Posted by alexandra_k on October 15, 2006, at 5:31:20
In reply to Re: bpd, posted by Jost on October 14, 2006, at 11:17:37
> Yeah, my institution doesn't get that Journal--I've come across interesting articles before, and they don't subscribe. Frustrating.
Bugger. Yeah, I don't have online access the psychoanalytic journals and can't be bothered putting in for interloans...
> Is there some reason a major US library wouldn't subscribe?
No earthly idea about that one...
I couldn't access the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry for ages and I was really stumped with that...
I search for articles / journal access via Google. Usually there are multiple links via google to the journal by way of different databases. You want to try and find access by way of a database that your uni subscribes to. The link I posted gets full text of the journal by way of Wiley Interscience. If your institution doesn't subscribe to the Wiley Interscience database then you won't be able to access the journal by way of that link. What I've found though is that often there are a few different database providers that give you full text access for the same journal. I couldn't get to the ANZJP via one database because we didn't subscribe to that one, but I managed to find access via another database. Sometimes it just takes a bit of searching via Google.
(Or alternatively I guess you can figure the same info from the library catalogue... Sorry, my search techniques probably aren't the most efficient because I like to look for lecture notes and summaries and the like as well as academic articles...)
Here is the abstract. I can always email you the PDF if you want to Babblemail me your email address...
AbstractThere are very few less contentious issues than the role of attachment in psychotherapy. Concepts such as the therapeutic alliance speak directly to the importance of activating the attachment system, normally in relation to the therapist in individual therapy and in relation to other family members in family-based intervention, if therapeutic progress is to be made. In group therapy the attachment process may be activated by group membership. The past decade of neuroscientific research has helped us to understand some key processes that attachment entails at brain level. The article outlines this progress and links it to recent findings on the relationship between the neural systems underpinning attachment and other processes such as making of social judgments, theory of mind, and access to long-term memory. These findings allow intriguing speculations, which are currently undergoing empirical tests on the neural basis of individual differences in attachment as well as the nature of psychological disturbances associated with profound disturbances of the attachment system. In this article, we explore the crucial paradoxical brain state created by psychotherapy with powerful clinical implications for the maximization of therapeutic benefit from the talking cure. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Clin Psychol 62: 411-430, 2006.
The abstract isn't the best... But they cover a lot of neuroscientific ground and also...
I've never heard of BPD as a theory of mind disorder before...
Though I have studied theory of mind deficit in autistic spectrum disorders...
I had no idea it was thought to be relevant here...The special edition of the journal is about the underlying mechanisms that are hypothesised to be crucial to the success of different kinds of psychotherapy for BPD.
Different theories have slightly different names... Basically... They seemed to be fairly consistent in what they were saying, however.
Linehans 'observe, describe, participate' (mindfulness stuff)
Is very similar to their notion of teaching mentalization while the attachment system is active.I guess I was just blown away that theory of mind was relevant here...
And that mindfulness stuff is related...I know this is just some anecdotal evidence but...
Jeepers...
I was doing DBT mindfulness stuff during the semester I studied philosophy of mind. I remembered reading about what mental states are supposed to be (which *is* a puzzling problem). But some of the things that were said that were supposed to be *obvious* surprised me rather.Eventually... We settled on analytic functionalism as the best theory of mind out there (there are lots of varieties of functionalism, though, so really the problems just *begin* once one accepts functionalism...) But I remember reading what are considered to be 'common sense platitudes' like 'if someone says they want to get married and yet they do not despite excellent opportunity then we are left having to conclude that they never really did want to get married'. And I remembered finding... The relationship between stimuli and mental state, and mental state to other mental states, and mental states to behaviour... To be very profound indeed.
To label mental states on the basis of likely causes and likely effects. So when asked 'how do you feel' I'd observe what I was thinking about and what I *felt* like doing.
Before that... I tried to label my emotions on the basis of introspection. Trouble with that is that introspection isn't enough for me to distinguish in much more detail than 'ok / good' or 'bad'. For the rest... I needed to understand the role of context.
And then in DBT... They were trying to teach us the same thing... But the philosophy... Sh*t... It was amazing.
That is supposed to be... The ability to mentalize...
And current thinking is... That is what is crucial. To better mentalize when the attachment system is active.
poster:alexandra_k
thread:694669
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20061012/msgs/694952.html