analyze that
Jan. 29th, 2009 11:00 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
theladyroseWritten in response to this post by Dr. Robert Firestone on the decline of psychoanalysis and depth therapy, because I have quite a few critical issues with psychoanalysis and don't see enough debate questioning the validity of psychoanalysis.
I know that Psychology Today is pop lit and isn't exactly the most legitimate source around, but I feel that it's important to address some of the perspectives on the blogs because the truth is that there are quite a few who actually believe the crud written on the site. Not that I'm a clinical psychologist or even an expert in the filed by any means, but sometimes you need someone providing sensible comments.
I found this post an interesting take on the decline of psychoanalysis, but there are some other factors not discussed here that should be considered as well.
Yes, mental health problems are still a huge problem today. I don't deny that abuse to people of all ages is problematic and still far too frequent today (although I find it interesting that no one on this site, as far as I know, has blogged about elder abuse or focused the mental health issues of older adults). I have difficulty locating verifiable statistics documenting longitudinal data about child abuse, so I don't know if these rates have declined over time. My understanding that drug use and violence in today's generation of adolescents has become an overblown media epidemic than an actual one; it is easier and more publically acceptable to identify juvenile offenders, drug users and other teens engaging in various degrees of antisocial behavior. Let's be honest - there's much more research money going to academic investigations of these problems these days.
A stronger argument about macro-level dysfunctional relationship skills would focus on 21st century adolescents' sexual behavior. Teen pregnancy and unprotected sex strike me as a greater public concern, considering how high these rates are in the US compared to other postindustrial nations. This burgeoning epidemic requires more effective education and outreach efforts as the current approach clearly isn't working. But I digress.
This post seems to imply that psychoanalysis and depth therapy are the best therapies for addressing family and interpersonal dynamics when there are numerous other therapies more commonly practiced now that have extensive empirical support.
Psychoanalysis hasn't received so much empirical support because traditional Freudian psychoanalytic theory can't be empirically tested (Stanovich, 2007). Anything contradicting psychoanalytical interpretation tends to be dismissed as a defense mechanism or denial by dogmatic psychoanalysts; psychoanalytical theory has an explanation for everything and thus can never be refuted, making it impossible to be scientifically tested.
One could also argue that no therapy has been consistently found to be more than another, so more research should be done to examine what aspects of the therapeutic encounter, shared across therapies, provide the best outcomes.
My impression from the literature was that the strength of the therapeutic alliance was one of the most important predictors of psychotherapy's effectiveness. Allowing the therapist and the individual co-construct a shared understanding of the problem and treatment is the best way of ensuring that healthy change sticks. The individual needs to feel actively involved in his/her treatment. The traditionally paternalistic approach of psychoanalysis where the therapist formulates the "true" interpretations of the individual's unconscious conflict generally doesn't include suggestions as to how the individual can implement practical steps to sustain a healthier mindset and lifestyle. The therapist's insight is supposed to magically result in the individual knowing how to make healthy choices.
In contrast, ecological therapies such as multisystemic therapy involves multiple supports embedded in the individual's world to facilitate healthy change. Certain types of psychotherapy are more amenable to making both parties active agents in the therapeutic context; cognitive behavioral therapy and its variants require the individual to practice more adaptive ways of thinking and acting. These therapies are generally the ones designated as evidence based treatments.
The decline of psychoanalysis is attributable to the increasing need to practice psychotherapies with sufficient empirical support that truly empower individuals to actively incorporate lasting therapeutic change.
I should disclose that I am an undergraduate studying psychology at a Western university espousing systems and cognitive behavioral models, and that the first psychology class I ever took was a radical behaviorism seminar. I also have also taken a number of occupational therapy classes, which emphasize the importance of individuals as full participants in therapy. The perspectives I've learned about and discussed in my classes have strongly influenced my views as an aspiring psychologist.
Stanovich, K. (2007). How to think straight about psychology (pp. 22-24). Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Pearson Education, Inc.
I know that Psychology Today is pop lit and isn't exactly the most legitimate source around, but I feel that it's important to address some of the perspectives on the blogs because the truth is that there are quite a few who actually believe the crud written on the site. Not that I'm a clinical psychologist or even an expert in the filed by any means, but sometimes you need someone providing sensible comments.
I found this post an interesting take on the decline of psychoanalysis, but there are some other factors not discussed here that should be considered as well.
Yes, mental health problems are still a huge problem today. I don't deny that abuse to people of all ages is problematic and still far too frequent today (although I find it interesting that no one on this site, as far as I know, has blogged about elder abuse or focused the mental health issues of older adults). I have difficulty locating verifiable statistics documenting longitudinal data about child abuse, so I don't know if these rates have declined over time. My understanding that drug use and violence in today's generation of adolescents has become an overblown media epidemic than an actual one; it is easier and more publically acceptable to identify juvenile offenders, drug users and other teens engaging in various degrees of antisocial behavior. Let's be honest - there's much more research money going to academic investigations of these problems these days.
A stronger argument about macro-level dysfunctional relationship skills would focus on 21st century adolescents' sexual behavior. Teen pregnancy and unprotected sex strike me as a greater public concern, considering how high these rates are in the US compared to other postindustrial nations. This burgeoning epidemic requires more effective education and outreach efforts as the current approach clearly isn't working. But I digress.
This post seems to imply that psychoanalysis and depth therapy are the best therapies for addressing family and interpersonal dynamics when there are numerous other therapies more commonly practiced now that have extensive empirical support.
Psychoanalysis hasn't received so much empirical support because traditional Freudian psychoanalytic theory can't be empirically tested (Stanovich, 2007). Anything contradicting psychoanalytical interpretation tends to be dismissed as a defense mechanism or denial by dogmatic psychoanalysts; psychoanalytical theory has an explanation for everything and thus can never be refuted, making it impossible to be scientifically tested.
One could also argue that no therapy has been consistently found to be more than another, so more research should be done to examine what aspects of the therapeutic encounter, shared across therapies, provide the best outcomes.
My impression from the literature was that the strength of the therapeutic alliance was one of the most important predictors of psychotherapy's effectiveness. Allowing the therapist and the individual co-construct a shared understanding of the problem and treatment is the best way of ensuring that healthy change sticks. The individual needs to feel actively involved in his/her treatment. The traditionally paternalistic approach of psychoanalysis where the therapist formulates the "true" interpretations of the individual's unconscious conflict generally doesn't include suggestions as to how the individual can implement practical steps to sustain a healthier mindset and lifestyle. The therapist's insight is supposed to magically result in the individual knowing how to make healthy choices.
In contrast, ecological therapies such as multisystemic therapy involves multiple supports embedded in the individual's world to facilitate healthy change. Certain types of psychotherapy are more amenable to making both parties active agents in the therapeutic context; cognitive behavioral therapy and its variants require the individual to practice more adaptive ways of thinking and acting. These therapies are generally the ones designated as evidence based treatments.
The decline of psychoanalysis is attributable to the increasing need to practice psychotherapies with sufficient empirical support that truly empower individuals to actively incorporate lasting therapeutic change.
I should disclose that I am an undergraduate studying psychology at a Western university espousing systems and cognitive behavioral models, and that the first psychology class I ever took was a radical behaviorism seminar. I also have also taken a number of occupational therapy classes, which emphasize the importance of individuals as full participants in therapy. The perspectives I've learned about and discussed in my classes have strongly influenced my views as an aspiring psychologist.
Stanovich, K. (2007). How to think straight about psychology (pp. 22-24). Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Pearson Education, Inc.
