![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 24 to 48 of 53. Go back in thread:
Posted by trouble on February 19, 2002, at 8:57:03
In reply to Re: The very picture of evil » Anna Laura, posted by Dinah on February 18, 2002, at 18:25:19
> That was a terrible experience, Anna Laura. No one should be treated that way. And if I'm remembering correctly, it wasn't your only bad experience with mental health professionals?
> Therapists have such a unique position of power in relationship to clients. Not only do they have influence on us personally in a very unequal relationship, but they also have the ability to label us and influence the way others see us.
> Anyone with that kind of power should be held to a very high standard of ethics.Ok folks, here's another hot potato dagnabbit.
IMHO the whole "unequal power" dynamic btwn psychiatry and patients is another feminist myth promulgated for political purposes that serve no purpose but the propagandization of terminal female victimhood.
I am very conversant w/ the history of psychiatry and it is a horror story. But I am not going to let these women replace the doctor's boot on my neck w/ their own, and this unequal power thing is way too complicated to just accept that yep, that's what happens, you have to be on guard, it could happen to any one of us. No.
Listen my gramma had a lobotomy, I've seen my loved ones taken to the psych ward in handcuffs, I read WOMEN AND MADNESS I know what's out there. I could get hit by a bus by walking outside but I learned a long time ago to look before crossing the street.
This conversation is just beginning, isn't it?
I have to go be w/ an Alzheimer's patient now but when I get home I'll make a toast to civility and then pounce on my computer.
Take care,
trouble
Posted by Mark H. on February 19, 2002, at 10:04:02
In reply to Anyone with transferance/counter-tran experience?, posted by judy1 on February 16, 2002, at 10:52:46
Dear Friend,
First, my apologies for not having time this morning to read through all the replies already written.
Judy, I think we all fall into two broad categories: those of us who are willing to look at our transference/counter-transference issues, and those who are in denial that they exist.
I believe we create these situations because they are what we need to work on. If we have chosen our therapists wisely, then they hold the boundaries for us when ours dissolve and (for really skillful therapists) they test us to see if we will do the same.
When there's clarity and no dependence, then we graduate, at least until we're ready for more assistance. I think taking breaks from therapy is analogous to resting between physical workouts, and just as crucial to success.
The ideal state -- and we all achieve it at times -- is when we can be faced with inappropriate but powerful desire and opportunity, acknowledge and feel and even (verbally) express those primal urges and longings in a manner appropriate to the situation, and still maintain our values and impulse control in determining our behavior (including mental behavior as well as physical).
Without desire and the opportunity to consummate it, we are still speculating, making predictions based almost solely on intellect, which often is a set-up for self-betrayal. We know we are winning when we can say "no" without denying our feelings, and do it out of love and respect for ourselves as well as the other person.
I don't know if most therapists can handle this level of interaction -- professionally or personally. Yet regardless of technique and their own issues, I think a good therapist will lead us there to help us be strong on our own.
With respect,
Mark H.
Posted by judy1 on February 19, 2002, at 13:45:55
In reply to Re: Another book to recommend. Eventually., posted by trouble on February 19, 2002, at 8:25:33
> Thanks for the tip, do you mind telling me more about how you went about this? My pdoc and I have such a weird dynamic I'm at a loss as to how to
> approach him about my new hesitancy. thanks, trouble.Actually, I e-mailed him- I really do have problems face-to-face, a frown on his part and I'm convinced he wants me dead (and that's a slight exaggeration). If not e-mail, maybe a note or letter explaining your feelings, but saying you feel he understands your needs medically and you would like to continue to see him once a month? for that. I can't imagine him not agreeing to that scenario. He hasn't lost a patient then, just slowed things down until you feel ready to go forward. Wishing you the best of luck- judy
Posted by judy1 on February 19, 2002, at 14:02:30
In reply to Re: Anyone with transferance/counter-tran experience?, posted by Mark H. on February 19, 2002, at 10:04:02
Dear Mark,
Thank you for your beautifully written response. I feel I have found the right therapist(s)- I have a psychiatrist, male, who does meds and continues with therapy despite a female psychologist that I am now seeing. She has a lot of experience with self injury and dissociation which he lacked and admitted to. In a sense I think I have a re-parenting dyad happening here, which may be helpful for someone with my background. I am curious if you reached the state you described with your own therapist, or is it a journey you are still on? And how did you handle the inevitable breaks in the road, was it a joint effort or do you feel your therapist put more energy in fixing them (assuming you lacked the skills to do so- which I do)? Take care, judy
Posted by judy1 on February 19, 2002, at 14:06:19
In reply to Re: Anyone with transferance/counter-tran experience?, posted by judy1 on February 19, 2002, at 14:02:30
Posted by Mark H. on February 19, 2002, at 16:31:31
In reply to previous message was for Mark H (nm), posted by judy1 on February 19, 2002, at 14:06:19
Dear Judy,
Thank you for asking. Sue and I "graduated" from therapy with our principal therapist in 1984, at which time we became close friends and extended family with him and his wife (not close in the seeing one another often sense, but in the always including one another in family holiday get-togethers and occasional outings sense).
Sue and I continued with other therapies and paths of personal growth, but until about 1997, it never occured to us to see him professionally once again.
However, with my then-deepening four-year depression, we realized that it might help if we went back to the beginning, either separately for individual support, and/or together as a couple. So we tried both.
It was hard for all three of us to decide whether he should still be our therapist. Could he forget our friendship of almost two decades (Sue's relationship with him stretches back into the late 70s) long enough to still be effective as a psychotherapist? We agreed to give it a try.
At first, he wanted me in group as a co-trainer and co-therapist. This proved personally unsuccessful, in no small part because I rarely focused on my own issues while wearing that hat. However, by changing groups, I was also able to change roles and to drop any pretense of being there as a counselor, when I was definitely there for therapy!
Over time, the greatest challenge proved to be our fundamental difference in values. As practicing Vajrayana Buddhists, our world view is very different from that of humanistic psychology. At first, this worked to everyone's advantage by helping to clarify underlying assumptions about what outcomes would be useful.
I don't mean to be vague here, I'm just trying to avoid claiming one way is "right" and another "wrong." I don't think that was the case at all; rather, his style of psychotherapy is observably effective for many, many intelligent, strong and highly capable people. Nevertheless, the very sense of "self" is in complete conflict with my religion. At some point, one must choose one's path and stop dabbling in whatever comes along (well, I should add, or suffer/enjoy the consequences of dabbling -- again, it's not my place to judge this except for myself).
One of the excellent aspects was our ability to step in and out of our roles as therapist and therapand to discuss the dynamics between us -- what was working and what wasn't. We could be totally at odds during group, then afterwards debrief each other on the interaction and admit our mistakes and successes.
The terminal occurrence for me was a simple mistake on both of our parts. In his system of therapy, he believes that it is healthy and useful to express one's anger in a civil but clear and direct manner as soon as it arises. I resisted any such notion as absurd, but because I trust him based on knowing many of his successes, I decided to give it a try.
Within about 2 or 3 weeks of practicing the expression of "mild irritation" as he called it (in May 2000), I experienced completely uncontrollable inner rage, accompanied by almost constant images of death and dismemberment. I called my psychiatrist and told his receptionist I needed to see him right away.
Fortunately, Scott and others on this forum had much more experience with this sort of mixed hypomanic state than I did and they gave me great advice. It felt quite psychotic and very dangerous to me, but to primary bipolars what I experienced may have seemed relatively mild.
So I took Zyprexa for about a week to 10 days, and all was well. My psychiatrist told me something very interesting, and both my therapist and I learned an important lesson: you don't ask bipolars of any stripe to "express" their "mild irritations" or anger. What it does is kindle rage. The bipolar mind has no idea what "releasing anger by stating what's on your mind" means; it simply jumps from one level of anger to the next, until it is a mental and emotional firestorm that rages out of control.
As for your core question, have I achieved the state I speak of, the answer is that I have not achieved the stability with it that I would like. While my physical behavior is almost always appropriate, my thoughts and speech frequently are not. However, I've worked hard to clarify my values, and when those values are in conflict with my impulses, my values still win out.
I hope eventually that I no longer blurt out whatever is on my mind, and beyond that, I finally reach a point when I will no longer indulge negative or unhelpful thinking. The key word there is "indulge." Perhaps negative thoughts will always arise; the skill I seek is to be able to allow them to come and go without forming judgments about them, attachments or aversion.
I remember something that came to me when I was helping other people with their issues (before my severe depression). It is that the father's job is always to find his daughter completely attractive and to actively protect her from that attraction at the same time. It is our *duty* as healthy adults neither to deny nor to act on the impulses we have that would harm others.
To suppress and deny those impulses is to invite self-betrayal and loss of control (for instance, under the influence of alcohol or drugs), or even illnesses such as cancer that may arise from unresolved inner conflict (and what else is depression at that level?).
So many people's pain is based on the parent not honoring that duty -- either by criticizing the child's emerging sexuality as wrong or dirty (an active form of denial), or by exploiting it for criminally inappropriate personal satisfaction, or even both at the same time.
I hope there is a thread of continuity in these thoughts that you can follow. If not, please ask more questions.
Appreciatively,
Mark H.
Posted by judy1 on February 19, 2002, at 23:35:51
In reply to Re: previous message was for Mark H, posted by Mark H. on February 19, 2002, at 16:31:31
I was really interested in your experience of bipolar rage that you described (in 2000). My pdoc has referred to manic defenses more than once to me, I wonder if that is similar to what you were describing. I have never heard that term before, have you? My manic episodes are almost always euphoric, kind of a Robin Hood personality. My rages are directed inward, I would be terrified to try what your shrink suggested- and considering your experience probably never should. I am also curious about your feelings about your illness- do you think the biological aspect takes a back seat? Despite being dxed bp1, and having a family history I feel more and more that biology isn't primary in my case. As always, interested in your opinions (and extremely impressed with the amount of work you and your wife have done with your therapist)- judy
Posted by Anna Laura on February 20, 2002, at 2:27:40
In reply to Re: The very picture of evil, posted by trouble on February 19, 2002, at 8:34:51
> > My experience with abusive psychotherapists it's not about hysterical feminists or spoiled princesses, it's about real abuse:
> >
>
> Well sure, but your pdoc sounds crazy. I wasn't attacking your experience, sorry if you took it that way.
> Under number three below, in my opinion she was lying.
> By the way Frances Farmer is on my top ten lists of contemporary role models, her book WILL THERE REALLY BE A MORNING is a hoot, esp her glorious homophobia and the way she erefers to her psychotics episodes as a "smash-up".
> Take care.
> troubleHi trouble,
Sorry if i felt attacked: i must admit i'm quite touchy, it's one of my character's flaws.
Thank you for being so nice and sympathetic.
Posted by Anna Laura on February 20, 2002, at 2:42:35
In reply to Re: The very picture of evil » Anna Laura, posted by judy1 on February 18, 2002, at 18:15:56
> Dear Anna,
> I cried when I read your post, for you and me and others 'hurt' by the system. I, too, was threatened by hospitalization several times- actually once the pdoc threatened to have a conservator appointed (he could do this w/o my presence)- I spent the entire week-end hiding in my closet expecting the police to come. I had a shrink who crossed sexual boundaries- I'm still recovering from that one. My list goes on and on- restraints and meds and almost ECT against my will. That I can trust my shrink to any degree now is kind of a miracle, so I stay and I'll try to work with him. The Hazelton sp? has a patients bill of rights and you can make out a type of will to protect your rights, maybe someone has the address? I'm sorry for what you've had to go through- judy
Hi Judy
It's really amazing how you people care!
I was moved by your post.
I wish i had such friends here in my country.
It would make my life much easier!
Unfortunately i don't much about making out a will to protect your rights. It could be done, i guess (there's something similar in my country), but i'm not sure about that since i don't know much about american law.
I bumped in to that site by pure accident: thought it was interesting and sent the url on this board, that's it.
If i find out something about it i'll let you know.A big hug!
Wishing you the best
Anna Laura
Posted by Mark H. on February 20, 2002, at 2:50:44
In reply to you said I could ask more questions :-) » Mark H., posted by judy1 on February 19, 2002, at 23:35:51
Dear Judy,
I think that complex psychological explanations are generally useless, since they tend to change every decade or two and are supplanted by new theories of motivation and abberation based on intellectual speculation. Freud was merely the earliest really noteworthy example of this.
The arrogance of most of the literature of psychology is both horrifying and embarrassing. In the end, *concepts* themselves are meaningless and shallow, so why on earth do we strive so to take refuge in them?
If a concept such as "manic defenses" helps you to be well, then it has value. However, I've yet to meet anyone whose life was improved by knowing the name of his or her illness or so-called neurotic tendencies. I've known many people, however, whose suffering was increased by being saddled with a label that carried a negative connotation within the psychological community.
In practice, there is a certain "aha! gotcha!" quality to insider labels. If a psychologist has 45 minutes to stick you in a pidgeon-hole (so as not to experience the anxiety associated with uncertainty and the inherent mystery of being), he or she will "apply models" as quickly as possible.
Too often, these models are wielded like weapons -- as though they were "real" or had inherent meaning -- when in fact they have less basis in the history of healing than the reading of Tarot cards. Believe me, the old adage "to a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail" applies just as much to the practice of psychology. Depending on the modality in which one is trained, evidence of the relevance of that modality is found at every turn. Again, if it is useful, if people improve their lives with it, then fine. But how often is that the case?
The classic example is one of the saddest in our modern history. I have a dear friend whose practice was limited to "uncovering" events of childhood sexual abuse that in most cases never happened. There was a period in the early 90s when every other person I saw (male or female) who had some unnamed inner aching would ask me in all seriousness if I thought they had been "sexually abused" by one of their parents and suppressed the memory of it.
It was as though the collapse of the Soviet empire had left a gaping void in our collective unconscious that had to be filled with a "forgotten" boogey-man, whether it was abduction by aliens, ritual killing of babies by non-existent satanic cults, or long-suppressed memories of sexual victimization. One particularly notorious author claimed that childhood sexual abuse was so prevalent that denying it had happened was evidence that it had. Hmmm. Apparently logic wasn't part of the curriculum in her graduate program.
Accusations based on confabulated memories created by suggestive questioning under hypnosis led to actual lawsuits, criminal prosecutions and families being torn apart over "recovered" memories. Several states went so far as to change their statutes of limitation to allow "victims" to press charges during the period *beginning* with their "recovered" memories!
This widespread phenomenon not only created immeasurable suffering (while providing job security for participating psychologists), but also later tainted the cases of those who had actual, uninterrupted memories of corroborated childhood abuse. Very few psychologists were ever civilly sued or criminally prosecuted for these grave offenses, and some still defend this dark era of widespread hysteria as "real."
Today, the fad of universal child sexual abuse has fallen out of favor, as the sheer claim of numbers collapsed on itself. Yet we now live in a society where adults are understandably uncomfortable being alone with children for any reason, and where children have a dangerously exaggerated sense of the power and importance of their sexuality. Tomorrow's psychologists will surely profit handsomely from these children as they reach adulthood -- children untouched for fear of accidentally being touched "inappropriately."
During the height of the fad, a local doctor was prosecuted for sexual molestation. The incident? In front of numerous other adults (including the parents of the "victim") in the middle of a summer afternoon, he rode his own 4 year old daughter on one knee and her 4 year old friend on the other knee while mowing his front yard with a garden tractor.
Under questioning, the four year old friend was coerced into claiming the doctor had touched her genitals during the ride -- although every competent adult witness swore he never even took off his thick garden gloves and grabbed the kids only to keep them from falling off. The jury acquitted him in a matter of minutes, of course, and chastised the District Attorney's office for charging him in the first place, but just the fact that a local prosecutor chose to bring the case to trial is frightening and repulsive. Her conclusive statement to the media was, "Children don't lie." Huh?
In the late 40s, the Nobel Prize was given to the person who later developed the transorbital prefrontal lobotomy. At the height of his popularity, he could "do" more than a dozen patients a day by laying them out in a row and slipping a glorified icepick behind their eyeballs, popping it through the thin part of the skull and wiggling it around a bit, effectively scrambling their brains in a most uncontrolled and unscientific fashion. It only went out of favor when someone pointed out that among others he was "treating" adolescents whose only mental illness in some cases was "defying parental authority." Whoops! Sorry about that!
I fully accept the biomechanical models of single and bipolar depressive illnesses AS LONG AS they are considered within the larger context of our complete experiences as richly complex human beings. If our circumstances make us sick, and they can; if our reactions -- conscious and otherwise -- can harm us, and they do; if depression can increase our susceptibility to heart disease and cancer, and it does; then we must also consider the *possibility* that our minds are capable of miraculous healing as well.
We have created educational degrees, meaningful long-term relationships, homes, families, jobs -- why would we stop short of thinking we can choose to influence the levels of neurotransmitters in our own brains? Any model we investigate is only useful and applicable if it helps us towards greater wholeness and fulfillment as human beings. All others should be discarded. I believe beyond doubt that we do *not* have to understand our past to heal in the present. This belief is not particularly supportive of most models of psychotherapy with which I am familiar!
You certainly evoke passionate responses from me. I hope these ramblings are OK with you.
Best wishes,
Mark H.
Posted by trouble on February 20, 2002, at 4:17:13
In reply to Re: The very picture of evil... for Trouble, posted by Anna Laura on February 20, 2002, at 2:27:40
OK.
And I'm sorry for being such a show-off!
But here I go again-I don't know if you like reading this sort of thing but one harrowing true story I read was by a someone who's both a major feminist theoretician AND head case, which in my twisty value system makes her pure and noble. Kate Millet, The Looney Bin Trip, at all local libraries.
It really brought me down.
Enjoy! Write Back, trouble
Posted by Anna Laura on February 20, 2002, at 8:10:23
In reply to for Anna Laura, posted by trouble on February 20, 2002, at 4:17:13
> OK.
> And I'm sorry for being such a show-off!
> But here I go again-
>
> I don't know if you like reading this sort of thing but one harrowing true story I read was by a someone who's both a major feminist theoretician AND head case, which in my twisty value system makes her pure and noble. Kate Millet, The Looney Bin Trip, at all local libraries.
> It really brought me down.
> Enjoy! Write Back, trouble
Hi trouble
I think i've read a Kate Milett's pamphlet somewhere (don't remeber where or when actually) and i liked it.
A friend of mine who's a lesbian and teaches homosexual studies at the University of Padova handed me one of her books last summer but i didn't get to read it yet.
A little digression about feminism:
European feminism just sucks, i personally don't like much "women- are- more- sensitive" and all that goddam mother -earth -philosophy about our supposed nurturing nature. Well, as far as i am concerned i don't feel "nurturing" or "motherly" just because i have got a womb.
I think it's all crap.
Nonetheless, i believe that women still have a long way to come, the battle for their rights not being over yet.
I believe old-fashioned way of viewing women being fashionable again: it's rather subtle and looks different but is still alive. i.e. :some new scientific theories are full of prejudice (you know like women having different brains and sensitivity and that sort of things).
I personally don't like being a victim, i believe there other ways of expressing our disapproval and stand up for our rights beyond victim-hood and lack of self-criticism.
I'd like to talk a bit more about feminism
and gender issues but i feel rather impaired at the moment (effexor just kicked in) and my thinking it's muddy: this is so frustrating 'cause i'd really like to exchange opinions and point of views, but i just can't focus.
Moreover, i'm supposed to attend College lessons (came back to college) and i just can't concentrate: i feel like i'm retarded.
aarrgghh....
Posted by Anna Laura on February 20, 2002, at 9:07:52
In reply to Re: Anyone with transferance/counter-tran experience?, posted by Mark H. on February 19, 2002, at 10:04:02
> Dear Friend,
>
> First, my apologies for not having time this morning to read through all the replies already written.
>
> Judy, I think we all fall into two broad categories: those of us who are willing to look at our transference/counter-transference issues, and those who are in denial that they exist.
>
> I believe we create these situations because they are what we need to work on. If we have chosen our therapists wisely, then they hold the boundaries for us when ours dissolve and (for really skillful therapists) they test us to see if we will do the same.
>
> When there's clarity and no dependence, then we graduate, at least until we're ready for more assistance. I think taking breaks from therapy is analogous to resting between physical workouts, and just as crucial to success.
>
> The ideal state -- and we all achieve it at times -- is when we can be faced with inappropriate but powerful desire and opportunity, acknowledge and feel and even (verbally) express those primal urges and longings in a manner appropriate to the situation, and still maintain our values and impulse control in determining our behavior (including mental behavior as well as physical).
>
> Without desire and the opportunity to consummate it, we are still speculating, making predictions based almost solely on intellect, which often is a set-up for self-betrayal. We know we are winning when we can say "no" without denying our feelings, and do it out of love and respect for ourselves as well as the other person.
>
> I don't know if most therapists can handle this level of interaction -- professionally or personally. Yet regardless of technique and their own issues, I think a good therapist will lead us there to help us be strong on our own.
>
> With respect,
>
> Mark H.
Hi Mark
I just wanted to say i eventually met a good therapist years ago. I think he helped me a great deal and i still feel grateful. Nonetheless, i believe life could be a "setting" also,(as well as mail exchanging and relationships in general: consider Freud-Fliess correspondence: that was a therapeutic setting to me). I think it's Mertzel who said therapeutic setting is the "ideal" setting (not the only one) cause there are no disturbances and interferences (the movies metaphor ). Mertzel said that being in therapy it's just like being at the movies: the ambient being dark and silent you can clearly distinguish all the undergoing "projections" and processes.
Well, life it's much more "disturbed" (more noises and blurred visions in the background) but you still can distinguish and pinpoint "projections" and dynamics if you're trained enough. You don't necessarely need a therapist for that.
As a matter of fact, you don't necessarely need psychological theories in order to grow or mature. They can even be harmful at times, as you might end up endlessly ruminating and wasting your time.I'm aware it could sound just like a blasphemy for orthodox therapy's advocates, but
therapy it's not the only way to mature, grow or "graduate".
It's o.k. about being aware of our vulnerability and "dependance" : but i believe that putting too much emphasis on this issue could be counterproductive, like always seeking therapist's approval and advice, being basically unaware of that.
Being independent from the therapist doesn't necessarily mean not missing him or feeling comfortable without him: it's pretty much thinking with our own heads, not relying upon psychological or pseudo-scientific back-ups.
I notice that many people who have been in therapy and had a satisfactory therapeutic relationship (me included) tend to "introject" therapist personality's traits and views.
Partly it's an healthy process (you know like introjecting motherly and fatherly figures in order to build your own unique identity) but it's partly unhealthy also cause it could jeopardize your further growth in the long run.
It's like being "frozen", fixed to a certain stage of development and never moving away from that spot. It's like being insecure without the guiding star of psychological/psychoanalitic theories.
The paradox it's: the more you grow independent the more you "regress".
I'd really like to talk much more about that cause i believe it's a challenging and interesting issue, but, as i already said in my previous post to Trouble, my thinking is muddy right now. I just can't go any further, i get stuck somehow, (it's really frustrating cause i really wanted to join this debate).
I'd like to talk about James Hillman also (do anybody of you know him?).
Well, hope to hear from you soon.Best regards
Anna Laura
Posted by kiddo on February 20, 2002, at 10:43:30
In reply to Re: you said I could ask more questions :-), posted by Mark H. on February 20, 2002, at 2:50:44
WOW-
Sorry if I'm interrupting, but I had to respond.
Mark-You seem (the way I took your reply and please correct me if I'm wrong) to believe that recovered memories are false-do you believe that in all cases? What do you actually *mean* when you say 'recovered memories'?
Can you explain what you meant when you referred to inside labels?
***Quote***In practice, there is a certain "aha! gotcha!" quality to insider labels. If a psychologist has 45 minutes to stick you in a pidgeon-hole (so as not to experience the anxiety associated with uncertainty and the inherent mystery of being), he or she will "apply models" as quickly as possible.
***End Quote***
Dang-there's so many things I want to ask/refer to in this post, but I just don't have the time right now...May I inquire later?Thanks-
Kiddo
Posted by Mark H. on February 20, 2002, at 18:17:45
In reply to To Everybody: Blasphemous thoughts, posted by Anna Laura on February 20, 2002, at 9:07:52
Anna Laura
I'm astonished at how close your thinking is to mine. For years, I felt I had some modest insight into others' process, but the spiritual causes of my own depression remained completely opaque and impenetrable to me.
In the end, I concluded that I needed those years of depression literally to "un-learn" -- to wipe out -- all the various theories, ideas, psychological models, metaphysical models and borrowed structures from other disciplines that had shaped my world view into something far too small and intellectual to be real.
I fully embrace your conclusions, but I refuse to read Hillman or any more theorists! :-) Sorry.
Any reasonably educated person can write complex, grammatically correct theories, and extrapolate psychological insights from mythology, literature, archetype and ancient religions. So what. The most brilliant and transcendent teachers write with a clarity and simplicity that can be understood by children.
As an overly thin, physically and socially inept young man I tended to over-prize and over-identify with my intellect -- I thought that was all I had. Of course my nights were filled with the pain of alienation and a deep inner sense of personal defectiveness. I imagined myself morally superior to those who were handsome and popular, but in fact I was just substituting brains for looks while indulging in the same self-absorption.
Although I still find smart people attractive and interesting, I've come to see intellectual pursuits as fundamentally shallow and trivial for the most part, too often lacking in compassion and good motivation.
I completely agree that our lives are our therapy. It is good to avail ourselves of the help of others -- as long as it actually helps. Thank you for your brilliant and insightful response.
With kind regards,
Mark H.
Posted by Mark H. on February 20, 2002, at 19:43:43
In reply to Re: you said I could ask more questions :-) » Mark H., posted by kiddo on February 20, 2002, at 10:43:30
Dear Kiddo,
To cover all my bases, I would have had to write a dozen pages of background and disclaimers before making my point. :-) As it was, I knew I might risk offending some by saying too little. I appreciate your kind and inquisitive tone.
Some so-called "recovered memories" are false. Some are accurate. All have psychological validity to the person who experiences them, but should those memories be considered reliable enough to serve as the basis for punishing others in the absence of corroborating evidence?
Studies show that our memories confabulate past experiences easily and readily (and universally -- we all do it). When hypnosis (or relaxation techniques, or guided imagery) is used to evoke "hidden" memories, the objective reliability of those memories falls even further. When the therapist has a clear expectation of finding a certain type of "hidden" memory, the likelihood of subtly leading the client to confabulate those memories increases (i.e., to meet the therapist's expectations and/or to find a plausible reason for one's mental or emotional suffering). In many, many cases -- without either party knowing it -- therapists convinced clients of the existence of events that never happened.
With repeated sessions, the details were filled in until the client had a vivid but false "memory" of instances of horrendous abuse. This sad ruse would be damaging enough by itself, but many therapists believed that the patient should then take legal action against his or her "remembered" victimizers both for "justice" and to provide "closure."
No one really questioned the earliest cases -- because sexual crimes were often denied in the past, therapists tended to compensate by believing anyone's statement of sexual victimization. The McMartin preschool prosecutions were among the most horrific early examples of this dilemma.
It wasn't until cases started going over the top and investigators found much of the "testimony" to be patently false that some therapists began to be concerned that their industry was not so much uncovering as *creating* the phenomenon. However, those practicing in this "new field" had much invested in not even looking at that possibility.
At the same time, the problem of "recovered memories" (when false) had the effect of trivializing the very real and devastating experiences of that much smaller percentage of men and women who really were sexually victimized as children. In both cases, this odd burst of national hysteria harmed the innocent.
By "inside labels in psychology," I refer to any term that is either not immediately and readily understandable to an intelligent, educated person to whom it is applied, or that has no positive value to that person.
I know wonderful, caring, compassionate and articulate people on this board who have been quite discouraged by being told they have "borderline personality disorder" or "a potential latent schizo-affective disorder" or some such nonsense. They come here to ask, "What does this mean?" Worse, when they seek a second opinion from another practitioner, as often as not they receive a different label from the DSM IV or from the jargon of the practitioner's modality.
Did you read the note from Judy1 about her doctor saying she had "manic defenses"? I hardly know a finer person, more sensitive, intelligent, aware, and conscientiously working on herself while helping and supporting others here as well. I had to look it up. It's a simplistic theory that suggests some of us try to get out of our depression by running around madly. Well, duh! Exactly how does that help? For one thing, this "theory" had to be thought up by someone who never experienced mania.
Did you know I have "idiopathic hypersomnia"? Thank heavens for this brilliant diagnosis! I thought I was just overly sleepy without any obvious explanation.
Personality types and DSM IV classifications can be fun and interesting, but slapped on patients like a brand of personal defectiveness, they can also do great unnecessary harm.
I really think Anna Laura said it much more clearly than I can.
Thank you for asking for clarification.
With kind regards,
Mark H.
Posted by Mark H. on February 20, 2002, at 20:23:36
In reply to Re: you said I could ask more questions :-) » kiddo, posted by Mark H. on February 20, 2002, at 19:43:43
Posted by kiddo on February 20, 2002, at 22:22:18
In reply to Re: you said I could ask more questions :-) » kiddo, posted by Mark H. on February 20, 2002, at 19:43:43
Thank you so much for responding in the manner you did, either you type really fast or spent a considerable amount of time on it. :-)
For the record, I was neither angry nor upset, I truly wanted to know..the first question my pdoc asked was if I'd always had memories (been considerably naive, I thought he just didn't believe me) I understood a lot better later.
I just got home from practice exhausted because of it. I'll write more tommorw, but I wanted to respond.
Did I understand correctly that you are a therapist?
Kiddo
Posted by judy1 on February 21, 2002, at 10:54:34
In reply to Re: you said I could ask more questions :-), posted by kiddo on February 20, 2002, at 22:22:18
Thank you all for the wonderful insights, I've gained something from each post. I noticed while I was straightening up (at 2am after Gabrielle went down) that I have a huge (maybe over 70 tomes) collection of psych books. That's not even remotely close to my ex- field (research scientist) and just shows how obsessed I've gotten with my illness over the last 3+ years. Which just so happens to coincide with the length of time I've sought psychiatric help and been on 'prescribed' meds versus the street-bought kind. I've asked my therapist if I seem to have gotten worse- he claims no. Both are trying to create a feeling of safety for me- unfortunately I don't feel particularly safe. Which is depressing considering that's the first step and I continue to be stuck there. I agree with Mark that there is no reason to delve into the past, it hurts too much but unfortunately it rears it's ugly head with flashbacks and dissociative spells and self injury. I think I am rambling and perhaps have gotten off subject; maybe instead of asking about transference-counter transference and ego objects, etc. I should just ask can you help me?- judy
Posted by Mark H. on February 21, 2002, at 14:19:30
In reply to Re: you said I could ask more questions :-), posted by kiddo on February 20, 2002, at 22:22:18
Kiddo,
No, I'm not a therapist. My mother is a retired psychologist, I've had about 10 years of therapy with 3 wonderfully skilled therapists, and I offered a form of short-term counseling or advising for about seven years after taking classes for many years. However, I have no license, no certification, and no official qualifications whatsoever. I'm just old!
Mark H.
Posted by Willow on February 21, 2002, at 18:46:02
In reply to Well I'm off to see the Wizard uh shrink..., posted by judy1 on February 21, 2002, at 10:54:34
Judy
Past is another four letter word! Just had a conversation with a good friend about this. My pysch is approaching events from it, slowly asking questions that I don't want to think of. Friends logic is that the more you talk about the less frequent the negative aspects show up in our present lives.
Well I talked a lot when it first happened. Most people don't want to hear about such things. And then there's the question at how long do we have to keep opening up the stinky garbage to revisit the demons?
Sorry if this doesn't help any. It just was along the same lines of one of my conversations today.
Whispering Willow
Posted by judy1 on February 21, 2002, at 19:29:50
In reply to The Past! » judy1, posted by Willow on February 21, 2002, at 18:46:02
Actually it does help. Am I correct in assuming you have already spoken about 'your demons' numerous times? If so, what does your therp hope to accomplish by having you repeat them- is it the theory that constant repeating causes it to lose any power over you? I am no where near this- my shrink actually said today he is fearful of saying the wrong thing to me. I'm still at the maintaining safety stage, then coping skills, etc. When the past is brought up and I am triggered I promptly dissociate and cut- I've had to be sedated in offices, that's how bad it gets. So we stay away until I learn skills to safely approach. Thanks for your input- judy
Posted by Willow on February 21, 2002, at 20:27:45
In reply to Re: The Past! » Willow, posted by judy1 on February 21, 2002, at 19:29:50
I've just discussed it with my close friend and hubby (way back in the beginning.) The pysch tries to bring the conversation around but for me it is more comfortable to stay away. When I do discuss it my palms sweat, I start to literally squirm. Strange the same reaction even when logically we know no harm can come to us.
With baby steps Judy, I'm sure you'll be able to reach your goal. The previous post was the thinkings of my buddy, not the psych. It sounded good to me. : ^)
Whispering Willow
Posted by Zo on February 22, 2002, at 1:19:01
In reply to Re: Kate Millet and other stuff, posted by Anna Laura on February 20, 2002, at 8:10:23
Oh you girls. Aren't you lucky Kate Millet and I paved the way.
The politics still suck. And that's why there's any question at all about transference-countertransference.
And when they don't suck anymore---and they suck a *whole* lot less than they used to, before we made men change the diapers (eww, baby poo? me?) -- people, women, will be able to answer such questions within themselves and not worry so goddamn much about whether their shrink is playing mindgames.
IMHO.
(lol)
Zo
Posted by judy1 on February 22, 2002, at 12:12:18
In reply to Re: The Past!, posted by Willow on February 21, 2002, at 20:27:45
When I do discuss it my palms sweat, I start to literally squirm. Strange the same reaction even when logically we know no harm can come to us.
It is strange, isn't it? I think part of it is that there are actual physical changes in our brain with PTSD. Do you remember the post I wrote about how my left hypocampus sp? has actually decreased in size? Some very powerful responses... Take care, judy
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.