I recommend reading up on the history of abuse in Psychoanalysis, of which there is plenty. I love how the analysts in the video get dismissive about questions of power and ethics. Proving the point. Not to say analysis is bad per se, it can be great if it's done with integrity.
I love this, please continue this hard talk. I am on level 5 of psychodynamic studies and passionate about people and the unknown. I wish I could afford going to university full time, I’ll never stop seeking learning, I’ve learned a lot from you all here. Thank you! 🙏
Psychoanalysis is life! It is love for the truth, both one's own and that of each person, and a love of getting to it as a self-affirming right all of us have.
@abrahamhempel9260 I always speak the truth. Not the whole truth, because there's no way, to say it all. Saying it all is literally impossible: words fail.
For me it is all about transference. It can take many years of what seems like aimless probing to finally experience the transference that is required for growth. That is what happened to me. But, I must say there are still issues my analysis did not uncover and I am not convinced it ever would have. I appreciate the benefits psychoanalysis can have. Yet, it is not realistic to expect that people will invest the time and resources to get these benefits. Psychoanalysis will always be a perk for the well off. That is a fact I did not see the analysts in the video acknowledge. Truthfully, we should not expect them too. Mental health is crucially important in our lives. I think we are still quite primitive in applying therapies that offer hope. My wish is that through research and experience new methods will emerge to improve mental health outcomes that do not require years of analysis.
not the end all be all this psychology. professionals as they are called have flaws, sometimes glaring. not the basket to put all eggs into, they can be stuck in their very head.
Nothing about Psychoanalysis is scientific, but if it's done well, it can definitely help people. You need a lot of moral integrity to do the job well because you will inevitably instrumentalize/abuse your patient's for your own (narcissistic) gain if you don't. The question is not if, but when.
Without non-dual awareness, none of these psychoanalyst can get far in bringing psychoanalysis to a whole new level in ways they never thought possible
The only real knowledge is self-knowledge. And that's the one knwledge that's harder to acquire because it involves facing reality and reality is painful and thus most of us puts up a real effort to run away from it most of our lives. Long term psychoanalysis is pretty much the continual process of cornering ourselves out of it every new attempt we make to hold on to illusion.
I find it difficult hearing so many assumptions being made by analysts about peoples' motives and the meaning of their behaviour. The example given of a finger being cut - instead of a carrot - is a good example of how psychoanalysis makes a judgement about what is the most real thing in the room, as it were, what should we focus on. There is very little appreciation of the contingent nature of events such as an accidental cut. In fact, Winnicott assumes this contingency in reference to the 'spontaneous gesture', the as yet undefinable nature of an act which is made meaningful in a relationship. Gregorio Kohon seems to appreciate this, but actually wants to interpret the event and to match it to theory rather than to consider its meaning.
@@morgash1984 yeah, I can go there too. Person-centred therapy struggles a lot, though, with human nature I think. Rogers was very much an individualist, too much for me.
There no good evidence that a lack of psychoanalysis has caused any mental health crisis. Indeed, there's no strong evidence that psychoanalysis actually works for the analysands. And psychoanalytic bodies never seem to have felt compelled to gather it. Is it possible that psychoanalysts pursue the discipline because they a combination of high self-confidence and low faith in the ability of structured testing to separate fact from fantasy?
I only go for the psychoanalysis, but must say that I'm zen practitioner and work with magic plants. The fact that the analyst is quiet and let me observe myself is not a small task. Being quiet takes lots of work.
Obvious point: Kohon's opening joke has the first person saying to a second: "if one of us dies ..." - but Kohon then revealingly assumes, without obvious reason (!), that he thinks the first person was considering _murdering_ the second. If I was his partner, I'd be worried about this freudian slip revealing Kohon's own murderous impulses - unless, of course, I had watched psychiatry's full-scale retreat from psychoanalysis of the past 40 years, as people have slowly realised that psychoanalysis is unproven and all this talk of revealing slips is baseless. (Extra points for responding that I'm repressing something.)
He's saying it because as it seems like there is a fantasy in the one partner to go ti Paris and the only thing standing in their way is the other partner and they in their mind fantasise a life in Paris without the other. Methaphorically killing them off.
The psychoanalyst that I get most out of, intellectually, emotionally, and professionally, is Nancy McWilliams. She's got a very down to earth, compassionate, and human way of describing difficult experiences
I initially had this impression but after hearing the follow up I'm prepared to interpret it charitably (in what makes those follow up statements coherent with the earlier ones) in the following way: this interpretation is an example, to demonstrate the idea. It isn't the case that say, he has an insight into any given case of this kind. So for instance say that you were to tell him that same story. I don't think he'd interpret it that way. His follow up remarks seem to suggest (to me at least) that it couldn't be interpreted in such an irresponsible way because such an interpretation would have to come from the patient themselves or in collaboration, and would come out of getting to know them (perhaps over many years). And in that sense I think the truth comes out in interpretation itself. I was brought here by recent studies in cognitive science rather than by psychoanalysis which do point to reality of something like Freud's unconscious, though more expansive than his concept of it. But in any case what I take from this is that it wouldn't really matter whether or not there was some "unconscious structure" that the joke was indicative of, if the patient were to see in that joke a meaning that it surfaced for them, if that became a vehicle for self-knowledge. That obviously couldn't work if an analyst was going around interpreting everything they said whatever way they liked or fit their theory. If they are sincere when they say that it isn't an interpretation (in that sense) and that they are actually doing something in those sessions that requires getting to know someone for that length of time, one could only assume that such interpretations would be impossible. Rather, it would seem to be the case that this serves as an example of the kind of thing that could come up in psychoanalysis, rather than being a rubric you could apply to any incident of that kind. Just my two cents.
Love the editing. The "favoring" socioeconomic lens, really intrigued me. What a political trainwreck! It just didn't seem to me that the classical analysis didn't comprehend that it's potentially gonna sink them. Kind of a depressing conversation.
What these other professionals and therapistis don't understand is that, with people, trying to be efficient is risking being effective. And, with people, being effective takes time. With people, fast is slow. That is what they are missing.
Is the evidence for psychoanalytic therapy due to the theoretical and technical specificity which differ from other forms of therapy or due to it's FREQUENCY? The dosage for typical analysis is quite high: 3 to 4 to 5 times a week. If someone went to CBT therapy that much would they also improve just by having that much contact with a therapist?
Just read and see if these theories can be applied to your life. The idea that you are going to find the perfect analyst and work through all your problems is fantasy.
Fascinating insight into the continuing weaknesses of the case for psychoanalyisis. Amazingly, more than a century after Freud came to prominence, we still lack compelling studies showing that psychoanalysis actually works for the analysands. For some reason, psychoanalytic bodies never seem to have felt compelled to gather it. And of course, as Annabel Lord points out, there's no decent database of results for individual analysts. (Yes, over a decade, offenders' offending might drop - but offending generally drops as people age.) On the other hand, the formula laid down by Freud - several sessions a week for several years - has obvious benefits for psychoanalysts.
@@kirstinstrand6292Psychoanalysis is pretty unpopular in Germany compared to evidence-based Clinical Psychology and the latters treatment approaches such as CBT.
All of these criticisms can be levelled just as fairly at any of the talking therapies. In his book "House of Cards", Robyn Dawes recounts the results of comprehensive meta analysis of talking psychotherapy: that it is not dependent on modality, that therapists do not become more effective with experience, and that often it is not effective at all unless their is some subjective social compatibility between therapist and client.
it's been studied (after them avoiding such scrutiny for a century). There are recent studies that show success rate comparable to CBT, but once you look closer, it's a mascarade: each modality turns out to be formally under umbrella of "psychodynamic therapy" but you read the descriptions and it's all 8-16 week CBT specifically barred from "transference analysis". But they use these studies as a battle flag. Frauds.
Out of the 3 analysts only 1 was a man, and i found him tobe insightful and well meaning. You may have issues with psychoanalysis and you are conflating that with a male who is quite intelligent and gave very thoughtful responses.
I will happily accept that people with sufficient interest and empathy can help others and will thereby be able to learn something of value for their own life...but this! As soon as this is "Professional", the therapist is in a strange dependency on the patient for their lively-hood and yet needs to be in a position of power in order for their authority to be accepted. - This is theorising over immaturity! Please wake up, learn to think, and think before you act or speak! Practice empathy, and you will strengthen a sense of self that does not need psycho analysing - yes the constant search for self-validation is pursued at the cost of others and eventually one’s own development. Natural science, which by definition has to exclude matters of the spirit, has been the thin part of the wedge that has led to dead thinking and ultimately dumbing down and lack of discernment. It is like tying the legs of a dog and then theorising over why it is so bad at running.
@Psychoanalys1sh ey! Thanks so much! Quick question! Is paranoia a direct trait of the dark triad? I haven't found any research to show it but I was hoping to get your opinion! Keep up the great work as always!
Interesting views. All seem to be interested in helping out guys having difficulty dealing with their dark and negative, want to be better. Psychoanalysis is lot of common in our world, most people know the types of people in this world. However it is not deep enough most times, it is now and then. The dark and negative that makes us less likable is big obstacle, how do we become less destructive to the closest in our life, how do we adopt a different view or behaviour? Much of the quest is to define the ideal, many well meaning guys can not tell. They want a better equipped person to explain. We want to know how much dark is healthy, as analysts we explore this relentlessly, we ourselves become subjects. Because none of us publically want to be seen as capable of such harm, we want a likeability, or we want the secretive edge. It is one rare person who admits to all the vices he is pulled to. As long this mind has made that unconscious decision, we will have an exercise to find out why, where and when, it is like puzzle solving. You will have long forgotten the stimulus, you have its lesson imprinted in you for life. We will need both the stimulus and lesson to get rid of an less ideal condition.
absolutely! i think freud's big thing was to encourage analysts to "explore" questions rather than "answer." I'm afraid sometimes in action this ends up seeming like an analyst is avoiding the answer - like if their response is just "what makes you ask that?" it can be pretty frustrating, especially when the answer is simple, OR when the answer is something to explore too. (then again, the frustration that comes out of their response could be something to explore too.) but yea, questioning a psychoanalyst should be encouraged. then whatever tension or exploration that arises can lead to growth.
Referring to the relationship needing over 2 years to build trust and for offenders to go through 10 years at the Portman is mind boggling And, by the way, the statement that the theory is not complex is absurd- have you read Lacan...?
Nobody read Lacan they just read about him. Isn't it funny we never hear from clients of Freud? From what I understand he never helped anyone. There are a few case studies thats all with ridiculous titles like wofboy or something. Its interesting material to read as history.
". Psychoanalysis is a futile exercise because it changes nothing: it does not create a new man, it does not bring peace to you. In fact even the founders of psychoanalysis like Sigmund Freud were so much afraid of death that you cannot believe it. No normal being is so afraid of death. The founder of psychoanalysis was so afraid that even the word “death” was not to be pronounced in front of him - it was taboo. It was not to be talked about. Three times it had happened that somebody mentioned death and Sigmund Freud fell in a swoon, in a fit, became unconscious. He was so afraid of death that he avoided going to any cemetery, he avoided going to anybody who was dying, even a friend or disciple. Wherever there was anything concerning death he was absolutely panicked - and this man gives you psychoanalysis! His problems are not solved. He gets angry just like anybody else. He is jealous, more jealous than anybody else. He is greedy. He wants to monopolize, he wants to dominate people. He creates almost an empire of psychoanalysts around the world, but everybody has to repeat like parrots whatever he says. Anybody who says anything different is immediately expelled. It seems it is not science but a political party or a fanatic religion - not scientific research. And the same is true about Jung. Jung came to India to meet someone… because in the East people have been working on the mind for thousands of years. But they have never developed anything like psychoanalysis; they developed meditation - a totally different approach. What is the use of analyzing the rubbish of the mind? - sorting it out… it takes years. There are people who have been in psychoanalysis for fifteen years and they have reached nowhere. They have changed their psychoanalyst in the hope that perhaps somebody else will help, but they have not reached anywhere else. They cannot, because all that psychoanalysis does - all the schools, whether Adlerian or Jungian or Freudian - is to sort out the rubbish of your mind, interpret it according to their minds. And what is the point of it all? In the East we have not developed psychoanalysis, we have developed meditation. Meditation simply takes you away from the garbage, takes you beyond the garbage - it is not worth bothering about. And if you want to bother about it you can go on bothering for lives. You will not come to an end. But just being a witness to your mind, without doing anything to the mind - just being aloof, just seeing it as if thoughts are moving on a screen and simply watching it without any judgment of good and bad - a strange experience happens: thoughts slowly start disappearing. Soon a moment comes when there is only an empty screen - no thoughts. And when there is no object, no thought for your consciousness, it turns back upon itself because there is nothing preventing it; that is exactly the meaning of the word ‘object’ - it prevents, it objects. When there is no object the consciousness goes… and just as everything moves in circles in existence, consciousness also moves in a circle. It comes back upon its own source. And the meeting of the consciousness with its own source is the explosion of light, the greatest celebration that a man is capable of, the greatest orgasmic experience. And it is not something that happens and is finished. No, once it has happened, it continues. It remains with you. It becomes almost like your breathing. You live in it twenty-four hours a day. Jung had come to India in search of someone, to find out what the East has done to create so many people like Gautam Buddha - not one but hundreds who have gone beyond mind and all its troubles and problems, worries, anxieties. What is the secret? He was going to universities, meeting psychoanalysts, and everywhere he was told, “You are wasting your time. These people are not the right people. These people have gone to the West to learn psychoanalysis and they are teaching psychoanalysis in the universities. You have come to search and seek somebody who is absolutely untouched by the West. And there is a man.” And there was a man - Shri Raman Maharshi. Wherever Jung went - and he was there for three months - everywhere the same name was given to him. “Go to Arunachal in South India and meet this man who is uneducated, who knows nothing of psychoanalysis; he is the man the East has been able to produce. Just go and sit with him and talk with him and listen to him. If you have some questions, ask him.” But you will be surprised: Jung never went there. And later on, feeling that he will be criticized, Jung wrote, “I consideredly did not go to Raman Maharshi because the East has its own way, the West has its own way, and they should not be mixed” - just to protect himself from criticism. Then why did he go to India at all? He was told again and again to go to a man who was available, which is rare, and he did not go there, although he went up to Madras, from where it was only a two hour journey to Arunachal! Jung did not go to the man, whom just by meeting he would have seen how a clear man is, how a man is who has cleaned his mind completely - his eyes, his gestures, his words, his authority. He does not quote scriptures, he knows himself. Jung did not go there, and he himself felt guilty. To defend himself he started writing that the East and the West have different ways. This is nonsense, because man - whether in the East or in the West - is the same. And it is strange that he was teaching Eastern students Western psychology. He should have refused because this is mixing East and West. If he was really honest then he should have said, “You go back to the East.” He was teaching Eastern students Western psychology, but he was not ready to go to an Eastern meditator, just to meet him. What is the fear? The fear is that Jung is as normal a person as you are - just knowledgeable. He has gathered from books, but he has no authentic experience of his own. Western psychoanalysis is just a business. It is cheating people. It is simply exploiting people without any help, and because there is no other alternative people have to go to it. The psychoanalysts themselves go to other psychoanalysts. And psychoanalysts go mad more than any other profession! They commit suicide more than any other profession; they are more perverted in every way than any other profession"
I just wanted to comment on the fact that I do like your short talks on your site nevertheless it’s huge disappointing that after spending £300 on an online set of short talks, the access to them ends after 6 months. I keep asking myself how can you find this ethically acceptable… ?!
Their response to the homosexual question by the Cbt therapist was poor. They failed to address how theory has been and is being used to support fear, anxiety and prejudice on the part of analysts and their institutions Oh by the way Ernest Jones detested Lgbt people. He also failed to keep his hands off young female patients
Different approaches for the vastnes of the clients we work with. I am an art therapist, and a humanistic one at that. I can't possibly think of a single client of mine benefiting from my expert input, or a "scientific" break down of their problems. I honestly believe that people have the strength they need to pull through and work towards their desired life, and instead are better supported on their journey over being taught or guided. I do appreciate analysis however, as our world has been positively impacted by it wether we are fully on board with it's theory
A code of ethics isn't the same as complying with the Supreme Court (UK) ruling on informed consent. My experience of Group Analytic Therapy in an NHS setting almost led to my suicide, caused six or seven years of intense stress, confusion and illness. They cannot and will not accept they do cause harm. History will have fun ripping apart psychoanalysis, but the problem is how it led to counseling and psychotherapy in hundreds, in fact, thousands of obscurely named modalities. Within an NHS setting there is a particular risk of harm, due to the monopoly situation and the disempowerment of the patient (who rejects the analyst at the price of being labelling difficult or pathological.) Psychoanalysis is a religion. Or actually, more a cult. People who enter and leave, rejecting the reality of what happens, what goes wrong etc are thrown under the bus. Which is how I felt. I still do. Public warning, "the risks of psychoanalysis have never been denied."
By itself, nothing. But we unfortunately need to give some order and understanding and value to life. We need to be able to make choices in it about what we affirm and what we wish to avoid or condemn. And when we turn that inward, to ourselves, the consequence is that we wish to bring to an irrational self some semblance of rationality (that is, of choice, value, freedom). So again just to be clear, there's nothing wrong with irrationality. When we say that we are largely, at our core, irrational, that isn't to say we are bad or wrong for being that way. We are that way. Nonetheless, sometimes we look inside ourselves and don't like what we find. In that case what we are doing is making a rationally ordered self out of what is otherwise irrational. It isn't the irrationality that is a problem and it isn't the irrationality that is solved by doing this, since it never actually goes away. It's just a consequence of what it means to acquire knowledge about ourselves and to make decisions about who we are or will become. That is, to do the latter is to deal with the irrationality that is otherwise a fundamental part of our nature, to bring order to what is disordered, give meaning to what is meaningless.
Yes Psychoanalysis is Science because Dr. Sigmund Freud was a Physician a Neurologist after many years of Neurological experience with Patients He discovered the Unconscious. Psychoanalysis is for Physicians, Psychiatrists to study at Psychoanalytic Institutes. Not for psychologists because psychology is Not a Science is a Discipline.
I don't suppose the I of P has thought of making a film interviewing patients who have been harmed by psychoanalytic approaches to therapy? Everyone else is spinning the old 'lived experience' wheel (because they have to). Psychoanalytic therapists have more loyalty to their modality than their patients. People who think they know what is best for you are the most dangerous of all.
It's just my own observation here but you don't get psychoanalysts being afraid or on the defensive. That's because they're braver than other therapists. Once you've had the courage to do Analytic work yourself you learn that we are all the same messy humans. And that gives you your own council. I had about 4yrs of 1 x wk Analysis and yes I could have had a better house by now if I'd kept the money! Psychoanalysis helped me come to terms with my parents failings and strengths as well as my siblings and my own. But most importantly that life and relationships are a series of uncertainties - for everyone!! And that is ok. Other therapies always strike me as having such a strong certain view of Psychoanalysis and what it is without having done It?! You dont get psychoanalysts doing that with the other therapies?! Stop bashing Psychoanalysis!!!
well you must've been lucky, there's tons of bad analysts out there who do get defensive, I've met a few, and how about analysts not bashing other therapies? Lol
If folks write down their dreams, everyone would understand that they will not heal until they understand their unconscious. Our un Consciousnes s runs our lives. It's as simple as this.😢😮 Yet 99% of humanity chases their dreams that are being directed by unconscious desires. Shopping for sex, love, and material compensation for their craziness. 🎉 😂😅
Genuinely daft. If he'd been worrying about his mortgage, the reaction would be that he was feeling castrated by the bank's power over his life. Yet it might simply be that his mind just wandered. No wonder poor Freud in later life was seen to complain that "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar".
This channel is fairly new. My favorite Psycho is JBP but thats maybe to much to soon. But JBP once said We Tend to forget all the things Freud got Right and take those things for granted (fail to credit him with) and focus on the things he got wrong../ every thing is sexual repression of some ilk. I think that statement holds true when the Clinical behaviorist first critique is of that oh so Freudian branch
Very interesting but it is an archaic model that is failing to adapt to modern life, cultural issues and difference. The oedipus complex, for example, is nonsense- Freud's way of intellectualising his parental experience. It has been used and is used to describe Lgbt people as immature and incapable of consideration for trainings
Psychoanalysis helped me when no other therapy could. Very grateful.
Yes the amount it helps me, is not possible to even put into words.
Not an analyst or analysand (yet) but I can confidently say psychoanalysis has changed my life.
I recommend reading up on the history of abuse in Psychoanalysis, of which there is plenty. I love how the analysts in the video get dismissive about questions of power and ethics. Proving the point. Not to say analysis is bad per se, it can be great if it's done with integrity.
Any analyst who says "I don't want power. Why would I want power" is so deep in denial they should never see patients.
What Kind of power do u Think they want?
I love this, please continue this hard talk. I am on level 5 of psychodynamic studies and passionate about people and the unknown. I wish I could afford going to university full time, I’ll never stop seeking learning, I’ve learned a lot from you all here. Thank you! 🙏
If you are an english speaker I recommend (in case you dont know) Bruce Fink work about psychoanalysis. Really good books and excellent person!
Hello Seattle. This is Dr. Fraiser Crane. I'm listening.
Psychoanalysis is life! It is love for the truth, both one's own and that of each person, and a love of getting to it as a self-affirming right all of us have.
TRue
Beautifully said 👌👌👌
A right all of us have but very few can afford.
I am eating from the trashcan every day.
This is like a breath of fresh air
was that sarcasm? P
@abrahamhempel9260 I always speak the truth. Not the whole truth, because there's no way, to say it all. Saying it all is literally impossible: words fail.
Hail zizek
For me it is all about transference. It can take many years of what seems like aimless probing to finally experience the transference that is required for growth. That is what happened to me. But, I must say there are still issues my analysis did not uncover and I am not convinced it ever would have. I appreciate the benefits psychoanalysis can have. Yet, it is not realistic to expect that people will invest the time and resources to get these benefits. Psychoanalysis will always be a perk for the well off. That is a fact I did not see the analysts in the video acknowledge. Truthfully, we should not expect them too. Mental health is crucially important in our lives. I think we are still quite primitive in applying therapies that offer hope. My wish is that through research and experience new methods will emerge to improve mental health outcomes that do not require years of analysis.
not the end all be all this psychology. professionals as they are called have flaws, sometimes glaring. not the basket to put all eggs into, they can be stuck in their very head.
After my lengthy psychoanalysis, decades later, I completed the analysis that my analyst did/could not. Want me to teach you?
I could. 😃
how does it feel to be infantilized and manipulated?
Psychoanalysis changes so many lifes... I think that access to treatment AND training should be democratized.
Nothing about Psychoanalysis is scientific, but if it's done well, it can definitely help people. You need a lot of moral integrity to do the job well because you will inevitably instrumentalize/abuse your patient's for your own (narcissistic) gain if you don't. The question is not if, but when.
Without non-dual awareness, none of these psychoanalyst can get far in bringing psychoanalysis to a whole new level in ways they never thought possible
The only real knowledge is self-knowledge. And that's the one knwledge that's harder to acquire because it involves facing reality and reality is painful and thus most of us puts up a real effort to run away from it most of our lives. Long term psychoanalysis is pretty much the continual process of cornering ourselves out of it every new attempt we make to hold on to illusion.
This is absolute 💯 🔥
Brilliantly put!
Long term psychoanalysis can be a brilliant way of fostering dependence on a paid parental figure
I find it difficult hearing so many assumptions being made by analysts about peoples' motives and the meaning of their behaviour. The example given of a finger being cut - instead of a carrot - is a good example of how psychoanalysis makes a judgement about what is the most real thing in the room, as it were, what should we focus on. There is very little appreciation of the contingent nature of events such as an accidental cut. In fact, Winnicott assumes this contingency in reference to the 'spontaneous gesture', the as yet undefinable nature of an act which is made meaningful in a relationship. Gregorio Kohon seems to appreciate this, but actually wants to interpret the event and to match it to theory rather than to consider its meaning.
Yes I agree, this is why I think I prefer existential and phenomenological psychology including the person centred approach
@@morgash1984 yeah, I can go there too. Person-centred therapy struggles a lot, though, with human nature I think. Rogers was very much an individualist, too much for me.
An indulgence to listen to someone for more than 1 hour a week? This is why we have a mental health crisis.
There no good evidence that a lack of psychoanalysis has caused any mental health crisis. Indeed, there's no strong evidence that psychoanalysis actually works for the analysands. And psychoanalytic bodies never seem to have felt compelled to gather it.
Is it possible that psychoanalysts pursue the discipline because they a combination of high self-confidence and low faith in the ability of structured testing to separate fact from fantasy?
Thank you for sharing such a great video. May I have your permission to repost it on social media platforms in China?❤
Funny, I thought the joke at 0:58 referred to death anxiety (vs murderous impulses).
Clearly Kohon is repressing something ...
I love psychoanalysis! ❤
I only go for the psychoanalysis, but must say that I'm zen practitioner and work with magic plants. The fact that the analyst is quiet and let me observe myself is not a small task. Being quiet takes lots of work.
Obvious point: Kohon's opening joke has the first person saying to a second: "if one of us dies ..." - but Kohon then revealingly assumes, without obvious reason (!), that he thinks the first person was considering _murdering_ the second.
If I was his partner, I'd be worried about this freudian slip revealing Kohon's own murderous impulses - unless, of course, I had watched psychiatry's full-scale retreat from psychoanalysis of the past 40 years, as people have slowly realised that psychoanalysis is unproven and all this talk of revealing slips is baseless.
(Extra points for responding that I'm repressing something.)
He's saying it because as it seems like there is a fantasy in the one partner to go ti Paris and the only thing standing in their way is the other partner and they in their mind fantasise a life in Paris without the other. Methaphorically killing them off.
The psychoanalyst that I get most out of, intellectually, emotionally, and professionally, is Nancy McWilliams. She's got a very down to earth, compassionate, and human way of describing difficult experiences
A full retreat into medication management with medications that have very questionable results.
I initially had this impression but after hearing the follow up I'm prepared to interpret it charitably (in what makes those follow up statements coherent with the earlier ones) in the following way: this interpretation is an example, to demonstrate the idea. It isn't the case that say, he has an insight into any given case of this kind. So for instance say that you were to tell him that same story. I don't think he'd interpret it that way. His follow up remarks seem to suggest (to me at least) that it couldn't be interpreted in such an irresponsible way because such an interpretation would have to come from the patient themselves or in collaboration, and would come out of getting to know them (perhaps over many years). And in that sense I think the truth comes out in interpretation itself. I was brought here by recent studies in cognitive science rather than by psychoanalysis which do point to reality of something like Freud's unconscious, though more expansive than his concept of it. But in any case what I take from this is that it wouldn't really matter whether or not there was some "unconscious structure" that the joke was indicative of, if the patient were to see in that joke a meaning that it surfaced for them, if that became a vehicle for self-knowledge. That obviously couldn't work if an analyst was going around interpreting everything they said whatever way they liked or fit their theory. If they are sincere when they say that it isn't an interpretation (in that sense) and that they are actually doing something in those sessions that requires getting to know someone for that length of time, one could only assume that such interpretations would be impossible. Rather, it would seem to be the case that this serves as an example of the kind of thing that could come up in psychoanalysis, rather than being a rubric you could apply to any incident of that kind. Just my two cents.
You are not the smartest person alive
Love the editing. The "favoring" socioeconomic lens, really intrigued me. What a political trainwreck! It just didn't seem to me that the classical analysis didn't comprehend that it's potentially gonna sink them. Kind of a depressing conversation.
Please do more of these ❤
What these other professionals and therapistis don't understand is that, with people, trying to be efficient is risking being effective. And, with people, being effective takes time. With people, fast is slow. That is what they are missing.
Is the evidence for psychoanalytic therapy due to the theoretical and technical specificity which differ from other forms of therapy or due to it's FREQUENCY? The dosage for typical analysis is quite high: 3 to 4 to 5 times a week. If someone went to CBT therapy that much would they also improve just by having that much contact with a therapist?
It's interesting that you highlight the relationship with the therapist in both cases rather than the particular type of intervention.
Just read and see if these theories can be applied to your life. The idea that you are going to find the perfect analyst and work through all your problems is fantasy.
Guess where can you elaborate your fantasies!
@@princesshamburglar9659 on Fantasy Island
I did find recently my analyst… and I can tell you I found my perfect analyst. You are wrong.
Fascinating insight into the continuing weaknesses of the case for psychoanalyisis.
Amazingly, more than a century after Freud came to prominence, we still lack compelling studies showing that psychoanalysis actually works for the analysands. For some reason, psychoanalytic bodies never seem to have felt compelled to gather it.
And of course, as Annabel Lord points out, there's no decent database of results for individual analysts. (Yes, over a decade, offenders' offending might drop - but offending generally drops as people age.)
On the other hand, the formula laid down by Freud - several sessions a week for several years - has obvious benefits for psychoanalysts.
Psychoanalysis thrives everywhere else except in the USA. Something is wrong with IPA who dominates over APA. 🤔
@@kirstinstrand6292Psychoanalysis is pretty unpopular in Germany compared to evidence-based Clinical Psychology and the latters treatment approaches such as CBT.
All of these criticisms can be levelled just as fairly at any of the talking therapies.
In his book "House of Cards", Robyn Dawes recounts the results of comprehensive meta analysis of talking psychotherapy: that it is not dependent on modality, that therapists do not become more effective with experience, and that often it is not effective at all unless their is some subjective social compatibility between therapist and client.
it's been studied (after them avoiding such scrutiny for a century).
There are recent studies that show success rate comparable to CBT, but once you look closer, it's a mascarade: each modality turns out to be formally under umbrella of "psychodynamic therapy" but you read the descriptions and it's all 8-16 week CBT specifically barred from "transference analysis". But they use these studies as a battle flag.
Frauds.
Exceptionally well done.
This video is a great example of various forms of 'mansplaining", and more ironically, revealing the tremendous deficiencies in psychoanalysis.
Out of the 3 analysts only 1 was a man, and i found him tobe insightful and well meaning. You may have issues with psychoanalysis and you are conflating that with a male who is quite intelligent and gave very thoughtful responses.
I will happily accept that people with sufficient interest and empathy can help others and will thereby be able to learn something of value for their own life...but this! As soon as this is "Professional", the therapist is in a strange dependency on the patient for their lively-hood and yet needs to be in a position of power in order for their authority to be accepted. - This is theorising over immaturity! Please wake up, learn to think, and think before you act or speak! Practice empathy, and you will strengthen a sense of self that does not need psycho analysing - yes the constant search for self-validation is pursued at the cost of others and eventually one’s own development. Natural science, which by definition has to exclude matters of the spirit, has been the thin part of the wedge that has led to dead thinking and ultimately dumbing down and lack of discernment. It is like tying the legs of a dog and then theorising over why it is so bad at running.
Thank you for the upload :)
No problem!
@Psychoanalys1sh ey! Thanks so much! Quick question! Is paranoia a direct trait of the dark triad? I haven't found any research to show it but I was hoping to get your opinion!
Keep up the great work as always!
Interesting views. All seem to be interested in helping out guys having difficulty dealing with their dark and negative, want to be better.
Psychoanalysis is lot of common in our world, most people know the types of people in this world. However it is not deep enough most times, it is now and then. The dark and negative that makes us less likable is big obstacle, how do we become less destructive to the closest in our life, how do we adopt a different view or behaviour?
Much of the quest is to define the ideal, many well meaning guys can not tell. They want a better equipped person to explain. We want to know how much dark is healthy, as analysts we explore this relentlessly, we ourselves become subjects. Because none of us publically want to be seen as capable of such harm, we want a likeability, or we want the secretive edge. It is one rare person who admits to all the vices he is pulled to.
As long this mind has made that unconscious decision, we will have an exercise to find out why, where and when, it is like puzzle solving. You will have long forgotten the stimulus, you have its lesson imprinted in you for life. We will need both the stimulus and lesson to get rid of an less ideal condition.
Can I question a Psychoanalyst?
absolutely! i think freud's big thing was to encourage analysts to "explore" questions rather than "answer." I'm afraid sometimes in action this ends up seeming like an analyst is avoiding the answer - like if their response is just "what makes you ask that?" it can be pretty frustrating, especially when the answer is simple, OR when the answer is something to explore too. (then again, the frustration that comes out of their response could be something to explore too.) but yea, questioning a psychoanalyst should be encouraged. then whatever tension or exploration that arises can lead to growth.
Referring to the relationship needing over 2 years to build trust and for offenders to go through 10 years at the Portman is mind boggling
And, by the way, the statement that the theory is not complex is absurd- have you read Lacan...?
Nobody read Lacan they just read about him. Isn't it funny we never hear from clients of Freud? From what I understand he never helped anyone. There are a few case studies thats all with ridiculous titles like wofboy or something. Its interesting material to read as history.
". Psychoanalysis is a futile exercise because it changes nothing: it does not create a new man, it does not bring peace to you. In fact even the founders of psychoanalysis like Sigmund Freud were so much afraid of death that you cannot believe it. No normal being is so afraid of death.
The founder of psychoanalysis was so afraid that even the word “death” was not to be pronounced in front of him - it was taboo. It was not to be talked about. Three times it had happened that somebody mentioned death and Sigmund Freud fell in a swoon, in a fit, became unconscious. He was so afraid of death that he avoided going to any cemetery, he avoided going to anybody who was dying, even a friend or disciple. Wherever there was anything concerning death he was absolutely panicked - and this man gives you psychoanalysis!
His problems are not solved. He gets angry just like anybody else. He is jealous, more jealous than anybody else. He is greedy. He wants to monopolize, he wants to dominate people. He creates almost an empire of psychoanalysts around the world, but everybody has to repeat like parrots whatever he says. Anybody who says anything different is immediately expelled. It seems it is not science but a political party or a fanatic religion - not scientific research.
And the same is true about Jung. Jung came to India to meet someone… because in the East people have been working on the mind for thousands of years. But they have never developed anything like psychoanalysis; they developed meditation - a totally different approach.
What is the use of analyzing the rubbish of the mind? - sorting it out… it takes years. There are people who have been in psychoanalysis for fifteen years and they have reached nowhere. They have changed their psychoanalyst in the hope that perhaps somebody else will help, but they have not reached anywhere else. They cannot, because all that psychoanalysis does - all the schools, whether Adlerian or Jungian or Freudian - is to sort out the rubbish of your mind, interpret it according to their minds. And what is the point of it all?
In the East we have not developed psychoanalysis, we have developed meditation. Meditation simply takes you away from the garbage, takes you beyond the garbage - it is not worth bothering about. And if you want to bother about it you can go on bothering for lives. You will not come to an end.
But just being a witness to your mind, without doing anything to the mind - just being aloof, just seeing it as if thoughts are moving on a screen and simply watching it without any judgment of good and bad - a strange experience happens: thoughts slowly start disappearing. Soon a moment comes when there is only an empty screen - no thoughts. And when there is no object, no thought for your consciousness, it turns back upon itself because there is nothing preventing it; that is exactly the meaning of the word ‘object’ - it prevents, it objects.
When there is no object the consciousness goes… and just as everything moves in circles in existence, consciousness also moves in a circle. It comes back upon its own source. And the meeting of the consciousness with its own source is the explosion of light, the greatest celebration that a man is capable of, the greatest orgasmic experience.
And it is not something that happens and is finished. No, once it has happened, it continues. It remains with you. It becomes almost like your breathing. You live in it twenty-four hours a day.
Jung had come to India in search of someone, to find out what the East has done to create so many people like Gautam Buddha - not one but hundreds who have gone beyond mind and all its troubles and problems, worries, anxieties. What is the secret? He was going to universities, meeting psychoanalysts, and everywhere he was told, “You are wasting your time. These people are not the right people. These people have gone to the West to learn psychoanalysis and they are teaching psychoanalysis in the universities. You have come to search and seek somebody who is absolutely untouched by the West. And there is a man.”
And there was a man - Shri Raman Maharshi. Wherever Jung went - and he was there for three months - everywhere the same name was given to him. “Go to Arunachal in South India and meet this man who is uneducated, who knows nothing of psychoanalysis; he is the man the East has been able to produce. Just go and sit with him and talk with him and listen to him. If you have some questions, ask him.” But you will be surprised: Jung never went there.
And later on, feeling that he will be criticized, Jung wrote, “I consideredly did not go to Raman Maharshi because the East has its own way, the West has its own way, and they should not be mixed” - just to protect himself from criticism. Then why did he go to India at all? He was told again and again to go to a man who was available, which is rare, and he did not go there, although he went up to Madras, from where it was only a two hour journey to Arunachal!
Jung did not go to the man, whom just by meeting he would have seen how a clear man is, how a man is who has cleaned his mind completely - his eyes, his gestures, his words, his authority. He does not quote scriptures, he knows himself.
Jung did not go there, and he himself felt guilty. To defend himself he started writing that the East and the West have different ways. This is nonsense, because man - whether in the East or in the West - is the same. And it is strange that he was teaching Eastern students Western psychology. He should have refused because this is mixing East and West. If he was really honest then he should have said, “You go back to the East.”
He was teaching Eastern students Western psychology, but he was not ready to go to an Eastern meditator, just to meet him. What is the fear? The fear is that Jung is as normal a person as you are - just knowledgeable. He has gathered from books, but he has no authentic experience of his own.
Western psychoanalysis is just a business. It is cheating people. It is simply exploiting people without any help, and because there is no other alternative people have to go to it. The psychoanalysts themselves go to other psychoanalysts. And psychoanalysts go mad more than any other profession! They commit suicide more than any other profession; they are more perverted in every way than any other profession"
I can totally relate to the criticism of Robin Schacht
lol, i don't think she's buying it 4:01 & 4:29 Sorry kid, if you know, you know
I just wanted to comment on the fact that I do like your short talks on your site nevertheless it’s huge disappointing that after spending £300 on an online set of short talks, the access to them ends after 6 months. I keep asking myself how can you find this ethically acceptable… ?!
Not all scientists have the same reliability.
Likewise, it could be some of the Psychoanalysts that are obsessed with anything in 'dark corners'.
Their response to the homosexual question by the Cbt therapist was poor. They failed to address how theory has been and is being used to support fear, anxiety and prejudice on the part of analysts and their institutions
Oh by the way Ernest Jones detested Lgbt people. He also failed to keep his hands off young female patients
Different approaches for the vastnes of the clients we work with. I am an art therapist, and a humanistic one at that. I can't possibly think of a single client of mine benefiting from my expert input, or a "scientific" break down of their problems. I honestly believe that people have the strength they need to pull through and work towards their desired life, and instead are better supported on their journey over being taught or guided.
I do appreciate analysis however, as our world has been positively impacted by it wether we are fully on board with it's theory
A code of ethics isn't the same as complying with the Supreme Court (UK) ruling on informed consent. My experience of Group Analytic Therapy in an NHS setting almost led to my suicide, caused six or seven years of intense stress, confusion and illness. They cannot and will not accept they do cause harm. History will have fun ripping apart psychoanalysis, but the problem is how it led to counseling and psychotherapy in hundreds, in fact, thousands of obscurely named modalities. Within an NHS setting there is a particular risk of harm, due to the monopoly situation and the disempowerment of the patient (who rejects the analyst at the price of being labelling difficult or pathological.) Psychoanalysis is a religion. Or actually, more a cult. People who enter and leave, rejecting the reality of what happens, what goes wrong etc are thrown under the bus. Which is how I felt. I still do. Public warning, "the risks of psychoanalysis have never been denied."
What's wrong with irrationality?
By itself, nothing. But we unfortunately need to give some order and understanding and value to life. We need to be able to make choices in it about what we affirm and what we wish to avoid or condemn. And when we turn that inward, to ourselves, the consequence is that we wish to bring to an irrational self some semblance of rationality (that is, of choice, value, freedom). So again just to be clear, there's nothing wrong with irrationality. When we say that we are largely, at our core, irrational, that isn't to say we are bad or wrong for being that way. We are that way. Nonetheless, sometimes we look inside ourselves and don't like what we find. In that case what we are doing is making a rationally ordered self out of what is otherwise irrational. It isn't the irrationality that is a problem and it isn't the irrationality that is solved by doing this, since it never actually goes away. It's just a consequence of what it means to acquire knowledge about ourselves and to make decisions about who we are or will become. That is, to do the latter is to deal with the irrationality that is otherwise a fundamental part of our nature, to bring order to what is disordered, give meaning to what is meaningless.
Psychoanalysis is Science 😊
Yes Psychoanalysis is Science because Dr. Sigmund Freud was a Physician a Neurologist after many years of Neurological experience with Patients He discovered the Unconscious. Psychoanalysis is for Physicians, Psychiatrists to study at Psychoanalytic Institutes. Not for psychologists because psychology is Not a Science is a Discipline.
I don't suppose the I of P has thought of making a film interviewing patients who have been harmed by psychoanalytic approaches to therapy? Everyone else is spinning the old 'lived experience' wheel (because they have to). Psychoanalytic therapists have more loyalty to their modality than their patients. People who think they know what is best for you are the most dangerous of all.
So, when you are sent to hell you have to sit at this table? Heh!
Excellent debate...
Ok. So I'd kick the dude with glasses out of the group. Too bossy...
It's just my own observation here but you don't get psychoanalysts being afraid or on the defensive. That's because they're braver than other therapists. Once you've had the courage to do Analytic work yourself you learn that we are all the same messy humans. And that gives you your own council. I had about 4yrs of 1 x wk Analysis and yes I could have had a better house by now if I'd kept the money! Psychoanalysis helped me come to terms with my parents failings and strengths as well as my siblings and my own. But most importantly that life and relationships are a series of uncertainties - for everyone!! And that is ok. Other therapies always strike me as having such a strong certain view of Psychoanalysis and what it is without having done It?! You dont get psychoanalysts doing that with the other therapies?! Stop bashing Psychoanalysis!!!
well you must've been lucky, there's tons of bad analysts out there who do get defensive, I've met a few, and how about analysts not bashing other therapies? Lol
If folks write down their dreams, everyone would understand that they will not heal until they understand their unconscious.
Our un Consciousnes s runs our lives. It's as simple as this.😢😮
Yet 99% of humanity chases their dreams that are being directed by unconscious desires. Shopping for sex, love, and material compensation for their craziness. 🎉
😂😅
Lots of people in this profession are ego driven and are not street wise. A certificate is no measure of competency, wisdom or guidance.
Awesome
Decoding symbols . That's psychoanalisis.
Don’t trust others…analyze yourself
Self analysis is the reflection of your psychoanalyst!
When it was the first time you haven’t been heard? What is the story behind the trustworthiness ?
I know why you're here and clicky clicked.
3:47 A representation of Feeling of Castration.
Genuinely daft. If he'd been worrying about his mortgage, the reaction would be that he was feeling castrated by the bank's power over his life. Yet it might simply be that his mind just wandered.
No wonder poor Freud in later life was seen to complain that "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar".
When a psychoanalyst says castration, he means feeling powerless, without agency.
@@danielmeixner7125 its more elaborated in Lacan, excellently expounded by Slavoj in almost all of his books
This channel is fairly new. My favorite Psycho is JBP but thats maybe to much to soon. But JBP once said We Tend to forget all the things Freud got Right and take those things for granted (fail to credit him with) and focus on the things he got wrong../ every thing is sexual repression of some ilk. I think that statement holds true when the Clinical behaviorist first critique is of that oh so Freudian branch
JPM is definitely not mine! He is a role model for many lost young men. I'll give him that. At least he cares.
@@kirstinstrand6292 that to me seems like a perfectly reasonable and informed opinion
Try every love affair that we have 😮😅
I'm gonna analyse the analysts, I think they are full of baloney.
Jungian analytical psychology is better than Freudian psychoanalysis because it’s more true.
Agreed
yeah, sure
lib
Very interesting but it is an archaic model that is failing to adapt to modern life, cultural issues and difference. The oedipus complex, for example, is nonsense- Freud's way of intellectualising his parental experience. It has been used and is used to describe Lgbt people as immature and incapable of consideration for trainings
Having done it and studied it, I think it's total nonsense. Science is the only thing we need and not this nonsense.
You aren't saying why it's nonsense.
“Is the only thing we need” That’s sounds like a belief almost like faith. Good luck with that
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Truly, my best to you non breather.
That's literally scientism and clearly shows a misunderstanding of science
You are still an egg, not yet hatched.