Thanks so much for this explanation. I've been attending psychodynamic psychotherapy for over 3 months and feel like I haven't really learnt anything new about myself. My therapist says very little and I have thoughts that 'it' isn't working. On most occasions I worry that nothing will ever change. Is this common to hear?
Yes, that's not uncommon to hear. By the 3-4th sessions you should feel like your therapist has a reasonably good understanding of your problem and a decent framework for approaching things (one that also makes sense to you). By 6-8th sessions in, you should definitely be feeling some benefit from going - if not, I'd question whether the person is a good match for you.
@GissieD... Thanks for the comment. I'd be happy to entertain it; can you provide a bit more information? Do you mean grade school teachers who hold certain ideas about therapy for children?
In your presentations you seem to have a clear bias against, and quite a misunderstanding of any CBT approach whatsoever (1st, 2nd or even so called 3rd wave approaches).
Yes, I do have biases, though I'm not sure how clear they are (to you or others), since I haven't fully explained my rationale for having them; biases are not bad, if they are supported by good reasons. I'm familiar with the various waves of CBT; I think each 'wave' tries to patch-up something important that was missing in previous iterations. For example, the first-wave focused on behavior to the neglect of thinking; the second-wave emphasized thinking to the neglect of phenomenal feeling (though there was increasing talk of 'hot-cognition') and assumed thought/cognition nearly always precedes feeling; the third-wave tries to remedy some of the phenomenal-experiential omissions from previous versions (though it seems more like a mindfulness add-on, in my view). I can admit that the mainstream CBT model has gotten better, but I still find it severely lacking, both as a way of conceptualizing human experience, and for treating many forms of psychological distress (e.g. I don't think the CBT community has fully grasped the importance of affect-phobias or defense mechanisms, though one could use CBT terms, such as 'exposure' and 'response-prevention,' to discuss roughly the same phenomenon). In my opinion, the successive 'add-on' approach has left the model far less integrated and theoretically coherent than it could be. So, yes, when I mention CBT, I admit that I do not provide explanation or defense of the various assumptions associated with it (and its multiple forms) - that would be a far more detailed video. But I don't think my comments are based on conceptual misunderstandings; if you think otherwise, please feel free to point them out.
Thanks so much for this explanation. I've been attending psychodynamic psychotherapy for over 3 months and feel like I haven't really learnt anything new about myself. My therapist says very little and I have thoughts that 'it' isn't working. On most occasions I worry that nothing will ever change. Is this common to hear?
Yes, that's not uncommon to hear. By the 3-4th sessions you should feel like your therapist has a reasonably good understanding of your problem and a decent framework for approaching things (one that also makes sense to you). By 6-8th sessions in, you should definitely be feeling some benefit from going - if not, I'd question whether the person is a good match for you.
@GissieD... Thanks for the comment. I'd be happy to entertain it; can you provide a bit more information? Do you mean grade school teachers who hold certain ideas about therapy for children?
In your presentations you seem to have a clear bias against, and quite a misunderstanding of any CBT approach whatsoever (1st, 2nd or even so called 3rd wave approaches).
Yes, I do have biases, though I'm not sure how clear they are (to you or others), since I haven't fully explained my rationale for having them; biases are not bad, if they are supported by good reasons. I'm familiar with the various waves of CBT; I think each 'wave' tries to patch-up something important that was missing in previous iterations. For example, the first-wave focused on behavior to the neglect of thinking; the second-wave emphasized thinking to the neglect of phenomenal feeling (though there was increasing talk of 'hot-cognition') and assumed thought/cognition nearly always precedes feeling; the third-wave tries to remedy some of the phenomenal-experiential omissions from previous versions (though it seems more like a mindfulness add-on, in my view). I can admit that the mainstream CBT model has gotten better, but I still find it severely lacking, both as a way of conceptualizing human experience, and for treating many forms of psychological distress (e.g. I don't think the CBT community has fully grasped the importance of affect-phobias or defense mechanisms, though one could use CBT terms, such as 'exposure' and 'response-prevention,' to discuss roughly the same phenomenon). In my opinion, the successive 'add-on' approach has left the model far less integrated and theoretically coherent than it could be. So, yes, when I mention CBT, I admit that I do not provide explanation or defense of the various assumptions associated with it (and its multiple forms) - that would be a far more detailed video. But I don't think my comments are based on conceptual misunderstandings; if you think otherwise, please feel free to point them out.