've been arguing isn't psychological in nature, which is the point I'm driving at. Personal assistance rather than therapy perhaps?

[worm]

Doesn't cognitive behaviour therapy teach techniques to change destructive thought patterns? You'd need to know more than why you've started to think the way you do. You'd need to know how to break the cycle.

[worm]

I've never understood how getting to the basis of your neuroses takes you forward, you see. It's all about looking backwards instead of looking forward.

Edited February 16, 2011 by worm

[amfy]

I'd define "Personality Disoder" as not knowing where the middle is. Most of us are sometimes happy and sometimes sad, sometimes angry and sometimes calm, but we know the difference. People with PD lack the same level of abilty to tell the difference. This is often rooted in early childhood neglect or trauma.

Imagine as a baby you learn what "hungry" is because you get a bad feeling in you belly, you cry, someone responds by feeding you, and you feel better. If no-one responds to your cry by feeding you, or they do so inconsistently, you don't learn that that feeling is "hungry", and you go on to not know if you are hungry or full. This is why neglected and traumatised children develop PD - the responses they have received to distress have been absent or inconsistent enough to give them no clue how to interpret physical or emotional feelings.

Children come into adopted families not knowing whether they are hungry or full, hot or cold, happy or sad, angry or calm - all of that needs to be re-taught with therapeutic parenting, which is why assessment to be adoptive parents is so lengthy and complex.

PD is definitely treatable with good thereutic care, but it is often denied by mental health services because it can't be treated with medicine. It's not a chemical imbalance, like say bi-polar or schizophrenia, so it requires a lot more time and thought. I think "lacking certain skills they could learn" (as feral chile says) is a good way of putting it - but it isn't just a label, it's very very real and distressing.

P.S. - I packed up smoking 6 years ago after 22 years of it and now I definitely feel like a non-smoker. I actually look at people who smooke and can't quite work out why they are still doing such an odd thing. However, I have now realised that smoking was only ever diguising my real addiction which is to chocolate!

[grumpyhack]

I'd define "Personality Disoder" as not knowing where the middle is. Most of us are sometimes happy and sometimes sad, sometimes angry and sometimes calm, but we know the difference. People with PD lack the same level of abilty to tell the difference. This is often rooted in early childhood neglect or trauma.

Imagine as a baby you learn what "hungry" is because you get a bad feeling in you belly, you cry, someone responds by feeding you, and you feel better. If no-one responds to your cry by feeding you, or they do so inconsistently, you don't learn that that feeling is "hungry", and you go on to not know if you are hungry or full. This is why neglected and traumatised children develop PD - the responses they have received to distress have been absent or inconsistent enough to give them no clue how to interpret physical or emotional feelings.

Children come into adopted families not knowing whether they are hungry or full, hot or cold, happy or sad, angry or calm - all of that needs to be re-taught with therapeutic parenting, which is why assessment to be adoptive parents is so lengthy and complex.

PD is definitely treatable with good thereutic care, but it is often denied by mental health services because it can't be treated with medicine. It's not a chemical imbalance, like say bi-polar or schizophrenia, so it requires a lot more time and thought. I think "lacking certain skills they could learn" (as feral chile says) is a good way of putting it - but it isn't just a label, it's very very real and distressing.

P.S. - I packed up smoking 6 years ago after 22 years of it and now I definitely feel like a non-smoker. I actually look at people who smooke and can't quite work out why they are still doing such an odd thing. However, I have now realised that smoking was only ever diguising my real addiction which is to chocolate!

[feral chile]

I'd define "Personality Disoder" as not knowing where the middle is. Most of us are sometimes happy and sometimes sad, sometimes angry and sometimes calm, but we know the difference. People with PD lack the same level of abilty to tell the difference. This is often rooted in early childhood neglect or trauma.

Imagine as a baby you learn what "hungry" is because you get a bad feeling in you belly, you cry, someone responds by feeding you, and you feel better. If no-one responds to your cry by feeding you, or they do so inconsistently, you don't learn that that feeling is "hungry", and you go on to not know if you are hungry or full. This is why neglected and traumatised children develop PD - the responses they have received to distress have been absent or inconsistent enough to give them no clue how to interpret physical or emotional feelings.

Children come into adopted families not knowing whether they are hungry or full, hot or cold, happy or sad, angry or calm - all of that needs to be re-taught with therapeutic parenting, which is why assessment to be adoptive parents is so lengthy and complex.

PD is definitely treatable with good thereutic care, but it is often denied by mental health services because it can't be treated with medicine. It's not a chemical imbalance, like say bi-polar or schizophrenia, so it requires a lot more time and thought. I think "lacking certain skills they could learn" (as feral chile says) is a good way of putting it - but it isn't just a label, it's very very real and distressing.

P.S. - I packed up smoking 6 years ago after 22 years of it and now I definitely feel like a non-smoker. I actually look at people who smooke and can't quite work out why they are still doing such an odd thing. However, I have now realised that smoking was only ever diguising my real addiction which is to chocolate!

Edited February 17, 2011 by feral chile

[worm]

I think my objection to the psychology of personality (and personality disorder) is that it seems too static, and doesn't take into account the potential to adapt.

[worm]

I'd define "Personality Disoder" as not knowing where the middle is. Most of us are sometimes happy and sometimes sad, sometimes angry and sometimes calm, but we know the difference. People with PD lack the same level of abilty to tell the difference. This is often rooted in early childhood neglect or trauma.

Imagine as a baby you learn what "hungry" is because you get a bad feeling in you belly, you cry, someone responds by feeding you, and you feel better. If no-one responds to your cry by feeding you, or they do so inconsistently, you don't learn that that feeling is "hungry", and you go on to not know if you are hungry or full. This is why neglected and traumatised children develop PD - the responses they have received to distress have been absent or inconsistent enough to give them no clue how to interpret physical or emotional feelings.

Children come into adopted families not knowing whether they are hungry or full, hot or cold, happy or sad, angry or calm - all of that needs to be re-taught with therapeutic parenting, which is why assessment to be adoptive parents is so lengthy and complex.

I think "lacking certain skills they could learn" (as feral chile says) is a good way of putting it - but it isn't just a label, it's very very real and distressing.

[feral chile]

So much so that you overlook the fact that someone who comes to a therapist has been able to adapt.

You clearly idealise adaption (or learning) to the point whereby a person has autonomy (an ideological premise, I may add). At what point is a person free of associations with language so that they know themselves and their problems Feral?

Edited February 18, 2011 by feral chile