advertisement
Question
Posted by: D | 2010/04/08

Psychoanalysis

I am curious as I have picked up your apparent dislike of psychoanalysis. Apparently Cape Town is unique in that it is the last bastion of a small group of psychoanalytic psychaitrists (CTSPP). I have just had a disasterous 4 year (2 yrs at x2/week) psychotherapy relationship which ended very badly.

The psychotherapy was face-to-face, depth, transference based, unconscious studied but no dream analysis or free assoc. When asked he claimed to be eclectic in method(esp Winnicott and Kohut). Ques 1. Is this (my therapy) still considered to be psychoanalysis? 2. How qualified are psychiatrists (in general) to do psychotherapy as apposed to psychologists 3. In what circumstances if any would psychoanalysis still be appropriate?

Tx

D

Not what you were looking for? Try searching again, or ask your own question
Our expert says:
Expert ImageCyberShrink

I dislike psychoanalysis because it is bogus - it is elitist, extraordinarily expensive, lasts for a very long time, deludes both the analyst and his patient, and despite its long, long history, there is still absolutely no good scientific evidence to show it has any value whatever, let alone to support the many u supported claims it makes.
It takes varying forms, but you describe a 4 year twice a week analytically oriented therapy ( being transference based and based on a classic belief in the unconscious, it was analytic enough to illustrate my point about its wastefulness.
I'm sad to hear that there is still a small group of psychoanalysts in Cape Town - its like hearing of a small herd of dinosaurs. An enclave separated in some way from all the advances of neurscience and indeed diagnosis and psychotherapy research of many decades, or they could no adhere to the obsolete method. But when one has invested the high cost in money and time of training as an analyst, its understandable that one would be reluctant to admit it is fallacious or to give it up, so long as one can still find people who will pay for it.
Analysis is full of splits and one-up-manship, and will define what others do as somehow faulty, while what THEY do is defined as excellent. By definition, not by ordinary standards of proof. They often seem to call themselves "eclectic" to try to avoid criticism, but are less eclectic than Tiger Woods is as a sportsman
You can call yourself an "eclectiv surgeon" - but if you still cut people open, alter their innards, then sew them up again, you're a surgeon.
I remember meeting Kohut, and finding him cold and unconvincing. I didn't really know Winnicott, and preferred my old friend John Bowlby.

Hopefully, the number of psychiatrist or psychologists still being trained in psychoanalysis should be vanishingly small, as it'd be rather negligent for any University / medical school to provide such training ( it'd be like training them in the use of leeches and trephining. ) To date, prop[er science has not found good evidence that analysis is actually useful in any condition known to science.
Psychoanalysis seems well suited to people with nothing significant wrong with them, who are really wealthy ( so as to be able to afford the time and money involved ) and bored, so they enjoy the endless examination of imaginary navels.
Most analysts I have met are very nice people, but genuinely misguided and resolutely unscientific.

The information provided does not constitute a diagnosis of your condition. You should consult a medical practitioner or other appropriate health care professional for a physical exmanication, diagnosis and formal advice. Health24 and the expert accept no responsibility or liability for any damage or personal harm you may suffer resulting from making use of this content.

1
Our users say:
Posted by: cybershrink | 2010/04/08

I dislike psychoanalysis because it is bogus - it is elitist, extraordinarily expensive, lasts for a very long time, deludes both the analyst and his patient, and despite its long, long history, there is still absolutely no good scientific evidence to show it has any value whatever, let alone to support the many u supported claims it makes.
It takes varying forms, but you describe a 4 year twice a week analytically oriented therapy ( being transference based and based on a classic belief in the unconscious, it was analytic enough to illustrate my point about its wastefulness.
I'm sad to hear that there is still a small group of psychoanalysts in Cape Town - its like hearing of a small herd of dinosaurs. An enclave separated in some way from all the advances of neurscience and indeed diagnosis and psychotherapy research of many decades, or they could no adhere to the obsolete method. But when one has invested the high cost in money and time of training as an analyst, its understandable that one would be reluctant to admit it is fallacious or to give it up, so long as one can still find people who will pay for it.
Analysis is full of splits and one-up-manship, and will define what others do as somehow faulty, while what THEY do is defined as excellent. By definition, not by ordinary standards of proof. They often seem to call themselves "eclectic" to try to avoid criticism, but are less eclectic than Tiger Woods is as a sportsman
You can call yourself an "eclectiv surgeon" - but if you still cut people open, alter their innards, then sew them up again, you're a surgeon.
I remember meeting Kohut, and finding him cold and unconvincing. I didn't really know Winnicott, and preferred my old friend John Bowlby.

Hopefully, the number of psychiatrist or psychologists still being trained in psychoanalysis should be vanishingly small, as it'd be rather negligent for any University / medical school to provide such training ( it'd be like training them in the use of leeches and trephining. ) To date, prop[er science has not found good evidence that analysis is actually useful in any condition known to science.
Psychoanalysis seems well suited to people with nothing significant wrong with them, who are really wealthy ( so as to be able to afford the time and money involved ) and bored, so they enjoy the endless examination of imaginary navels.
Most analysts I have met are very nice people, but genuinely misguided and resolutely unscientific.

Reply to cybershrink

Have your say

Thanks for commenting! Your comment will appear on the site shortly.
Thanks for commenting! Your comment will appear on the site shortly.
advertisement