Psycho-Babble Psychology | about psychological treatments | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Re: psychoanalysis

Posted by Willful on May 12, 2012, at 13:36:54

In reply to Re: psychoanalysis, posted by emmanuel98 on May 11, 2012, at 19:11:00

I felt an immediate connection with my analyst that was very secure and reassuring. This wasn't true with prior analysts I had interviewed or the prior therapists I had. This sensation of being secure and able to trust is maybe the one thing that really gave me confidence at a bad time to move forward, and not to look any further. I'd never had that sense before-- and without it, it would have been easy to settle for someone who seemed okay, but with whom I had nothing like this sort of rapport. There's an okay match and there's a really good match-- and the difference is huge, in the potential of the relationship. This is why I think therapy (or analysis) is so often not very useful. My intuition is that you might want to keep looking, or investigate whether you could somehow see the person with whom you did feel right.

More than anything else, the value of analysis (or therapy) lies in the work you can do with someone-- and I"ve just found that I"ve gotten to much deeper and more real things -- and that despite its being very challenging and difficult at times, this relationship has led to the possibility of deep change. I never got anywhere like that no matter how much or how little I talked to other people in the past

I also wouldn't necessarily say that analysis has to be done lying down. That's apparently very beneficial to some people-- my analyst does a lot of it. But then he's also a teaching analyst at an institute here, so he sees people training to become analysts--who I imagine want to explore all the options for the process. I tried the couch for a while and found it intriguing. I can't remember why I stopped, but it seems like a creative way to work.

Also obviously, analysis, even "traditional" analysis, has long moved beyond Freud's specific theories-- so the critique that Freud had a lot of half-baked ideas is quite irrelevant. It's like saying that contemporary physics is wrong because phlogiston didn't exist-- or Newton had a lot of wacky theories about other things-- which he did.

If you have doubts, though, I would keep looking-- because when analysis, or therapy goes wrong, it's really a bad thing. And doubts are telling your something you don't yet understand.






Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post

Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.


Start a new thread

Google www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Psychology | Framed

poster:Willful thread:1017707