![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 47. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by starloree on April 4, 2006, at 20:56:52
i do not like that word at all. this pain and lonliness is not fun and then to have it labeled as transference, making it seem not real...i have already posted my expereinces on this on a borderline personality website and they all ganged up on me because i wanted to talk about it, and i was excited and tortured...i was really confused yet also liked thinking about my T (therapist). but this board seems to be very supportive, much more than the other board i posted at. i just now read daisy's post on therapist love, and her post on it made me CRY, because it was sooo beautiful! i don't know if i am ready to accept that i could love my therapist without being with him (oh by the way, i am married, 23 and seperated, in a month anyways)but i am still mainly thinking of my T on a friend basis, with a little physical intimacy, this is what i am fantasizing about...wishing for. i have no friends so it is understandable. it is not really transference (at leats not in my mind, but my T also says he consulted with his workplace's psychodynamic expert, and he doesn't think it is transference either, from what it sounds like). anyways i just wnated to put a little post up saying i am happy to have found this place that looks to be really supportive on this topic! thanks all!
starloree
Posted by Racer on April 4, 2006, at 21:32:21
In reply to Transference schmansference, posted by starloree on April 4, 2006, at 20:56:52
Posted by special_k on April 5, 2006, at 8:10:47
In reply to Transference schmansference, posted by starloree on April 4, 2006, at 20:56:52
hiya. yeah i think a lot of people don't like the word 'transference' because typically it is used in a condescending way so that 'you don't really love / care about them it is *just* transference' etc.
and labelling it as 'transference' seems to undermine the very real feelings that you experience :-(
i think that is a shame...
because to me... the term isn't really about that (undermining the feelings or writing them off as illegitimate) but it is unfortunate that sometimes terms get abused... and given current abuse of the term... i can understand why someone would be put off it rather :-(
> i have already posted my expereinces on this on a borderline personality website and they all ganged up on me because i wanted to talk about it,
ah. i'm sorry to hear that. i think maybe that sometimes what it can be about... is that people view their therapists kind of like parent figures... and so when people get feelings of love (maybe even sexual feelings) then other people can't handle that (because it brings stuff up for them) and NOT because there is anything abnormal or wrong or illegitimate or unnatural or ununderstandable etc about what it is that you are experiencing...
> i have no friends so it is understandable.
yeah.
> it is not really transference (at leats not in my mind,
i guess it depends on what you mean by transference... i grant you that your feelings aren't illegitimate or unnatural etc etc. and i wouldn't undermine them. they are very real...
anyways welcome to babble...
not sure how much you want to talk about / share about this...
but maybe it would be good to just make yourself at home here and get to know peoples.
welcome to babble :-)
Posted by pseudoname on April 5, 2006, at 14:33:22
In reply to Transference schmansference, posted by starloree on April 4, 2006, at 20:56:52
Hi, starolee, and welcome to Babble.
This is me being cranky, so my comments should be taken with salt. But...
I agree with you that transference isn't a very helpful or empowering idea. Attributing a current emotion to some other experience at some other time is distracting and demeaning. More importantly, transference theories have no real scientific basis.
There are very few people who post to this board who knock the idea of transference, but I do. I think it can lead people to narrow their view prematurely in therapy and assume connections that may not be there.
People sometimes should consider how their current responses may be similar to responses they had in childhood, but the idea of transference actually cuts that inquiry off arbitrarily by giving prejudiced authority to *some* similarities that happened to seem important (on the basis of no controlled research) to Freud 100 years ago. Other connections or insights to things that may actually be triggering or preventing emotional responses or other behavior NOW thus get disregarded.
Transference is also a vague idea, and therapists use it to mean different things. In a trivial sense, much behavior is transferential, since we learn a lot of what we do elsewhere. But even if two responses have similarities, by no means is it certain that the later one stems from the earlier one or that the causes are really the same.
It isn't even clear that we *can* understand the very subtle triggers or developmental “origins” of any emotional response. They just appear out of nowhere. That realization is itself a little scary, so maybe we'd like to think we've got them sorted out. Maybe that's part of the reason why people endorse transference so strongly. I don't know.
I've posted before against transference, but it's a minority opinion here. That can be really discouraging, so I don't want you to be discouraged, too.
I think all of your emotions are independently important and worthwhile to have. I'm glad you posted. Good luck.
Posted by fairywings on April 5, 2006, at 16:51:30
In reply to Against Transference » starloree, posted by pseudoname on April 5, 2006, at 14:33:22
I agree...I think transference is kind of like saying someone's a hypochondriac. I know people sometimes respond to others bec. they're reminded of a person from their childhood.
Seems to me that the love felt for a therapist is more bec. T's usually listen, they can usually be counted on to be there, most of the time they're kind, and usually have your best interest at heart. Who wouldn't want a relationship with someone like that?
fw
Posted by Veracity on April 5, 2006, at 17:12:01
In reply to Re: Against Transference » pseudoname, posted by fairywings on April 5, 2006, at 16:51:30
I think transference is a very real part of therapy, but the presence of transference doesn't rule out the presence of real feelings.
I think that love/affection for one's therapist is very real and should not be dismissed. We SHOULD care deeply about people who treat us well, have our best interests in mind, and who help us become happier in our lives. I think this is a very real and healthy kind of love. I do NOT think, however, that being IN love with one's therapist is as real or meaningful. We cannot ever really know our therapists beyond limited general information so if we fall IN love with them, it seems like we're just falling in love with some IDEA of them we have in our heads. And that's not real to me, that's transference.
Trouble is, I'm sure it seems just a real to the person feeling that way as real love does - so just calling it transference without honoring the impact of those feelings would probably feel really, really crummy.
Posted by pseudoname on April 5, 2006, at 18:31:55
In reply to Re: Against Transference, posted by Veracity on April 5, 2006, at 17:12:01
Hey, Veractiy. Thanks for replying.
> And that's not real to me, that's transference
That seems more or less to be what starloree was talking about: declaring out of hand that an emotional response is not “real”. You admit that it
> seems just as real to the person feeling that way as real love does.
I guess I would say then that I can't see a basis for declaring the feeling not real — no basis except Freud's assertions about transference, which close off further inquiry. That is to me the danger of relying on “transference”: what if these feelings have important triggers and effects just like the feelings you would call “real”? What if, just because they're about the therapist and seem shallow, they are therefore ruled to be transference from early childhood, and those important NON-childhood connections are never discovered?
I think it's worth noting that no physiological or developmental basis has ever been observed that supports making a distinction between “real” and transferential emotions.
> We cannot ever really know our therapists beyond limited general information so if we fall IN love with them, it seems like we're just falling in love with some IDEA of them we have in our heads. And that's not real to me, that's transference.
I dunno. Shallowness is not the feature that Freud used in declaring emotional responses to be transference. People sometimes FALL in love for real, as the expression suggests, very easily, on the basis of minimal information and contact, and end up married. That sure seems real.
Also, some feelings between people in a marriage are often labelled transferential, like in “He treats me like I'm his mother.” Those are two relationships (with mother and with wife) where the parties know each other VERY well, and yet it's transference, too, according to the analysts. So the shallowness of the relationship is not a defining factor in making feelings transferential.
But I would still deny that there are any grounds for EVER confidently asserting that a particular current emotional response is a transfer of stored-up emotions toward a figure from childhood. And I think without that evidence, calling any response “transference” prematurely isolates it and cuts off further (better?) inquiry.
Posted by pseudoname on April 5, 2006, at 18:35:51
In reply to Re: Against Transference » pseudoname, posted by fairywings on April 5, 2006, at 16:51:30
> Who wouldn't want a relationship with someone like that?
Absolutely. Plus, therapists are usually kind of stable and successful, which are also very attractive traits.
I've never fallen in love with any therapist I've had. None of them were physically attractive to me. Maybe *I'm* shallow! LOL
Posted by fairywings on April 5, 2006, at 22:01:41
In reply to Re: Against Transference » fairywings, posted by pseudoname on April 5, 2006, at 18:35:51
>
> Absolutely. Plus, therapists are usually kind of stable and successful, which are also very attractive traits.Yeah, they're attractive traits, but I'm not so sure that's necesarily true - I think some (many) get into psychology to fix their own problems. I've had 2 admit it to me about themselves - maybe they were the exception though. They sure seem together in the office though don't they? ; )
fw
Posted by starloree on April 6, 2006, at 19:34:16
In reply to Re: Against Transference » pseudoname, posted by fairywings on April 5, 2006, at 22:01:41
see, the things i find attractive about my T are things i have found attractive (immensly) about other guys....accomplishment, attractiveness, motivated....but of course I can never attract those types of guys, just stand by foolishly, salivating :) that smile really is making light of my situation, because it's really actually painful knowing that, once again, i have fallen for a guy who is unnattainable.
starloree
Posted by special_k on April 7, 2006, at 9:24:45
In reply to Re: Against Transference, posted by starloree on April 6, 2006, at 19:34:16
> it's really actually painful knowing that, once again, i have fallen for a guy who is unnattainable.
hmm. is that a pattern you have noticed in your life?
;-)
Posted by special_k on April 7, 2006, at 9:38:50
In reply to real feelings » Veracity, posted by pseudoname on April 5, 2006, at 18:31:55
i think feelings of love are feelings of love...
but that doesn't rule out transference as one possible explanation of the origin / presence of those feelings...
> I guess I would say then that I can't see a basis for declaring the feeling not real
i guess i think transference feelings are every bit as real as non-transference feelings. like burns caused by the sun are every bit as real as burns caused by the stove. it is just that the origins of the burns / feelings may be different.
> what if these feelings have important triggers and effects just like the feelings you would call “real”? What if, just because they're about the therapist and seem shallow, they are therefore ruled to be transference from early childhood, and those important NON-childhood connections are never discovered?
?
triggers and effects?
i'm not quite sure what you mean...
what kinds of important NON-childhood connections might be passed over?
> I think it's worth noting that no physiological or developmental basis has ever been observed that supports making a distinction between “real” and transferential emotions.i thought the idea was the origin... but i might be wrong. maybe i have a very idiosyncratic notion of transference...
> > We cannot ever really know our therapists beyond limited general information so if we fall IN love with them, it seems like we're just falling in love with some IDEA of them we have in our heads. And that's not real to me, that's transference.i think it is real. it is just that if you tried to have a relaitonship in the real world you would appreciate soon enough that the person doesn't match the ideal and so your feelings of intense love are likely to evolve into feelings of disappoitment and maybe resentment or rage or something like that. i'd say that might be a difference between transference feelings (maybe more based around an ideal) and non-transference feelings which are more based on seeing someone in a variety of contexts over time... well... when all goes well. i grant there may be no hard and fast line...
> People sometimes FALL in love for real, as the expression suggests, very easily, on the basis of minimal information and contact, and end up married. That sure seems real.yes. is there usually a significant power imbalance in their relaitonship in the first place (ie teacher / student; therapist / client; etc etc...)
> But I would still deny that there are any grounds for EVER confidently asserting that a particular current emotional response is a transfer of stored-up emotions toward a figure from childhood.oh. is that what transference is supposed to be... i guess... maybe it is more... when you feel an intense response and you wonder 'why on earth am i having such an intense response' and then you can get to thinking what it reminds you of... and then you can come up with a story. maybe it seems to fit maybe it doesn't... but i guess it is in the effort to explain / understand why you feel as you do. sometimes we don't analyse our feelings in that way. maybe you do marry someone who reminds you of your father (or someone who seems the opposite of your father) and maybe transference is the basis for the attraction. i guess it doesn't matter so long as the relationship is mutually beneficial / satisfying. but if you find yourself longing for someone you don't really want to be longing for (rationally) or if you find yourself longing for someone who doesn't reciprocate, or who treats you badly or something... well then that might be the time to figure if there is some transference going on to explain your emotion... and if you get to thinking what it reminds you of etc etc... maybe that process of working through... means that the feelings get less. you kind of get over it... and have feelings for people who are more appropriate.. maybe that is what it is about?
(just rambelling along)
Posted by pseudoname on April 7, 2006, at 12:32:59
In reply to Re: real feelings » pseudoname, posted by special_k on April 7, 2006, at 9:38:50
> > what if these feelings have important triggers and effects just like the feelings you would call “real”?
>
> triggers and effects?
> i'm not quite sure what you mean...I should point out that I'm not thinking of transference as just love-for-the-therapist. In psychoanalysis, transference feelings can be love or anger or whatever.
If you present to a therapist who does NOT subscribe to transference theory, say, some very troublesome emotional reactions about her, she and you can look freely through a wide range of possibilities for *any* features of the situation that may be involved in triggering your responses. And the two of you would be free to consider a wide range of possible short- and long-term effects that your responses have that may be maintaining them despite their troublesome side.
A therapist disposed to expect “transference” and to think in those terms will not be free to consider such a wide range of possible causes or hidden benefits. “I remind you of your mother, hmm?” Well, maybe in part — but also maybe not despite some superficial similarities. The ways that events influence our emotional responses are enormously complex and very often simply untraceable with any degree of scientific confidence. The assumption that transference is going on cuts off inquiry as soon as enough superficial similarities to prominent childhood figures are found.
> > What if […] those important NON-childhood connections are never discovered?
>
> what kinds of important NON-childhood connections might be passed over?Any fears, hopes, attitudes, habits, assumptions, incorrect information, tastes, conditioning, etc, that were not apparently acquired in childhood and have no obvious corollaries to childhood events or relationships have to be excluded because they don't fit the theory.
If I was really angry with my analyst, his operating principle dictated that I was responding with anger because the current situation somehow reminded me of my childhood relationship with my father. Or mother. Or brother. (Whatever intuitively thrilled him the most at the time.)
But what if I was angry with my analyst because of things I'd more recently learned about scientific validation and the ethical obligations of service providers? What if recent changes in my political thinking led me to demand greater accountability from people like him? What if his attitude was contrary to the spirit of honest inquiry I was getting steeped in by my friends at school?
He would only consider those questions if they could somehow be framed to be congruent to troubles I had (or at least reported myself to have had) in my childhood with specific important figures.
> but i guess it is in the effort to explain / understand why you feel as you do.
I think you have nailed the attractiveness of the theory of transference. As I said yesterday, the fact that feelings come out of nowhere without any control or identifiable reason is itself scary.
But when we rely on a comforting fictitious explanation to the extent that it cuts off inquiries and interventions that really could improve our lives, it has to go.
Posted by special_k on April 7, 2006, at 20:09:03
In reply to Re: real feelings » special_k, posted by pseudoname on April 7, 2006, at 12:32:59
> I should point out that I'm not thinking of transference as just love-for-the-therapist. In psychoanalysis, transference feelings can be love or anger or whatever.
sure.
> If you present to a therapist who does NOT subscribe to transference theory, say, some very troublesome emotional reactions about her, she and you can look freely through a wide range of possibilities for *any* features of the situation that may be involved in triggering your responses.including the fact that she might have actually done something which anyone in their right mind would be rather pissed off about!
yes. i hear what you are saying. sometimes 'transference' is used to write off the clients experience / perception. i agree: the feelings are real. so then what is transference? if it is about the origins of the feelings then maybe it is about whether the feelings are responses to the present or the past situations (might be a matter of degree) but to consider a feeling to be 'transference' might incline the therapist to emphasise past causes over looking at their present actions.
> The assumption that transference is going on cuts off inquiry as soon as enough superficial similarities to prominent childhood figures are found.
ok. i don't think it has to... but sometimes concepts are abused...
> But what if I was angry with my analyst because of things I'd more recently learned about scientific validation and the ethical obligations of service providers? What if recent changes in my political thinking led me to demand greater accountability from people like him? What if his attitude was contrary to the spirit of honest inquiry I was getting steeped in by my friends at school?ROFL!!!! yeah. you are too funny :-)
though... a therapist who didn't take those concerns seriously... well thats not so good. but then by the same token if you are getting really very wound up about this kind of stuff...
when you are supposed to be in therapy to help you figure out how the past impacts and affects the present (i mean that is what this brand of therapy is about - right? so you have agreed to participate in that process and your therapist is supposed to help you out with doing that...
> > but i guess it is in the effort to explain / understand why you feel as you do.
> I think you have nailed the attractiveness of the theory of transference. As I said yesterday, the fact that feelings come out of nowhere without any control or identifiable reason is itself scary.yeah. and people are 'active information processors' we actively engage in creating meaning, sense, narration, we like to tell ourselves stories to answer the why why why's.
> But when we rely on a comforting fictitious explanation to the extent that it cuts off inquiries and interventions that really could improve our lives, it has to go.ah. yeah.
where should you spend your time?
in the past to learn about how you got to here.
in the here to figure where to go from here.
balance IMO.
and sometimes one can get lost in the past
(at the expense of presnt functioning for example)
and sometimes one can get lost in the present / future
(at the expence of coming to grasp patterns and cycles that have impact you don't recognise)balance.
sigh.
Posted by pseudoname on April 8, 2006, at 14:47:18
In reply to Re: real feelings » pseudoname, posted by special_k on April 7, 2006, at 20:09:03
You've raised a really interesting question. (I've used the word “interesting” a lot lately. And I'm not even on Metadate today, LOL.)
If transference issues are considered in psychoanalysis, isn't that what the client is paying for? Just as a palm-reader provides the service requested? I guess I would like people to reconsider whether they want either of those services.
> when you are supposed to be in therapy to help you figure out how the past impacts and affects the present (i mean that is what this brand of therapy is about - right? so you have agreed to participate in that process and your therapist is supposed to help you out with doing that...
No way. People typically have no idea what the brand of therapy is that they're about to receive. Studies show people don't even know whether they're seeing a psychiatrist or a masters-degree counselor. I, for example, was referred to a psychotherapist in downtown Chicago. It was only after a few sessions that he mentioned he was “a neo-Freudian”, whatever that means. As I gradually discovered what he was about, my resistance to his ideas was diagnosed as Resistance®, and I couldn't leave until THAT was worked through, too. I certainly never gave sufficiently-informed consent for getting into that sort of quicksand.
If an idea is at best unhelpful and more likely pernicious, those who understand that should be clearly spelling it out for others in the hope that fewer people will “agree” to such a process for themselves.
Transference has a fairly clear technical psychoanalytic definition, but it is also used in very vague senses both by analysts and by many “eclectic” therapists with no real psychoanalytic background. In both cases I think it is counterproductive. It also comes up on this board a lot when people who are not necessarily in psychoanalysis are using the idea of transference in trying to understand and improve their emotional problems.
I'm trying to suggest to them, and to anyone else who cares, that the theory of transference is baseless and distracting. My hope is that people will NOT agree to therapy in which it is seriously considered.
Whew.
(Gets up; staggers around a little...)
Um, what were we talking about?
;-) LOL
Posted by special_k on April 9, 2006, at 4:46:23
In reply to that brand of therapy ;-) » special_k, posted by pseudoname on April 8, 2006, at 14:47:18
> If transference issues are considered in psychoanalysis, isn't that what the client is paying for?
Kind of...
> I guess I would like people to reconsider whether they want either of those services.
Okay.
> People typically have no idea what the brand of therapy is that they're about to receive.
Yep. And that isn't very good, I agree.
> Studies show people don't even know whether they're seeing a psychiatrist or a masters-degree counselor.
Yeah.
> I certainly never gave sufficiently-informed consent for getting into that sort of quicksand.
Okay. I think there should be more information on different varieties of therapy and what they may be best suited to. I think there is some info on that available online, for example. It would be nice if there was stuff to give to people in person too so people can pick the orientation that may be most suited to them.
> If an idea is at best unhelpful and more likely pernicious, those who understand that should be clearly spelling it out for others in the hope that fewer people will “agree” to such a process for themselves.Hrm. You know CBT only JUST outperformed brief psychotherapy (on depression, anxiety, and OCD I believe) - right? Re: psychoanalysis... That was developed for a different set of problems... And may be best suited to those...
> Transference has a fairly clear technical psychoanalytic definition, but it is also used in very vague senses both by analysts and by many “eclectic” therapists with no real psychoanalytic background. In both cases I think it is counterproductive.I agree it is most often used in a counter-productive way, but I disagree that it is ALWAYS used in a counter-productive way...
> I'm trying to suggest to them, and to anyone else who cares, that the theory of transference is baseless and distracting. My hope is that people will NOT agree to therapy in which it is seriously considered.
Oh.
You don't find that doing the same things over and over happens in your life?
I think I have many unhelpful patterns...
Sometimes I find awareness of how present behaviour fits into past pattern... Helps with the present behaviour. Can help an intense feeling be less as I gain some perspective on it (for example).
Nice to talk about this though.Maybe we could start another thread on it?
I have been struggling a little with different theorietical orientations myself. Sometimes I think I'd like to do analysis... Othertimes I think the whole thing is a crock. I'll admit I have less sympathy for the notions of 'id, ego, and superego' than I have for the defence mechanisms 'repression, transference, etc'.
Apparantly the latter were independently discovered (that may be wrong) and it would be interesting what could be done with them in the absence of the theorietical baggage that tends to freeride...
Posted by gardenergirl on April 9, 2006, at 12:10:11
In reply to that brand of therapy ;-) » special_k, posted by pseudoname on April 8, 2006, at 14:47:18
> > I'm trying to suggest to them, and to anyone else who cares, that the theory of transference is baseless and distracting. My hope is that people will NOT agree to therapy in which it is seriously considered.
I'm not sure I can adequately communicate how valuable my therapy, which is psychoanalytically informed, has been. And I have no doubt that analyzing the transferences that have come up, in many cases not towards my T but towards others in my life with whom I was having the same types of issues over and over again, has helped me recognize this pattern. I feel so much freedom and lightness now that I am empowered to start to let go of the thoughts and feelings I project into the relationship that do not need to be there for current purposes. These interactions are so much simpler and much less muddled up with all the false assumptions, expectations, fears, feelings, worries, etc. that I would otherwise get paralyzed or confused by.
In short, I absolutely believe transference exists, and can be present in all types of therapy and in all kinds of relationships in real life. I agree that analyzing transference does not necessarily need to be a part of therapy. And I agree that transference includes real feelings, although I would argue that these feelings originate from something other than the present circumstances. And I agree that not all feelings ARE transference. It's quite a complicated construct and not one to be tossed around lightly.
But please don't discourage anyone from seeking the therapy process that best fits them. If I had not entered into the process I'm engaged in, it's unlikely I'd be in an emotional and cognitive place to stop participating in the same maladaptive dynamics I've repeated throughout my life.
gg
Posted by pseudoname on April 9, 2006, at 13:04:33
In reply to I disagree » pseudoname, posted by gardenergirl on April 9, 2006, at 12:10:11
Hey, gg. I'm glad you said so.
> But please don't discourage anyone from seeking the therapy process that best fits them.
I think this is the point in my post where I may have gone over the line from “sharing” to “discouraging”:
> I'm trying to suggest to them, and to anyone else who cares, that the theory of transference is baseless and distracting. My hope is that people will NOT agree to therapy in which it is seriously considered.
It seems *technically* civil to me, since it's a summary of my previous points and a statement of personal “hope”. But I could've put it less confrontationally: “I hope people will consider such criticisms before agreeing to therapy that's based on transference theory.”
That does sound better.
I'm pretty sure you don't mean that people should not make comments here that are critical – even strongly critical – of transference theory. I think people can seriously evaluate their therapeutic “best fit” better – especially when they haven't tried the therapy yet – by being aware of critical views.
But I appreciate your very gentle advice about my tone. :-) (Five years w/o a PBC!! LOL)
Posted by gardenergirl on April 9, 2006, at 13:40:45
In reply to Re: I disagree » gardenergirl, posted by pseudoname on April 9, 2006, at 13:04:33
Thanks for your reply. Absolutely, I think critically thinking about these concepts is fine as long as it respects that others' views may vary.
Actually, I was responding personally, not as a deputy. :) I just would hate it if I had missed out on what has been such a powerful and important aspect of my life from only learning one view of the issue. I guess I wouldn't want anyone else who might benefit miss out, either.
But heck, CBT would not be as huge as it is if it didn't work. And transference is not a component of that work.
>I think people can seriously evaluate their therapeutic “best fit” better – especially when they haven't tried the therapy yet – by being aware of critical views.
Yep!
And a five year virgin? Wow! You must not f*rt much. ;)
Take care,
gg
Posted by special_k on April 9, 2006, at 21:12:15
In reply to Re: I disagree » gardenergirl, posted by pseudoname on April 9, 2006, at 13:04:33
i thought it was a good discussion...
you okay pseudoname?
i thought it was a good discussion...
that was why i suggested starting another thread.
i'm interested in this stuff.
if you are sceptical about varieties of therapy
(aside from straight CBT lol)
then i think people do jump a bit on this board
but that's okay.
good to get 'em jumping, eh?
and what you have to say...
is supportive to the person who started the thread.
(are you still around? where are you at right now?)
Posted by gardenergirl on April 9, 2006, at 22:45:29
In reply to Re: I disagree » pseudoname, posted by special_k on April 9, 2006, at 21:12:15
I think it's a good discussion, too and certainly didn't intend to cause it to come to a crashing halt.
Perhaps this is an example of the dual role issue with deputies who also post personally?
gg
Posted by special_k on April 9, 2006, at 23:08:56
In reply to Re: I disagree » special_k, posted by gardenergirl on April 9, 2006, at 22:45:29
nah i think you are right.
i think pseudoname sometimes takes things personally (as we all do)
and just wanted to check that he was doing alright.i really appreciate these discussions...
so i hope he comes back and continues...
Posted by pseudoname on April 10, 2006, at 10:32:54
In reply to Re: I disagree » gardenergirl, posted by special_k on April 9, 2006, at 23:08:56
> you okay pseudoname?
So sweet to ask. Yeah, I'm okay. I had to go away visiting on Sunday, so I didn't get enough time to post in this thread, which requires more thought for me than most of my posts.
> i think pseudoname sometimes takes things personally
Man, you got that right! LOL!! But it wasn't the case in this situation.
Actually, though, there was something about *my own* posts that was mildly frustrating to me and I couldn't figure it out what it was. But I now see, thanks to gg's observation, that I was sorta posting my conclusions without filling in what led me to think that way. Those posts were then less satisfying to write. (As well as less Babble-friendly.)
So I'll post more today here, in between errands. I really enjoy discussion about psychoanalytic subjects and therapy generally.
Posted by pseudoname on April 10, 2006, at 12:56:19
In reply to still here :-), posted by pseudoname on April 10, 2006, at 10:32:54
(Possibly book-length. <chuckle>)
A couple times K has suggested that transference theory can be over-applied or isn't appropriate in interpreting all emotional problems. That sounds reasonable, but as far as I know, there isn't any scale or test for telling what is an appropriate situation to consider transference and what isn't. Gardernergirl also points out that not all emotions are transference, but there again, as far as I know, there is no test for telling what response is or isn't transferential.
Two candidates come up, but neither seems very good to me: intuition and therapeutic outcome.
Intuition about transference simply can't be evaluated. It isn't a naturalistic sort of “intuitive” inference like those we make when deciding whether someone's angry or lying. Those “intuitive” judgments can be tested in the laboratory and turn out sometimes to be reliable (like with sussing others' emotions) and sometimes not (detecting liars).
I personally found my analyst's appeals to his “gut” authority to be maddening. Intuition is often wrong, especially when there's no absolute standard to train it against. Intuition can be extremely valuable to humans in detecting subtle environmental cues, but when it does work in those situations it can also be backed up (later) by breaking down and referring to the environmental details that really *are* involved. In this way we can scientifically point to mouth/eyebrow correlations to show what makes a smile intuitively convincing.
That sort of scientific back-up is something the intuitive assessment of “transference” (etc) doesn't have, as far as I know.
I feel that therapeutic intuition is highly unreliable, meaning that different therapists have different intuitions. Studies running therapists head-to-head against each other diagnosing films of patient interviews showed very poor agreement in their intuitive judgments of things like transference. I personally think that the same therapist will have different intuitions about the same patient's transference on different days of the week because there's never anything that she can check her intuitions against in order to learn to make them better.
That leaves therapeutic outcome. I haven't looked for a study that isolates transference as a factor in therapy, but studies looking at psychoanalysis (in which transference theory is typically a big part) famously show dramatically poorer outcomes even than doing nothing. That doesn't blame transference theory itself, of course, but it doesn't look good.
Still, transference theory could be therapeutically *valid* (i.e., “work”) if the person improves due to its use, even if we can never say that transference of stored-up childhood emotions is really what's going on. Even if the idea of transference helps calm someone emotionally, that does not say that it's an accurate description of what's going on. Let me illustrate.
Consider Kleinian transference, which prominently involves The Breast. The hungry child sees himself as filled with badness and his mother's breast as filled with goodness. In suckling, the goodness in The Breast goes into the child and things are great for a while, until he's hungry again and then both resents and demands the goodness in The Breast. The child both hates and loves, rejects and needs The Breast, setting up a conflict played out in transference all the rest of his life.
Nice story, eh? Powerfully explanatory.
Consider a financially strapped guy who needs to ask his boss for raise. The guy feels he is highly deserving and should've gotten the raise from his rich, lazy boss long ago without asking. In a Kleinian interpretation, he sees himself as filled with weakness and passivity and insecurity and dependence — in short, with badness, just like when he was a hungry baby. He both hates and needs his boss, who can give him the goodness (money, promotion, etc) he both resents and loves.
He's emotionally all tied up in knots over this situation. He's too upset and afraid to approach his boss, yet he must in order to live. His Kleinian therapist explains the transference issues involving The Breast and voilà! The guy can approach his boss with a reasonable assertive request for a raise. Why? Because he no longer sees the boss as a threatening, all-powerful figure. He knows that the boss is really The Breast, and, heck, he's managed that type of situation since he was a baby.
Transferential awareness, the working-through, and cure.
Is Kleinian transference really going on? I really, really doubt it, despite the apparent therapeutic success. The pattern of behavior alleged here seems too specific to me, when we know that learning and mental connections are enormously complex and cross-referenced. This transference doesn't “look like” the behavioral changes we see in developmental biology, where early-stage responses drop off quite cleanly and naturally as mature adaptations appear.
But anyway I doubt that this sort of transference story-inspired courage will last the employed guy very long. The next insecurity problem he faces may not be so easily mapped onto the story of his infantile conflicts with The Breast.
To the extent that such transference stories *do* help, I think there is something else going on. And I think that the “something else” is what therapy and research should focus on. I think the therapeutic key here is that the guy acknowledges his fears and bad feelings and stops fighting them. His (I think mythical) explanation of transference allows him to relegate those feelings to a sort of sideline where he tolerates feeling them because he thinks they're not really related to any current *real* threats. They're left over from childhood. He can't do anything about them, so he feels them but ignores them and goes and asks his boss for a raise. I think THAT'S the therapy and that's what we should deal with more deliberately & directly.
Posted by zazenduck on April 10, 2006, at 14:36:53
In reply to Testing transference, posted by pseudoname on April 10, 2006, at 12:56:19
Thanks. That was really well thought out.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Psychology | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.