Posted by alexandra_k on January 18, 2006, at 19:32:01
In reply to Re: okay so this isn't working out :-( » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on January 18, 2006, at 17:51:39
> :-)
well... i'm glad someone is getting a smile out of it
:-(> I suspect that good therapists of all different backgrounds can give reasonable insight, perhaps using different words, when one on one with a client in the therapy room.
Ah. But what is 'insight'?
Knowledge of the real motives?
How do you distinguish between the 'real' and the 'phoney' motives?
Thats where the theory comes into it...
> I doubt that good psychoanalytic therapists are less "charitable" towards their clients than, say, CBT ones. :) It probably depends more on therapist than school of thought.mmm.
i guess i'm not so much thinking of therapy...
as i am thinking about what the different theories have to say about what people REALLY believe and desire. What the REAL motivations are for our behaviour.Is there a fact of the matter?
(If there is then psychoanalysis would be trying to be a science)
If there is no fact of the matter... If it is a matter of interpretation...
Then why o why go on about all the rubbish they go on about for???
?
I don't understand
:-(
one of the main criticisms of psychoanalysis is that it forms something along the lines of a closed group. you have to be a member to learn about it... you have to choose your particular orientation (from within the major branches) and there is little room to manouver with respect to changing orientations.
it comes across as something of a secret society or a cult.
and because they don't welcome 'outsiders' and because they don't acknowledge or respond to critisms / critiques they alienate themselves from the rest of the disciplines.
i've mentioned it to analytic philosophers...
they typically screw up their faces...
:-(
dammit.
i thought i might be able to learn about that. but no go. i'd have to write something on how it is of interest to analytic philosophers...
yeah they'd be interested.
it would compare nicely to Dennett's 'astrological stance'
(where predictions are no better then guesses and explanations are pseudo-explanations)
though...
if you internalise the theory...
you can make it so in your own life.
but what i don't understand is...
why the hell would you want to do that?
i mean... the majority of the severest judgements... come from the psychoanalytic literature... from what i've noticed anyways...
poster:alexandra_k
thread:599901
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20060110/msgs/600458.html