Posted by jane d on June 20, 2009, at 12:23:40
In reply to On second thought..., posted by Amelia_in_StPaul on June 19, 2009, at 13:35:46
Amelia,
You could be right that we need a second board. I suspect that some schools of therapy are as incompatible with each other as the extremes of the meds/anti meds positions.
Or it could be that the psychology board ended up the way it is by default. It's possible that if you start clearly labeled threads you'll find others are interested. Not everybody reads every post. For example the boundaries stuff in your post in this thread is very interesting. Why not repost it on Psychology with a clear subject line - something like "Boundaries in DBT vs psychodynamic". (I actually thought of just starting that thread myself with your quotes but that didn't seem quite fair)
I think I also saw something you posted about attachment theory buried in another thread that could be the start of it's own subject. This might grab the attention of people who, for whatever reason, didn't read that particular thread.
Who knows. It might end up changing the tone of the existing board.
jane,
who while sometimes morbidly fascinated by the psych board isn't really comfortable there either.>
> The problem then is that you can bring up a concept with others, but the concept will mean something very different, or it will mean nothing at all. For instance, boundaries. Boundaries are very, very important to DBT--declaring your boundaries and making sure you understand what they are. Boundaries are ESPECIALLY important between T and client.
>
> With psychodynamic therapy, there is more fluidity, in part because of some of the core concepts like transference: "Passionately held contradictory positions espoused by senior clinicians make formulating psychodynamic boundary interventions a conceptual and clinical minefield for therapists.1214,1618 Clinicians who deviate from traditional practice risk censure from those who consider they have entered a danger zone of boundary fluidity. Other theorists dismiss traditional interventions as exclusively limit-setting techniques that diminish mutuality and empathic dialogue.1922 An integrated approach, one that honors traditional parameters and yet encourages an openness to creative, uncharted outcomes within ethical frames, is hard to find." http://jppr.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/8/4/292
>
poster:jane d
thread:901644
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20090529/msgs/902262.html