I recently vivisted an analyst recently, partially out of curiousity. He recommended a courses of treatment, perhaps lasting several years. What I would like to know is - is there any scientific evidence that it will do any good? My own diagnosis is that I need a good kick up the arse to sort out my “problems”, I am not sure that rummaging around my childhood is useful
Probably better off as a GD or an IMHO because you will get a large number of responses reminding you that psychoanalysis is not even a science, and that Freud could have used a good swift kick in the arse himself. While most psychoanalysts are (probably) well educated, anybody can call themselves a psychoanalyst because no license is required to use the title.
Results are highly varied & success rates probably depend on how much the patient wants to be helped.
Psychoanalysis can be very effective - at cleaning out your bank account.Attrayant is correct in saying that all of Freud’s ideas have been discredited by modern psychology. He is taught only for historical reference in college and graduate level psychology courses. His ideas seemed a little nutty 100 years ago although they were very influential but now the seem absolutely crack-pot. I am amazed why so many references to his theories still pop up in art in literature. He must be the most referenced flake in history.
Going to a psychoanalyst several times a week for several years is EXTREMELY expensive. Most patients are wealthy and have plenty of time on their hands. Worst of all, the psychoanalyst does not DO anything. The kicker is that he or she just sits there, probably out of sight, and listens to you babble on and on. There may be an occasional probe but never any real communication or therapy.
In short, it’s nutty. Stay away. Find another form of therapy that is cheaper and offers you some real interaction with a therapist that you trust
.
A few years ago I asked this question of the folks over at QuackWatch. The general thinking was that unless you have some specific issue that can be well defined and with a clear understanding of what it would mean to be “cured”, then psychoanalysis is not much better than talking you problems over with some sympathetic friends. This pretty much fits in with my own experience with counseling.
Several times the book House of Cards was mentioned as a resource.
I would recommend that you start with trying to identify what the most pressing issue is, come up with a clear idea of what you want to accomplish (what the “cure” is), and tell the shrink that he/she has maybe three months to fix the problem. Otherwise you may find yourself going through years of sessions and thousands of dollars of not much more than “feel good” chat punctuated with the obligatory “Hmmm… and how does that make you feel.”
Actually when you say “psychoanalysis” do you mean specifically the Freudian approach or just psychotherapy in general. My comments apply to pyschotherapy not Freudian psychoanalysis. I didn’t know the Freudian method was even being practiced anymore. Still as far as I’m concerned, one is about as ineffective as the other.
- Freudian theory assumes that the normative psychological state of adult “healthy” non-psychotic, non-neurotic people is attained through a process of developing hangups and complexes based on infantile misunderstandings of things, e.g., –
a) If you are a boy child, you are “supposed” to react to your first sighting of a nude female by believing that she had her dick cut off, and you are “supposed” to worry that this will happen to you too.
b) If you are a girl child, you are “supposed” to react to your first sighting of a nude male by believing that you had your dick cut off and that you aren’t complete until you get it back.
-
Like medical-model psychiatry (which attributes all psychological and emotional problems to problems with your brain circuitry and/or neurochemistry), psychoanalysis operates from the assumption that any mental or emotional problems you are experiencing have their roots in you, not your social or political environment or a series of crappy things that happened to you. I regard this as factually untrue, and I think that is readily apparent to anyone who bothers to consider the idea.
-
Freudian psychoanalysis is largely composed of assertions that are not derived or defended (although its defenders say that Freud derived them from his overall experience with his patients; the process by which he derived them could possibly exist in writings that I haven’t read). e.g.,. you pick up his book about civilization and you learn that when guys see a fire burning they have an instinctive desire to piss on it and put it out. Sublimating this desire leads to the ability to have and control and use fire, therefore civilization. (Therefore civilization is based on not doing what you want to do and being civilized instead or something like that). No defense or explanation of this claim that guys want to pee on any burning fire that they see. Just a statement that it is so.
I do regard it as quackery, but I’m wary of people promoting this belief as a prelude to embracing the medical model of mental illness, with which I also disagree. (Or, for that matter, promoting it as a prelude to embracing the Lockean view of civilization as rational contract. The fact that model A of anything is a bad model does not make model B a good one.)
- Freudian theory assumes that the normative psychological state of adult “healthy” non-psychotic, non-neurotic people is attained through a process of developing hangups and complexes based on infantile misunderstandings of things, e.g., –
a) If you are a boy child, you are “supposed” to react to your first sighting of a nude female by believing that she had her dick cut off, and you are “supposed” to worry that this will happen to you too.
b) If you are a girl child, you are “supposed” to react to your first sighting of a nude male by believing that you had your dick cut off and that you aren’t complete until you get it back.
-
Like medical-model psychiatry (which attributes all psychological and emotional problems to problems with your brain circuitry and/or neurochemistry), psychoanalysis operates from the assumption that any mental or emotional problems you are experiencing have their roots in you, not your social or political environment or a series of crappy things that happened to you. I regard this as factually untrue, and I think that is readily apparent to anyone who bothers to consider the idea.
-
Freudian psychoanalysis is largely composed of assertions that are not derived or defended (although its defenders say that Freud derived them from his overall experience with his patients; the process by which he derived them could possibly exist in writings that I haven’t read). e.g.,. you pick up his book about civilization and you learn that when guys see a fire burning they have an instinctive desire to piss on it and put it out. Sublimating this desire leads to the ability to have and control and use fire, therefore civilization. (Therefore civilization is based on not doing what you want to do and being civilized instead or something like that). No defense or explanation of this claim that guys want to pee on any burning fire that they see. Just a statement that it is so.
I do regard it as quackery, but I’m wary of people promoting this belief as a prelude to embracing the medical model of mental illness, with which I also disagree. (Or, for that matter, promoting it as a prelude to embracing the Lockean view of civilization as rational contract. The fact that model A of anything is a bad model does not make model B a good one.)
I am not sure what sort of psychoanalyst my therapist is. While he does the standard therapy stuff (word association, childhood memories) he doesn’t seem very freudian. He has tried the “sibling rivalry” line on me which I didn’t buy as I was the oldest child.
I do remember several studies of counselling after disasters, which showed that those counselled were generally worse off than those not counselled, and dimly remembered that there were some studies on therapy which showed to it be ineffective. I guess I was looking to see whether I should save my money, or perhaps whether there was a better form of therapy than analytical psychotherapy. I would be happy to move this to IMHO.
IMO, it really depends on what you’re trying to accomplish. People will spend years in “talk therapy” trying to relieve their depression with little to no result. Fed up, they get a Prozac scrip, and a month later feel 100% better. Many psychoanalysts, of course, poo-poo these drugs for a variety of reasons, but the reality is that chemistry does seem to be behind many of these problems.
That said, psychoanalysis does have its purpose. If your problems are more generalized, or situational, it can often help you shed light on the “why” of these situations. This can often help you to change your behavior, and thus alter these unpleasant situations. As well, there does seem to be value in simply talking to a compassionate listener about your problems.
As well, psychotherapy is often far more effective when used in combination with one of the popualr psychiatric drugs. I’ve heard it theorized that the brain is more receptive to change when under the influence of these drugs (specifically SSRIs), and that you are more-or-less better able to put the suggestions that you and your therapist come up with to use.
Traditional psychoanalysis seems to have been largely supplanted by counciling. My impression is that “counciling” is perhaps a catch-all term for more then one type of therapy, but that whatever it is, it isn’t based on Freud, and the therapist does more then just say “um-hum” and “and how did that make you feel?” Whatever it is, is the counciling of today better then psychoanalysis? Better results in less time for less cost?
There seems to be some confusion on this thread as to whether we are talking about (Freudian) psychoanalysis, or contemporary psychotherapy/counseling. From what I can tell scm1001 is looking at “orthodox” psychological counseling.
That being the case I must disagree with occ about the usefulness for generalized problems. I wouldn’t expect much benefit for those problems. The more specific you can define the problem, the better luck you will have with psychotherapy. Just my opinion.
scm1001,
The term psychoanalysis means the type of treatment that Freud advocated. Other, more modern forms of talk therapy are called counciling, psychotherapy, or just plain therapy. The term psychoanalysis is not used unless it is heaviy Freudian.
That being said, it sounds like you may have gotten yourself hooked up with some type of modern day psychoanalyst or some type of strange derivative. Regular therapists do not usually say that you need to sign up for several years of therapy but that is exctly what old school psychoanalysts did. Also, free association is not used by mainstream therapists much at all, but again psychoanalysts are all over that stuff. Traditional therapists also don’t menetion sibling rivalry out of the blue and without good reason for a possible cause to your problems. It sound like this guy is really trying to draw some serious influences from the earliest days of psychology.
That is not a good thing IMHO. You may want to check out a more modern therapist just to get a feel for a different (less crackpot) style.
Speaking as a senior psychology major, I’ll chime in to say that psychoanalysis is still widely used today and has some usefulness.
I do not in any way subscribe to Freud or his theories above other more conventional ways of treatment, but the idea of talking things out with another human being, of connecting with someone in a way that allows you to confront issues from your past, is a good one. Sure, Freud was obsessed with sex, had a cocaine problem, and was a spoiled child from the get go, but that doesn’t mean his idea of talking through childhood isues is completely without merit.
All that being said, I would personally try a more conventional form of therapy before rummaging around in my childhood looking for the answers.
Sorry if this answer isn’t suited for GQ… it seems more like an IMHO question, IMHO.
If it weren’t for psychoanalysis
we would never be able to tell
whether what we think we think
is what we think we think we think
or what we think we think we think we think.
True, sailor, so true.
I may have worded that incorrectly; what I meant was that if your problems are based on your behavior (for instance, you tend to overreact when criticized, and this is hurting a business relationship), psychoanalysis could help you realize how your behavior influences said situations.
I believe that it’s possible to change your behavior to some extent through psychoanalysis. I am skeptical as to how much PA can “improve” your underlying emotions. I see little use in PA to overcome serious mental illness, except in allowing the patient to better understand their own thought processes.
But is psychoanalysis the best therapy? My own feeling is that most of my problems were hardwired in at conception, and it is very difficult to change them. Other sorts of therapy (e.g. behavioural) at least try and change the behaviour. It seems to me that analytical therapies just try and find reasons for your behaviour. I am sceptical because it assumes
(i) there are simple reasons for any problem
(ii) these reasons can be discovered through talking
(iii) if you understand a reason then it enables you to solve a problem
Now one of my problems is that
But is psychoanalysis the best therapy? My own feeling is that most of my problems were hardwired in at conception, and it is very difficult to change them. Other sorts of therapy (e.g. behavioural) at least try and change the behaviour. It seems to me that analytical therapies just try and find reasons for your behaviour. I am sceptical because it assumes
(i) there are simple reasons for any problem
(ii) these reasons can be discovered through talking
(iii) if you understand a reason then it enables you to solve a problem
none of which may be true
Now one of my problems is that I am rather shy which sets off a whole series of other problems (friendships etc) . As far as I know I was like this at birth, hence (i) - (iii) don’t really apply. The best “therapy” I have had was when I went teaching and also acting. Both forced me to suppress my fears and get on with the job. On the other hand I have a friend who had a really f***ed up childhood - he does seems to find therapy useful.
I struggled with shyness all my life. Now at age 52, I’ve pretty well got it under control, and I accomplished that but doing what you have done, i.e., forcing myself to get involved in public settings. Prozac helped also. Therapy, as far as I can tell, did not.
What about talking this over with a regular MD? I know that a lot of these new antidepressants are showing effectiveness for psychological problems other than depression.