How you 'attach' to people may explain a lot about your inner life(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
How you 'attach' to people may explain a lot about your inner life
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/jan/10/psychotherapy-childhood-mental-health
210 comments
> Which led me to realising that my intellect and conscious part of my mind is probably only in control of 20%-30% of me. That I'm not a fully logically creature and that I needed to come to peace with my body's needs and messages from my less conscious mind and work together as an integrated whole, rather than trying to force my will based on pure 'rational' thought.
I've had a similar realization. I think we vastly underestimate how good our subconscious/automatic parts of our brain are. Every healthy person can run up a flight of stairs without looking where the steps are and analyzing the position of each step. Many sports involve the forming of reflexes that let your brain analyze where an object is and respond to it without even thinking about it. There's A LOT going on in terms of calculation and response. We call that a skill and once mastered, it seems effortless.
So now, as a rational person, I value the conscious part of the brain not as much for its ability to be logical (though I still cherish that as a developer) but as a an agent of improvement, a programmer for the subconscious part of the brain. And the more I can offload and delegate to the subconscious, the more new and fun things I can take on with my slow but rational consciousness.
Of course, there needs to be a feedback loop, to prevent the subconscious from drifting into self-delusion or a general asshole but for that, empathy and the Golden Rule have served me quite well.
This is all very new to me and I'm probably not explaining things very well. But I had the epiphany on this watching squirrels in slow motion do insane calculations when tossed into the air, locking their heads on a target and twisting their bodies to land precisely on their target.
I've had a similar realization. I think we vastly underestimate how good our subconscious/automatic parts of our brain are. Every healthy person can run up a flight of stairs without looking where the steps are and analyzing the position of each step. Many sports involve the forming of reflexes that let your brain analyze where an object is and respond to it without even thinking about it. There's A LOT going on in terms of calculation and response. We call that a skill and once mastered, it seems effortless.
So now, as a rational person, I value the conscious part of the brain not as much for its ability to be logical (though I still cherish that as a developer) but as a an agent of improvement, a programmer for the subconscious part of the brain. And the more I can offload and delegate to the subconscious, the more new and fun things I can take on with my slow but rational consciousness.
Of course, there needs to be a feedback loop, to prevent the subconscious from drifting into self-delusion or a general asshole but for that, empathy and the Golden Rule have served me quite well.
This is all very new to me and I'm probably not explaining things very well. But I had the epiphany on this watching squirrels in slow motion do insane calculations when tossed into the air, locking their heads on a target and twisting their bodies to land precisely on their target.
It’s a good epiphany to have - you can offload pretty much anything to your subconscious mind, and call it intuition. Everything can be like playing the piano or riding a bicycle, and utterly automatic. It saves a vast amount of conscious cognitive effort, which can be spent on novelty instead, feeding the underlying machine new patterns, new quanta of information.
It’s like diagnosing sick systems - I don’t think about it, at all - I just look, listen, observe, take in the landscape and the music of the machine, and then point at the problem. Software, mechanical systems, networks, any domain where I have enough knowledge to know what I’m looking at, the pattern recognition system can handle the rest. It makes people think that I have expertise in many domains, but really, I’m just a one-trick system-grokking pony.
The structure and function of the animal brain is remarkable. Only a few weeks ago, I was noting the habits of a hornet, which tended to pass by the same point at the same time each day, and marvelled that such a tiny handful of neurons could manage not only flight and navigation of 3d space, but a routine, habits, behaviour. What the many orders of magnitude more grey matter we have might be capable of beggars belief. There’s the old bullshit adage that you only use 1% of your brain, but there’s perhaps truth to the idea that most people horribly underutilise the power of their minds, because they have been trained to think, not to intuit.
It’s like diagnosing sick systems - I don’t think about it, at all - I just look, listen, observe, take in the landscape and the music of the machine, and then point at the problem. Software, mechanical systems, networks, any domain where I have enough knowledge to know what I’m looking at, the pattern recognition system can handle the rest. It makes people think that I have expertise in many domains, but really, I’m just a one-trick system-grokking pony.
The structure and function of the animal brain is remarkable. Only a few weeks ago, I was noting the habits of a hornet, which tended to pass by the same point at the same time each day, and marvelled that such a tiny handful of neurons could manage not only flight and navigation of 3d space, but a routine, habits, behaviour. What the many orders of magnitude more grey matter we have might be capable of beggars belief. There’s the old bullshit adage that you only use 1% of your brain, but there’s perhaps truth to the idea that most people horribly underutilise the power of their minds, because they have been trained to think, not to intuit.
I watched that same YouTube video a few weeks ago, quite an elaborate way to try and get squirrels to stop stealing bird feed.
Hi Adam. I just created this account because your experience mirrors mine - in that i too have been dealing with Post Exertional Malaise for years - and the connection you just made to "negative self talk and ignorance" is extremely interesting to me.
PEM is a rather obscure syndrome which no doctor i have met really understands, also i like you don't really have most of the "other CFS symptoms".
Basically it's an incredibly debilitating post "exertion effect" that means that every time you try to "better yourself", workout, get work done, etc. you end up crashing hard instead of feeling like "yeah i made it, now i can relax!" - you instead feel both mentally and physically like you are on the brink of death, often for days for no reason - it feels so incredibly "unfair". You could have just been promoted, got a raise, finished a marathon, doesn't matter, you feel like you are crashing from a drug bender.
Until now i have been thinking that it's either some cell level or genetic deficiency, OR that it's actually a form of burnout, ie. the way "out of the PEM prison" is through total relaxation, weaning of coffee, stopping hard workouts etc - but i have "often" tried this to little effect - what i haven't tried though is going to therapy for a "longer stretch" and your post just made me realise something: "Maybe i too am too hard on myself" - why this form of neurosis would lead to Post Exertional Mailaise i don't really know, but damn i am so happy to have found someone who's had experienced the same thing.
Anyways - i just wan't to say thank you so much for writing this, and if you or anyone else have any leads to books, forums or podcasts about this issue, i would be so happy.
PEM is a rather obscure syndrome which no doctor i have met really understands, also i like you don't really have most of the "other CFS symptoms".
Basically it's an incredibly debilitating post "exertion effect" that means that every time you try to "better yourself", workout, get work done, etc. you end up crashing hard instead of feeling like "yeah i made it, now i can relax!" - you instead feel both mentally and physically like you are on the brink of death, often for days for no reason - it feels so incredibly "unfair". You could have just been promoted, got a raise, finished a marathon, doesn't matter, you feel like you are crashing from a drug bender.
Until now i have been thinking that it's either some cell level or genetic deficiency, OR that it's actually a form of burnout, ie. the way "out of the PEM prison" is through total relaxation, weaning of coffee, stopping hard workouts etc - but i have "often" tried this to little effect - what i haven't tried though is going to therapy for a "longer stretch" and your post just made me realise something: "Maybe i too am too hard on myself" - why this form of neurosis would lead to Post Exertional Mailaise i don't really know, but damn i am so happy to have found someone who's had experienced the same thing.
Anyways - i just wan't to say thank you so much for writing this, and if you or anyone else have any leads to books, forums or podcasts about this issue, i would be so happy.
People like you are the reason I posted my story. If I can even help a small number of people to not endure the same pains, that would make me incredibly happy.
The therapy is the last item in a very very long list of desperate things I've tried to cure PEM (metabolic typing, accupuncture, genetic testing, methylation, nutrition, crazy diets, and so much more).
What was the cause cause of my PEM? Negative emotions alone, wasn't the direct cause. But the supression of those negative emotions. In general terms: supressed, charged emotions directed at myself caused my PEM. Or in HN terms: constant low-level burnout.
Because it takes a lot of energy to hide those feelings from myself. A constant battle that I was generally unaware of that was happening at a deep level. I would deny the feelings of my body. I first had to build the support inside myself, with help of a therapist, before I could truly start to listen to the supressed emotions without being overwhelmed.
This was the beginning of the end for my PEM.
The book I would recommend would be: The Body Keeps the Score by Bessel van der Kolk M.D, which helped me a lot on the journey to recovery.
I've found forums to be generally very unhelpful. Something I wrote down a while back which I hope explains why I don't think they are a good place to resolve problems:
---
The unreasonable ineffectiveness of communities in solving a single problem.
One person has a problem, if problem persists for any length of time, the more likely others will be experiencing that problem at the same time.
If there are enough people with that problem, a community will form around solving it. If the community is ineffective in solving that problem, then the community will grow and begin to sustain itself as new members join with that problem and the existing members continue to work on solving that problem.
For the community to survive, the problem must not be solved or the solution has to be close to unobtainable. Ineffective solutions will be devised to solve the problem. The complexity or discipline involved in solving the problem will exceed the ability of the individuals to implement it. The blame of solving the problem will lay in not in the community itself, but the individual not being able to implement the solution. An example of this may be a nearly impossible diet, regime or routine.
If an effective solution is found to the problem. There are two possible outcomes: either the community will dissipate and active membership dwindles or it will protect itself from the existential threat and block the ideas. This is especially true if the identities or financials of individuals in the community rely upon the problem existing.
Therefore, no community that sustains itself will form around the right solution. It is unsustainable. The communities with the most active members are also the most popular, propogating the problem.
---
Please do let me know how you get on, I wish you the best.
The therapy is the last item in a very very long list of desperate things I've tried to cure PEM (metabolic typing, accupuncture, genetic testing, methylation, nutrition, crazy diets, and so much more).
What was the cause cause of my PEM? Negative emotions alone, wasn't the direct cause. But the supression of those negative emotions. In general terms: supressed, charged emotions directed at myself caused my PEM. Or in HN terms: constant low-level burnout.
Because it takes a lot of energy to hide those feelings from myself. A constant battle that I was generally unaware of that was happening at a deep level. I would deny the feelings of my body. I first had to build the support inside myself, with help of a therapist, before I could truly start to listen to the supressed emotions without being overwhelmed.
This was the beginning of the end for my PEM.
The book I would recommend would be: The Body Keeps the Score by Bessel van der Kolk M.D, which helped me a lot on the journey to recovery.
I've found forums to be generally very unhelpful. Something I wrote down a while back which I hope explains why I don't think they are a good place to resolve problems:
---
The unreasonable ineffectiveness of communities in solving a single problem.
One person has a problem, if problem persists for any length of time, the more likely others will be experiencing that problem at the same time.
If there are enough people with that problem, a community will form around solving it. If the community is ineffective in solving that problem, then the community will grow and begin to sustain itself as new members join with that problem and the existing members continue to work on solving that problem.
For the community to survive, the problem must not be solved or the solution has to be close to unobtainable. Ineffective solutions will be devised to solve the problem. The complexity or discipline involved in solving the problem will exceed the ability of the individuals to implement it. The blame of solving the problem will lay in not in the community itself, but the individual not being able to implement the solution. An example of this may be a nearly impossible diet, regime or routine.
If an effective solution is found to the problem. There are two possible outcomes: either the community will dissipate and active membership dwindles or it will protect itself from the existential threat and block the ideas. This is especially true if the identities or financials of individuals in the community rely upon the problem existing.
Therefore, no community that sustains itself will form around the right solution. It is unsustainable. The communities with the most active members are also the most popular, propogating the problem.
---
Please do let me know how you get on, I wish you the best.
Thank you so much for the answer.
I have already begun The Body Keeps The Score and is actively looking for a therapist now.
The perpetual cycle of overreach, then crash certainly deepens the negative self talk - the fact that you can't tame yourself through excessive discipline while ignoring "how you actually feel" (ie. often like complete trash because you ARE crashing) certainly doesn't help the "neurotic behaviour/emotional armour". But i somehow thought i could "plough through".
The suppression of real emotions seems like a perfectly reasonable explanation for why you become so tired/worn out. Also you get used to ignoring the negative self talk because you feel like it makes no sense from the intellects perspective and you have to "perform professionally" or whatever.
One thing that has kept me from really going in this direction has been the observation that 3-4 days in bed with only my laptop has been able to "heal" all of the pain and fatigue and tension in the body - if done before for example an important meeting i end up completely calm, extroverted, like another person or "the real me", but the "tension" and fatigue soon returns. Such a weird and labyrinthian process. I guess it has to do with the fact that the negative self talk quickly returns and i get burned out again very easily.
Anyway, i guess the way forward is not ploughing through with a tense body and an "ignored" mind. Sounds almost stupid as i write it out like this, but here we are.
I have already begun The Body Keeps The Score and is actively looking for a therapist now.
The perpetual cycle of overreach, then crash certainly deepens the negative self talk - the fact that you can't tame yourself through excessive discipline while ignoring "how you actually feel" (ie. often like complete trash because you ARE crashing) certainly doesn't help the "neurotic behaviour/emotional armour". But i somehow thought i could "plough through".
The suppression of real emotions seems like a perfectly reasonable explanation for why you become so tired/worn out. Also you get used to ignoring the negative self talk because you feel like it makes no sense from the intellects perspective and you have to "perform professionally" or whatever.
One thing that has kept me from really going in this direction has been the observation that 3-4 days in bed with only my laptop has been able to "heal" all of the pain and fatigue and tension in the body - if done before for example an important meeting i end up completely calm, extroverted, like another person or "the real me", but the "tension" and fatigue soon returns. Such a weird and labyrinthian process. I guess it has to do with the fact that the negative self talk quickly returns and i get burned out again very easily.
Anyway, i guess the way forward is not ploughing through with a tense body and an "ignored" mind. Sounds almost stupid as i write it out like this, but here we are.
[deleted]
I recognise your plight, because it has also been mine. Being hard on yourself and being frustrated by how hard it has been to fix yourself is something I've known well.
However, no one gives us manuals for our body and we're all inside an incredibly complex system which we are not evolutionarily adapted for.
I remember most vividly when I took 6 weeks off work, stayed at my Grandmas house with her feeding me good food and not having to do anything, then going back to work again.
I was incredible. Level-headed, extroverted, energetic. I thought it was just rest, but then I began to understand (many years later) that all my cycles of energy started off in similar ways. For example, if I tried a new diet or regime, I would feel great for a week or two until I wouldn't.
I eventually came to understand that it wasn't what I did, but how I felt. I discovered what the placebo effect was (for me) and why it seemed I'd get a buzz from doing something new or starting afresh. It was because I felt powerful and in control.
This feeling of power was so helpful, so nourishing, because it countered what used to be the worst feeling in the world for me: a maldapted feeling of powerless. That feeling was connected to my trauma/past experiences at a deep level.
As everyone can attest, being in the real world often creates feelings of powerlessness, because you are not in control of everything.
That meant everyday life could quickly wear me down depending on how much nourishment I was getting from feeling powerful vs powerlessness.
An analogy I use to describe this: it is a car with a leaky fuel tank. The hole in the fuel tank is the negative emotion. The bigger the hole or the less the fuel going in, the quicker you run out of energy.
Eventually the requirement to counteract the maladapted feeling of powerless diminished, and thus I didn't need to feel powerful in the same way.
For you, the feeling that wears you down, may not be powerlessness like mine was, but by looking at the things that make you feel good, you'll be able to figure out what you get from laying in bed for a few days on your laptop.
Then perhaps you will come to understand the feelings that you avoid or are the inverse of what you get from sitting on your laptop. e.g. sitting on your laptop might make you feel in control, or might avoid the pressure you feel from having to do something that doesn't nourish you in some way.
But before big life changes are made, I would say it's important to find out which of your negative feelings come from maladaptions (i.e. to past emotions/trauma) and then you'll be able to make more effective decisions once you've resolved those maladaptions.
However, no one gives us manuals for our body and we're all inside an incredibly complex system which we are not evolutionarily adapted for.
I remember most vividly when I took 6 weeks off work, stayed at my Grandmas house with her feeding me good food and not having to do anything, then going back to work again.
I was incredible. Level-headed, extroverted, energetic. I thought it was just rest, but then I began to understand (many years later) that all my cycles of energy started off in similar ways. For example, if I tried a new diet or regime, I would feel great for a week or two until I wouldn't.
I eventually came to understand that it wasn't what I did, but how I felt. I discovered what the placebo effect was (for me) and why it seemed I'd get a buzz from doing something new or starting afresh. It was because I felt powerful and in control.
This feeling of power was so helpful, so nourishing, because it countered what used to be the worst feeling in the world for me: a maldapted feeling of powerless. That feeling was connected to my trauma/past experiences at a deep level.
As everyone can attest, being in the real world often creates feelings of powerlessness, because you are not in control of everything.
That meant everyday life could quickly wear me down depending on how much nourishment I was getting from feeling powerful vs powerlessness.
An analogy I use to describe this: it is a car with a leaky fuel tank. The hole in the fuel tank is the negative emotion. The bigger the hole or the less the fuel going in, the quicker you run out of energy.
Eventually the requirement to counteract the maladapted feeling of powerless diminished, and thus I didn't need to feel powerful in the same way.
For you, the feeling that wears you down, may not be powerlessness like mine was, but by looking at the things that make you feel good, you'll be able to figure out what you get from laying in bed for a few days on your laptop.
Then perhaps you will come to understand the feelings that you avoid or are the inverse of what you get from sitting on your laptop. e.g. sitting on your laptop might make you feel in control, or might avoid the pressure you feel from having to do something that doesn't nourish you in some way.
But before big life changes are made, I would say it's important to find out which of your negative feelings come from maladaptions (i.e. to past emotions/trauma) and then you'll be able to make more effective decisions once you've resolved those maladaptions.
Our stories are very similar,
especially since you experienced the same "cycles of energy" and feeling like yourself after doing nothing for a while.
I think most importantly the new connection for me is that i simply get worn down outside or among other people incredibly fast for some reason - same with work projects.
I am still unsure of the actual physiological cause, as it seems to me that i can also get a crash even if i run alone in the woods - ie. no other people, but it's still a "performance" and "you" still judge it with your own mind.
What makes me sure that there is something this is the fact that you have experienced both this AND the feeling of powerlessness - and the paranoia around this - i hadn't really seen this before but i totally also have that - down the fact that i have also been high on new fads, diets, lifestyle changes but only for a few weeks or months before i try something new.
So in short "the crash" is related to feelings of being in control, bodytension and not letting things go properly, instead judging hard, becoming perfectionist and having feelings of "not good enough" - even though i just finished something. Being a hermit with your laptop is fleeing from all responsibility and letting the mind rest, just as the body, and you are probably right that the mind is just as important.
So to sum up mostly for myself. Letting go, being kind on yourself, and being comfortable with "other peoples eyes" around me, appreciating smaller incremental victories, and just as you also mentioned in you first comment - building self reliance is something i have to learn to do. I have probably had a pretty high level of anxiety inside of me that i have ignored like "everyone has imposter syndrome", or "everyone is afraid of getting exposed (whatever that means)", but it wears you down.
Just writing this out is untangling a few things for me so thank again!
I think most importantly the new connection for me is that i simply get worn down outside or among other people incredibly fast for some reason - same with work projects.
I am still unsure of the actual physiological cause, as it seems to me that i can also get a crash even if i run alone in the woods - ie. no other people, but it's still a "performance" and "you" still judge it with your own mind.
What makes me sure that there is something this is the fact that you have experienced both this AND the feeling of powerlessness - and the paranoia around this - i hadn't really seen this before but i totally also have that - down the fact that i have also been high on new fads, diets, lifestyle changes but only for a few weeks or months before i try something new.
So in short "the crash" is related to feelings of being in control, bodytension and not letting things go properly, instead judging hard, becoming perfectionist and having feelings of "not good enough" - even though i just finished something. Being a hermit with your laptop is fleeing from all responsibility and letting the mind rest, just as the body, and you are probably right that the mind is just as important.
So to sum up mostly for myself. Letting go, being kind on yourself, and being comfortable with "other peoples eyes" around me, appreciating smaller incremental victories, and just as you also mentioned in you first comment - building self reliance is something i have to learn to do. I have probably had a pretty high level of anxiety inside of me that i have ignored like "everyone has imposter syndrome", or "everyone is afraid of getting exposed (whatever that means)", but it wears you down.
Just writing this out is untangling a few things for me so thank again!
It is no problem at all - I'm glad this is helpful.
You are on the right track. I'd speculate there are memories from your childhood that could be the root cause of it.
It will take time for things to change. To figure out what is going on and to listen to the messages from your body, but things will get better for you.
It took around 2 years for me (with reading and therapy) to make significant progress, but I had to exist in a world where some of the people who created the original issues were in my life still and were very unsupportive of my new revelations, which made the process harder than it needed to be. The process isn't over for me yet, but the hardest part is over with the PEM disappearing and depression abating.
Please drop me an email (email in profile) sometime, I'd be keen to know how you get on and what you learn.
You are on the right track. I'd speculate there are memories from your childhood that could be the root cause of it.
It will take time for things to change. To figure out what is going on and to listen to the messages from your body, but things will get better for you.
It took around 2 years for me (with reading and therapy) to make significant progress, but I had to exist in a world where some of the people who created the original issues were in my life still and were very unsupportive of my new revelations, which made the process harder than it needed to be. The process isn't over for me yet, but the hardest part is over with the PEM disappearing and depression abating.
Please drop me an email (email in profile) sometime, I'd be keen to know how you get on and what you learn.
I highly recommend you (or anyone, really) reading 'Embracing Our Selves', a book by Sidra and Hal Stone. It is an introduction to Voice Dialogue method, where you literally talk to different parts of someones psyche. Its a mind blowing perspective.
You both mention self negative talk and for that reason I come forward with this recommendation, but things you discuss (repressed emotions, powerlessness/vulnerability, self-leadership,...) are all intertwined and addressed in the book in an insightful way.
You both mention self negative talk and for that reason I come forward with this recommendation, but things you discuss (repressed emotions, powerlessness/vulnerability, self-leadership,...) are all intertwined and addressed in the book in an insightful way.
This is very intriguing. It looks like this could be part of the family tree of Internal Family Systems (IFS) therapy. I'll take a read.
IFS (Internal Family Systems) and VD (Voice Dialogue) are based on the same principle, that we are comprised of number of sub-personalities (which is nothing new). They are just practical methods of communicating with these sub-personalities - you can literally _talk_ to them as if they were independent person, with their own views, outlook on life, needs, emotions, etc.
The most important thing is to _experience_ Voice Dialogue (or IFS, which slightly differs in approach), ie. to be in the situation when someone talks to your 'voices'/'selves' and you 'enter' those 'voices'/'selves'. This experience results in a revelation which I tend to call (a deep) insight, no less.
VD precedes IFS (which is not that important) and I have a strong preference to VD over IFS (I would need to read more on IFS and clarify my points, which range from personal to very technical, to justify my preference).
The most important thing is to _experience_ Voice Dialogue (or IFS, which slightly differs in approach), ie. to be in the situation when someone talks to your 'voices'/'selves' and you 'enter' those 'voices'/'selves'. This experience results in a revelation which I tend to call (a deep) insight, no less.
VD precedes IFS (which is not that important) and I have a strong preference to VD over IFS (I would need to read more on IFS and clarify my points, which range from personal to very technical, to justify my preference).
Came here to emphasize reading “The Body Keeps the Score” as well. It helped me tremendously and played a large role in getting me through the door to therapy in the first place.
I just wanted to pop in and say that I found your mini-treatise on "The unreasonable ineffectiveness of communities in solving a single problem." to be very insightful. And I came back today to tell you so after reflecting on it off and on overnight.
Thank you for your kind words. Unusually, I wrote it almost verbatim in one afternoon. However, the understading took me a long time to gain after years spent in communities desperately trying everything to progress without results. It is why self-leadership is so important to me.
Your comment regarding your intellect and the conscious part of your mind only controlling about 20% - 30% of you is super interesting. I'd love to hear more specifically what made you come to that conclusion, as I've experienced a similar insight. Mine came from an overdose of marijuana ironically enough, but it gave me just enough perception of the feeling of two minds. I don't think I'll ever forget that experience.
This is actually really easy to prove to yourself. Just try to do something that you historically find hard to do, like making a habit of going to the gym or something that you "know" should be good for you. If you're anything like me, you'll mysteriously find yourself unable to do it consistently, even though you know that it's a good idea. The only conclusion to make is that there must be more to yourself than just your conscious mind, because if there wasn't, there'd be nothing to stop you.
The concious mind controlling 20-30%, in itself was not that much of a realisation, I would suspect a lot of people could agree they are not fully in control of themselves. So the understanding of that I'd known for a long time came from many sources.
But the difference in understanding that at superficial level vs being able to experience that at a deeper level, is what caused changes to my behaviour at a deeper level and is the real revelation.
As to how I experienced that, I would preface this by saying that this is going to be very unique for everyone depending on how your mind communicates with itself so I won't go into the exact process for fear of someone trying to emulate my path exactly (self-leadership is more important than being led). It is something I came up with myself rather than a specific therapy (again, self-leadership)
After many many sessions of eventually being able to see and feel the parts of myself pushing against each other. I began to see the person that I thought was me, which was the 'cleverest part', that was centered in the front part of my brain and that denied listening to the rest of my body. Was really a small piece of a whole. When I realised I could move my observation and inhabit different parts of my mind and body that is when I knew I wasn't leading the show in the way I believed I was.
I could see I didn't have control of the other voices or feelings that were inside of me. They would express what they wanted. I could either deny, accept them or attempt to change it if I thought that part was maladjusted and needed help. An example of a maladjusted response might be wanting to apologise for being abused or feeling shame for things that I had no control over.
But the difference in understanding that at superficial level vs being able to experience that at a deeper level, is what caused changes to my behaviour at a deeper level and is the real revelation.
As to how I experienced that, I would preface this by saying that this is going to be very unique for everyone depending on how your mind communicates with itself so I won't go into the exact process for fear of someone trying to emulate my path exactly (self-leadership is more important than being led). It is something I came up with myself rather than a specific therapy (again, self-leadership)
After many many sessions of eventually being able to see and feel the parts of myself pushing against each other. I began to see the person that I thought was me, which was the 'cleverest part', that was centered in the front part of my brain and that denied listening to the rest of my body. Was really a small piece of a whole. When I realised I could move my observation and inhabit different parts of my mind and body that is when I knew I wasn't leading the show in the way I believed I was.
I could see I didn't have control of the other voices or feelings that were inside of me. They would express what they wanted. I could either deny, accept them or attempt to change it if I thought that part was maladjusted and needed help. An example of a maladjusted response might be wanting to apologise for being abused or feeling shame for things that I had no control over.
Can you elaborate on identifying the various parts that push against each other? What are these parts? Voices or something more subtle like desires or aversions?
As an aside, based on various therapies I’ve worked out my method of emotional acceptance of past events and traumas which has and is helping me to accept and integrate them, but it still feels crude. I catch any strong emotion and then observe it and allow it and accept it. Sometimes it’s tied to a seemingly trivial memory(my mind trick is that the memory is not actually trivial) which I can look at and integrate and accept as well.
As an aside, based on various therapies I’ve worked out my method of emotional acceptance of past events and traumas which has and is helping me to accept and integrate them, but it still feels crude. I catch any strong emotion and then observe it and allow it and accept it. Sometimes it’s tied to a seemingly trivial memory(my mind trick is that the memory is not actually trivial) which I can look at and integrate and accept as well.
You don't need drugs for that. Set a reminder for tomorrow, two hours after waking up. When the reminder comes up, list all the actions you took, and mark those where you made a conscious choice. Most actions will not have been the consequence of a conscious deliberation:
- waking up when the alarm goes
- hitting snooze a few times
- getting out of bed with the right leg first
- wearing the blue shirt instead of the black one
- lifting your foot to avoid the doorstep when stepping out of the front door
- breathing, for that matter, or your heartbeat, your digestive processes, etc.
Honestly the 20%-30% number is way off. I would guesstimate something like 1-2% conscious decisions max.
- waking up when the alarm goes
- hitting snooze a few times
- getting out of bed with the right leg first
- wearing the blue shirt instead of the black one
- lifting your foot to avoid the doorstep when stepping out of the front door
- breathing, for that matter, or your heartbeat, your digestive processes, etc.
Honestly the 20%-30% number is way off. I would guesstimate something like 1-2% conscious decisions max.
Even when we believe we made a conscious decision we are often just rationalizing after the fact. Most people lack the necessary level of metacognition to distinguish the difference.
I just started binge-watching a tv show called Patriot (unexpectedly hilarious, if dark, spy comedy). There was one throwaway remark about how a spy handler would find an unlocated mark:
> We have this principle we use when we're trying to locate someone who doesn't want to be discovered.
> You are what you can't stop doing.
> What that means is if we discover what someone is passionate about, then that person and that thing will intersect. Passion involves compulsion. And people, all people, have compulsions that draw them away from their safety and their best interests. People and what they love don't always intersect. People and their compulsions do. And John, well, he's compelled toward you. He's crazy about you.
And it's a quote I have a hard time not thinking about, ironically..
> We have this principle we use when we're trying to locate someone who doesn't want to be discovered.
> You are what you can't stop doing.
> What that means is if we discover what someone is passionate about, then that person and that thing will intersect. Passion involves compulsion. And people, all people, have compulsions that draw them away from their safety and their best interests. People and what they love don't always intersect. People and their compulsions do. And John, well, he's compelled toward you. He's crazy about you.
And it's a quote I have a hard time not thinking about, ironically..
This mirrors my experience. Even down to the book recommendation in sub comments (the body keeps score).
Learning to incorporate all of me, my physical and emotional needs, had drastically helped me improve from being burnt out and depressed.
For so long I focussed on my rationality without any regard for my emotions. It’s like droving a car without being able to see out of the windows. I needed to listen to me, my body, learn to interpret it (still learning), learn what it needs, what I need.
Learning to incorporate all of me, my physical and emotional needs, had drastically helped me improve from being burnt out and depressed.
For so long I focussed on my rationality without any regard for my emotions. It’s like droving a car without being able to see out of the windows. I needed to listen to me, my body, learn to interpret it (still learning), learn what it needs, what I need.
This is a great summary and the first part nicely describes what is, somewhat jokingly, referred to as the Dodo Bird Verdict: All therapies are equally effective and it is instead the relationship with a trusted therapist that is important.
I guess it depends on your definitions, but I think your 20-30% numbers are still way to high.
I guess it depends on your definitions, but I think your 20-30% numbers are still way to high.
20-30% numbers, could be too high. It is hard to know. In the way that I would define it, it would be this:
The part of you that is in control and makes the decisions that give you agency over yourself. I used to believe I was directing myself day to day, but I'd guess that the concious only has a 20-30% say in the matter.
This opposed to who is performing the actions in which the subconcious mind is involved in 99% of the work. e.g. walking is almost entirely a subconcious activity.
The part of you that is in control and makes the decisions that give you agency over yourself. I used to believe I was directing myself day to day, but I'd guess that the concious only has a 20-30% say in the matter.
This opposed to who is performing the actions in which the subconcious mind is involved in 99% of the work. e.g. walking is almost entirely a subconcious activity.
Eastern philosophy puts it at 1% at best, rest is pure autopilot mode.
[deleted]
Maybe I’ve had a string of shitty therapists, because I desperately want to improve my mental health but no one has been able to help me. Even with drugs.
No one can fix you, it won't work. But you can fix yourself with their help.
This is the most useful mindset I've found with progressing through therapy, because it is about self-leadership.
"The body keeps score" is a book that may help you.
This is the most useful mindset I've found with progressing through therapy, because it is about self-leadership.
"The body keeps score" is a book that may help you.
I had three different therapies in my life so far. The first one was a bad experience, the other two helped me a lot. I like both therapists but never felt like we are close or connected in any way this article writes about.
Always I knew I'm dealing with a professional. I saw other patients leave the room before my session started. We needed to look for an appointment because of vacations and stuff, it was always just a person doing his job.
And I'm fine with that. I also think it is necessary to have a person who is not too close to you helping you some times. Family members and friends want you to have as little pain as possible and doing better as fast as possible which is natural but often not the right thing.
"On this view, the good therapist becomes a temporary attachment figure, assuming the functions of a nurturing mother, repairing lost trust, restoring security, and instilling two of the key skills engendered by a normal childhood: the regulation of emotions and a healthy intimacy."
The therapist can't repair lost trust or security, only you can. A good therapist will help you do that.
Always I knew I'm dealing with a professional. I saw other patients leave the room before my session started. We needed to look for an appointment because of vacations and stuff, it was always just a person doing his job.
And I'm fine with that. I also think it is necessary to have a person who is not too close to you helping you some times. Family members and friends want you to have as little pain as possible and doing better as fast as possible which is natural but often not the right thing.
"On this view, the good therapist becomes a temporary attachment figure, assuming the functions of a nurturing mother, repairing lost trust, restoring security, and instilling two of the key skills engendered by a normal childhood: the regulation of emotions and a healthy intimacy."
The therapist can't repair lost trust or security, only you can. A good therapist will help you do that.
A good therapist is a debugger.
Debuggers show you a step by step at a low level, but some are better at highlighting "interesting" modes of operation that are not necessarily what we expected. Just like race conditions and those tricky concurrency issues, a debugging session with our brain can help identify how we get stuck.
Sometimes, just the way we frame something gets entangled with another underlying issue and reframing a topic can free up that deadlock. Othertimes a trigger can be uncovered and we can apply a patch to temporarily avoid triggering it while we go delve deeper in the issues that are awoken by that trigger...
But like any debugger, it's only as good as how we use it: it's not a magical tool that operates on us passively. Beyond the trust factor, it can take a while to figure out how to best leverage the therapist for our needs.
Debuggers show you a step by step at a low level, but some are better at highlighting "interesting" modes of operation that are not necessarily what we expected. Just like race conditions and those tricky concurrency issues, a debugging session with our brain can help identify how we get stuck.
Sometimes, just the way we frame something gets entangled with another underlying issue and reframing a topic can free up that deadlock. Othertimes a trigger can be uncovered and we can apply a patch to temporarily avoid triggering it while we go delve deeper in the issues that are awoken by that trigger...
But like any debugger, it's only as good as how we use it: it's not a magical tool that operates on us passively. Beyond the trust factor, it can take a while to figure out how to best leverage the therapist for our needs.
A good therapist can also be a mirror, reflecting your own unconscious reactions to things back at you so you can see yourself in a new light. When I sought therapy I wasn't experiencing difficulty maintaining rational thought. Everything I was thinking about myself and others was perfectly reasonable given what I knew. What my therapist did was expose the fact that what I knew was a very limited slice of the facts of the situation. She never halted my thought process or exposed every little thing. She asked interesting questions and challenged me to consider a different perspective in some situations. That was enough to get me on a path to self-leadership. And once I had that, she helped me change how I thought about myself and others so that I could trust instead of fear. I learned to have courage and it saved me.
A personal question, if I may.
I think seeing a therapist would be good for me, I have issues I'm struggle to fix myself but how does the conversation even start ?
What I mean is, I can go to a regular doctor for a regular problem and he will say "what is the issue?" and I can explain it pretty clearly even if I don't know the underlying cause. e.g. "My leg hurts here when I move it in such a way"
But I can't imagine how this conversation starts with a therapist. If they asked me what is wrong, I genuinely don't know. I don't know where to point to the pain. Then I just see myself sitting there with someone awkwardly, them thinking I'm an idiot.
I think seeing a therapist would be good for me, I have issues I'm struggle to fix myself but how does the conversation even start ?
What I mean is, I can go to a regular doctor for a regular problem and he will say "what is the issue?" and I can explain it pretty clearly even if I don't know the underlying cause. e.g. "My leg hurts here when I move it in such a way"
But I can't imagine how this conversation starts with a therapist. If they asked me what is wrong, I genuinely don't know. I don't know where to point to the pain. Then I just see myself sitting there with someone awkwardly, them thinking I'm an idiot.
Are you familiar with rubber duck debugging?
The idea is that when you (as a developer) run into a software bug you can't fix, you try to describe it out loud to a rubber duck. It turns out that the act of formulating these thoughts into speech is massively effective as a debugging method.
So my challenge to you is to revisit this statement:
>If they asked me what is wrong, I genuinely don't know.
Instead of shutting down because you don't know, just start speaking. Keep speaking. Deliberately turn off your filter. If that's hard, narrow the question. Instead answering "what's wrong?" answer "what's wrong today?" or "what's the strongest emotion you felt last week" or etc. And then expand around it. Describe the experience. Etc.
The idea is that when you (as a developer) run into a software bug you can't fix, you try to describe it out loud to a rubber duck. It turns out that the act of formulating these thoughts into speech is massively effective as a debugging method.
So my challenge to you is to revisit this statement:
>If they asked me what is wrong, I genuinely don't know.
Instead of shutting down because you don't know, just start speaking. Keep speaking. Deliberately turn off your filter. If that's hard, narrow the question. Instead answering "what's wrong?" answer "what's wrong today?" or "what's the strongest emotion you felt last week" or etc. And then expand around it. Describe the experience. Etc.
There is probably a name for it, but I do the equivalent, except by writing an email (or just writing it down any way). I noticed that if I am saying things out loud I can just skip over what are often unnecessary details. But by writing it down in some way, I am forced to think it all through. Nine times out of ten, I solve the problem before I finish the email or ever send it.
RDD works because talking is really powerful. Ever had to teach a class on something you thought you knew? The act of turning an amorphous blob of 'knowledge' into a linear presentation will often show you that you didn't understand things as well as you thought. The therapist's "Tell me more" forces you to tease out of the blob the distinct threads of the issue.
Journaling can also be useful in forcing you to produce words that describe what's going on, but it's also easier to slack off when there's nobody else in the room. If you worry about what you'll say in a therapy session, start writing and you'll likely come up with plenty to talk about.
Journaling can also be useful in forcing you to produce words that describe what's going on, but it's also easier to slack off when there's nobody else in the room. If you worry about what you'll say in a therapy session, start writing and you'll likely come up with plenty to talk about.
RDD works because most of the people really don’t understand what they don’t understand without a direct linear thinking about the problem. They have this blob in their head that creates an illusion of knowledge.
I have the same thing. Every time I start thinking “big” I need to consciously stop myself and ask “what do you not know?”/“what needs to be measured?” Instead of continuing making assumptions.
You don’t need to speak to a duck to do that though. Speech has got nothing to do with your ego/laziness that makes you believe there’s nothing to be done and everything can be solved by thinking.
I have the same thing. Every time I start thinking “big” I need to consciously stop myself and ask “what do you not know?”/“what needs to be measured?” Instead of continuing making assumptions.
You don’t need to speak to a duck to do that though. Speech has got nothing to do with your ego/laziness that makes you believe there’s nothing to be done and everything can be solved by thinking.
I'll need some information first
Just the basic facts
Can you show me where it hurts?
…
When I was a child I had a fever
My hands felt just like two balloons
Now I've got that feeling once again
I can't explain you would not understand
This is not how I amVery relevant: A lot of Pink Floyd deals with themes so universal everyone can relate. Time, money, trust, madness.
I've only had one therapist but she was extremely good. And she would ask a lot of questions. She'd get me to untangle a lot of my thought processes. She'd ask me about the past and have me dig into that and really ask tough to answer questions that forced me to think about why I thought the way I did. It took probably a good dozen or so sessions to get to the point where I was relatively healed and even then it took some time after, but by then I was able to regulate my anxiety on my own.
I also thought about that every time before I started therapy. Often multiple problems are leading to symptoms and you are not able to pinpoint the exact problem. You don't have to. And often it is not just one thing, it never was for me. That's exactly why you going to therapy. You can start by telling you're needing help because you at a point where you cannot fix your issues anymore yourself and then just start with one of your issues, it will flow way easier than you think.
Never forget, the therapist probably had hundreds of patients like you with the same problem getting started which means he probably knows a thing or two to help you get started :)
Never forget, the therapist probably had hundreds of patients like you with the same problem getting started which means he probably knows a thing or two to help you get started :)
When I went the question wasn't "What is wrong" it was "What brought you here, and what do you want to be different at the end of this". I think if you give an honest answer to either question that can be a pretty good starting point. Even if you feel your honest answer isn't specific enough (e.g. "I just want to feel like I am worth something" or "after this maybe I don't want to kill myself" or "I want to be able to enjoy myself more") the therapist can start there.
And really a large part of therapy seems to be diagnosis, with the added benefit that the clarity you get from working towards diagnosis (and the ability to confide in someone) already being helpful.
I would suggest just going to see someone and being as honest about why you are there, and what you hope to change as you can bear. The therapist will take the conversation from there. And if you ever feel resistance to being honest about something, just say that. You aren't required to be fully open about everything.
And no therapist is ever going to sit there thinking you are an idiot. They are there to help people, and they probably recognize that seeking help is hard. I think they will appreciate and respect the effort it takes for someone to seek help. They certainly won't ridicule someone for not knowing exactly what they want. Because they know how hard that stuff is when it comes to mental well-being.
And really a large part of therapy seems to be diagnosis, with the added benefit that the clarity you get from working towards diagnosis (and the ability to confide in someone) already being helpful.
I would suggest just going to see someone and being as honest about why you are there, and what you hope to change as you can bear. The therapist will take the conversation from there. And if you ever feel resistance to being honest about something, just say that. You aren't required to be fully open about everything.
And no therapist is ever going to sit there thinking you are an idiot. They are there to help people, and they probably recognize that seeking help is hard. I think they will appreciate and respect the effort it takes for someone to seek help. They certainly won't ridicule someone for not knowing exactly what they want. Because they know how hard that stuff is when it comes to mental well-being.
You don't actually have to say anything. The therapist is expert in asking questions. There is no burden on you to self-diagnose.
You can even truly leap the conversation forward with something as simple as what you wrote in your message:
"I have issues I'm struggle to fix myself"
That is as good a place to start as any, but there is no expectation for you to come to the meeting ready to say that. And you will lose nothing by not saying it.
My advice, after long experience, is simply to go in the moment and see what becomes of it. The prize of health is worth it.
You can even truly leap the conversation forward with something as simple as what you wrote in your message:
"I have issues I'm struggle to fix myself"
That is as good a place to start as any, but there is no expectation for you to come to the meeting ready to say that. And you will lose nothing by not saying it.
My advice, after long experience, is simply to go in the moment and see what becomes of it. The prize of health is worth it.
Make a list while not with a therapist -- what do you want to fix?
Another way to start is checking if you match these (though you could be suffering from one and not even recognise it by reading the abstract description): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_maladaptive_schemas -- if you match any, this is a great place to start, regardless of the therapy affiliation.
I really like Schema Therapy, though I've only seen one therapist qualified in it, and while she started great -- gave me a long questionnaire that pointed out my maladaptive schemas I already knew were present(she made me feel "wow, finally, a great professional, just like I read in the manual they should be"), she just didn't stick at all to the Schema Therapy session protocol I read in the manual and the sessions just devolved into the usual "so how have you been since our last session .... bla bla bla ... you're making great progress" that I'm all too familiar with all the therapists that I know.
So whatever therapy you choose, try to find a therapist that's also sticking to the therapy method.
Another way to start is checking if you match these (though you could be suffering from one and not even recognise it by reading the abstract description): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_maladaptive_schemas -- if you match any, this is a great place to start, regardless of the therapy affiliation.
I really like Schema Therapy, though I've only seen one therapist qualified in it, and while she started great -- gave me a long questionnaire that pointed out my maladaptive schemas I already knew were present(she made me feel "wow, finally, a great professional, just like I read in the manual they should be"), she just didn't stick at all to the Schema Therapy session protocol I read in the manual and the sessions just devolved into the usual "so how have you been since our last session .... bla bla bla ... you're making great progress" that I'm all too familiar with all the therapists that I know.
So whatever therapy you choose, try to find a therapist that's also sticking to the therapy method.
How do you prioritize the list if you match a couple of them.
You don't have to do the prioritization yourself, you could do it with the therapist.
You could ask yourself witch bothers you the most.
Also if there are clusters of schemas, start with the ones in the same cluster, but your therapist should also be able help with what to start.
I do know of such a prioritization for BPD where you first have to learn to answer back to your internalized "punitive/critical parent" mode, and eventually eliminate it, because it will sabotage your progress, just like a real life punitive/critical parent would.
You could ask yourself witch bothers you the most.
Also if there are clusters of schemas, start with the ones in the same cluster, but your therapist should also be able help with what to start.
I do know of such a prioritization for BPD where you first have to learn to answer back to your internalized "punitive/critical parent" mode, and eventually eliminate it, because it will sabotage your progress, just like a real life punitive/critical parent would.
You've already prioritized it! If you've found a few things from there that match how you feel that's a great place to start. You could even bring that list to a therapist and go over it with them.
In my experience, they will be happy to start anywhere, like just how is your day today for example. You can just talk and they will listen and ask about stuff that they think might be relevant. Whatever is “wrong” it will probably come up in some way if you just talk about your day with an experienced therapist. You don’t need a clear statement to come with, they know that they’ll have to talk and that it might even take several sessions to start formulating something.
I can imagine even starting by saying “I don’t really know what is wrong and what to say, so I’m afraid I’ll just be awkward and you’ll think I’m an idiot” and they’ll be like “Haha, that’s interesting, do you often feel like other people might think you’re an idiot?” and you’re up and running!
I can imagine even starting by saying “I don’t really know what is wrong and what to say, so I’m afraid I’ll just be awkward and you’ll think I’m an idiot” and they’ll be like “Haha, that’s interesting, do you often feel like other people might think you’re an idiot?” and you’re up and running!
It's literally their job to deal with this. In fact, I think most therapists assume the problem their patients walk in with is not the true problem, and it will take months to just get to the real thing. So, if you walk in without a fully fleshed-out theory of yourself, the therapist will be privately relieved.
From an erstwhile therapy procrastinator:
First of all, don’t stress about explaining “what’s wrong” to a therapist before you meet them, or let this become a barrier to you getting started (I fell into this trap for years myself). A simple “Hi my name is X and I’ve been been thinking about finding a therapist to work on some issues with. When would you be available for an initial call?” is perfectly sufficient.
A thing people say about therapy is that it’s like a bit like dating. Don’t be discouraged if it takes a few tries to find someone who is accepting new patients and feels like a good fit (most will offer a free consultation as well to help you evaluate this). Give them a fair shot, a few sessions at least (I was skeptical of a therapist I was randomly assigned ~10yrs ago, but he swiftly cured a very acute case of hypochondria that had bubbled up out of nowhere. However, you should move on to the next one if it really isn’t working—unlike dating, your therapist won’t be hurt (or if they are, then they have the tools to deal with it right?). This is probably the best directory for finding local therapists: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/therapists
Most will give you a set of questionnaires to complete before or during your first appointment (e.g.: https://www.uwgb.edu/UWGBCMS/media/Continueing-Professional-...). This gives them a coarse baseline of what’s going on.
The conversation simply evolves from there. Over time, you will occasionally pull out surprising memories and insights from the depths of your mind like the proverbial Mary Poppins bag. There’s a lot in all of us to unpack, and they are there to facilitate that process.
A common attitude (again, one I’ve suffered myself) toward therapy is: “What will a therapist tell me that I don’t already know? I can solve these problems on my own if I actually tried.” Maybe, but the operative word phrase here is “actually tried”. Actively reflecting on your thoughts/emotions/actions and vocalizing them to another person for an hour is challenging, but it is therapeutic in and of itself. It’s very hard to do on your own, and sometimes take a probing question or two to dislodge a blind spot.
Also, if you want to listen to some real therapy sessions (intermixed with lecture content on the theory and research behind a common type of therapy), these lectures on Cognitive Behavioral Therapy are excellent. It follows a few different people from the very beginning (skeptical of or unsure about therapy or what their deeper issues are) through their process of improvement via weekly sessions/assignments. It can really help demystify therapy for the unfamiliar: (https://www.audible.com/pd/Cognitive-Behavioral-Therapy-Audi...)
PS—Keep asking good questions.
First of all, don’t stress about explaining “what’s wrong” to a therapist before you meet them, or let this become a barrier to you getting started (I fell into this trap for years myself). A simple “Hi my name is X and I’ve been been thinking about finding a therapist to work on some issues with. When would you be available for an initial call?” is perfectly sufficient.
A thing people say about therapy is that it’s like a bit like dating. Don’t be discouraged if it takes a few tries to find someone who is accepting new patients and feels like a good fit (most will offer a free consultation as well to help you evaluate this). Give them a fair shot, a few sessions at least (I was skeptical of a therapist I was randomly assigned ~10yrs ago, but he swiftly cured a very acute case of hypochondria that had bubbled up out of nowhere. However, you should move on to the next one if it really isn’t working—unlike dating, your therapist won’t be hurt (or if they are, then they have the tools to deal with it right?). This is probably the best directory for finding local therapists: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/therapists
Most will give you a set of questionnaires to complete before or during your first appointment (e.g.: https://www.uwgb.edu/UWGBCMS/media/Continueing-Professional-...). This gives them a coarse baseline of what’s going on.
The conversation simply evolves from there. Over time, you will occasionally pull out surprising memories and insights from the depths of your mind like the proverbial Mary Poppins bag. There’s a lot in all of us to unpack, and they are there to facilitate that process.
A common attitude (again, one I’ve suffered myself) toward therapy is: “What will a therapist tell me that I don’t already know? I can solve these problems on my own if I actually tried.” Maybe, but the operative word phrase here is “actually tried”. Actively reflecting on your thoughts/emotions/actions and vocalizing them to another person for an hour is challenging, but it is therapeutic in and of itself. It’s very hard to do on your own, and sometimes take a probing question or two to dislodge a blind spot.
Also, if you want to listen to some real therapy sessions (intermixed with lecture content on the theory and research behind a common type of therapy), these lectures on Cognitive Behavioral Therapy are excellent. It follows a few different people from the very beginning (skeptical of or unsure about therapy or what their deeper issues are) through their process of improvement via weekly sessions/assignments. It can really help demystify therapy for the unfamiliar: (https://www.audible.com/pd/Cognitive-Behavioral-Therapy-Audi...)
PS—Keep asking good questions.
It's like dating where each bad date costs $250+. (Around here, the initial appointment is not free and often costs extra.) Obviously the process works for some people, but it is dauntingly difficult. And phone/video therapy, these days, is especially ineffective.
I don't like listing complaints, instead of a productive comment like yours. Obviously, some people make it work, but maybe you need to know people with similar personalities and similar issues, to get recommendations?
I don't like listing complaints, instead of a productive comment like yours. Obviously, some people make it work, but maybe you need to know people with similar personalities and similar issues, to get recommendations?
The process is daunting, and the mental healthcare system is deserving of extensive complaint. I have had my own “bad dates”. My fav: I was suffering extreme burnout and had just had my car stolen, among other things. I found a therapist. On our initial appointment, he bloviated about his academic pedigree and how it “wasn’t his first rodeo”, then dismissed my problems as not knowing what I wanted out of life (I was getting an MS in math while working full-time). Cost? $400.
Not long after that I (spoiler alert) needed a psychiatrist. It took me 30 calls to find someone with availability. I punched a hole in my wall around call #20.
As recently as last Fall, I was still spinning my wheels, delaying the unpleasant search process for a therapist. I was so frustrated with “the system” that it short-circuited any desire to make the effort. There were at least four major barriers:
1) communication anxiety — worried about explaining myself and my problems to a prospective therapist. [addressed in my previous comment—keep any introduction email/call extremely simple.]
2) financial anxiety — as with all healthcare in the US, the amount you pay is a random variable. Maybe it will be a waste? Maybe I will go bankrupt? [if you have insurance, find someone on your plan using the Psychology Today search filters—they also often list the cost. if not, there are other free or low-cost resources available, but it’s context/location dependent. some potential options include the VA, school/college therapy, counseling programs @ your employer, therapists in-training, various community/nonprofit organizations. ask a trusted friend to help you search, it can alleviate some of the frustration. you can ask me.]
3) avoidance anxiety — embarrassment around explaining my life story. Why and how should I explain the fact that I smoke weed 10x a day (a true 10x developer over here) to cope with my issues, when I could simply roll another joint? [one role of the therapist is to be a non-judgmental sounding board and co-strategizer—they aren’t your coworker, parent, partner, etc. this is a hard mindset to learn, even for me to this day. I find myself saying things I think my therapist wants to hear. as a corollary: ER docs have seen the full Cartesian product of injuries from {objects} x {orifices}. whatever you come in with is not as unique or embarrassing as you think. they do this all day long.]
4) perfectionism — “Yeah I’m sure this therapist can help someone get over a breakup or their dead cat, but I’m a special brand of fucked up and they won’t get it. I need to find a someone that is perfectly specialized in my personality/problems, or it will be a waste. Also they need to have a PhD from a good school, female, not too young or too old, not ...”. [just a reminder that this is not a search for your soulmate. a student therapist or MSW may be more effective for you than a famous professor with books and accolades (see above). anecdata: the two therapists that I hand-selected didn’t pan out for me at all. the two that were chosen for me at random were a wonderful fit.]
Finally, I would push back on the idea that remote therapy is ineffective. Telehealth in general is proving to be pretty effective, and with therapy they don’t need to interact with any physical structures. The only thing that is slightly diminished is nonverbal cues, but that’s not insurmountable. There are a lot of advantages: significantly more options (no location constraints), easy to schedule and keep appointments, can be more comfortable to not be physically present, and no stressful driving. I recently did a therapy appointment call from the Appalachian Trail!
Not long after that I (spoiler alert) needed a psychiatrist. It took me 30 calls to find someone with availability. I punched a hole in my wall around call #20.
As recently as last Fall, I was still spinning my wheels, delaying the unpleasant search process for a therapist. I was so frustrated with “the system” that it short-circuited any desire to make the effort. There were at least four major barriers:
1) communication anxiety — worried about explaining myself and my problems to a prospective therapist. [addressed in my previous comment—keep any introduction email/call extremely simple.]
2) financial anxiety — as with all healthcare in the US, the amount you pay is a random variable. Maybe it will be a waste? Maybe I will go bankrupt? [if you have insurance, find someone on your plan using the Psychology Today search filters—they also often list the cost. if not, there are other free or low-cost resources available, but it’s context/location dependent. some potential options include the VA, school/college therapy, counseling programs @ your employer, therapists in-training, various community/nonprofit organizations. ask a trusted friend to help you search, it can alleviate some of the frustration. you can ask me.]
3) avoidance anxiety — embarrassment around explaining my life story. Why and how should I explain the fact that I smoke weed 10x a day (a true 10x developer over here) to cope with my issues, when I could simply roll another joint? [one role of the therapist is to be a non-judgmental sounding board and co-strategizer—they aren’t your coworker, parent, partner, etc. this is a hard mindset to learn, even for me to this day. I find myself saying things I think my therapist wants to hear. as a corollary: ER docs have seen the full Cartesian product of injuries from {objects} x {orifices}. whatever you come in with is not as unique or embarrassing as you think. they do this all day long.]
4) perfectionism — “Yeah I’m sure this therapist can help someone get over a breakup or their dead cat, but I’m a special brand of fucked up and they won’t get it. I need to find a someone that is perfectly specialized in my personality/problems, or it will be a waste. Also they need to have a PhD from a good school, female, not too young or too old, not ...”. [just a reminder that this is not a search for your soulmate. a student therapist or MSW may be more effective for you than a famous professor with books and accolades (see above). anecdata: the two therapists that I hand-selected didn’t pan out for me at all. the two that were chosen for me at random were a wonderful fit.]
Finally, I would push back on the idea that remote therapy is ineffective. Telehealth in general is proving to be pretty effective, and with therapy they don’t need to interact with any physical structures. The only thing that is slightly diminished is nonverbal cues, but that’s not insurmountable. There are a lot of advantages: significantly more options (no location constraints), easy to schedule and keep appointments, can be more comfortable to not be physically present, and no stressful driving. I recently did a therapy appointment call from the Appalachian Trail!
My current therapist had an intake questionnaire which focussed on 'getting to know you' conversational questions: there wasn't an expectation that I would need to prepare anything in advance.
It was immediately clear to me that she was warm and personable - for this reason, the article linked above resonated with me a lot.
I don't feel that I have any more ability to explain the state of my mental health than I did at the start of the sessions, but I'd definitely credit her with improving it.
To reflect on what you have said: If you ask me how my mental health has improved, I genuinely don't know. I just know that it has.
It was immediately clear to me that she was warm and personable - for this reason, the article linked above resonated with me a lot.
I don't feel that I have any more ability to explain the state of my mental health than I did at the start of the sessions, but I'd definitely credit her with improving it.
To reflect on what you have said: If you ask me how my mental health has improved, I genuinely don't know. I just know that it has.
I came to therapy very late in life and it was similarly opaque to me. I was very fortunate to come across someone who listened to me talk about my life and distilled it into insights I had never made on my own. I can only assume they've seen so much and treated so many patients they have a deep well of patterns to start with and it's mostly of matter of seeing where you fit plus whatever is unique to you.
I've always had a good relationship with my mother but it was only though my therapist I even realized I did in fact have some attachment issues. Anecdotally when I mentioned that to my aunts they immediately starting sharing stories about mom. Family knew all along but they remained silent until I asked for detail. The point is for both the therapist and family just talking is enough to prime the process of discovery. You won't start with a giant epiphany.
I've always had a good relationship with my mother but it was only though my therapist I even realized I did in fact have some attachment issues. Anecdotally when I mentioned that to my aunts they immediately starting sharing stories about mom. Family knew all along but they remained silent until I asked for detail. The point is for both the therapist and family just talking is enough to prime the process of discovery. You won't start with a giant epiphany.
I had similar experience, but can't say my therapy was a huge success. When gotten familiar with my situation, my therapist said the we need to build trust and that she's gonna do the work that my parents failed to do.
I was initially much more inclined to have "here's my habits and behavior patterns, tell me what to fix there" type of sessions. Then I tried to play this game of trust, but the idea of trusting and leaning on someone who sees me once a week to do job and get paid seemed just wrong.
I was initially much more inclined to have "here's my habits and behavior patterns, tell me what to fix there" type of sessions. Then I tried to play this game of trust, but the idea of trusting and leaning on someone who sees me once a week to do job and get paid seemed just wrong.
"she's gonna do the work that my parents failed to do"
That is a psychotherapy cliche, but it has a lot of merit to it.
Significant adults in your life have imprinted/caused MOST of the ways you approach love or work. Just think of how vital those adults were to teach you language -- without them you wouldn't be speaking at all; with other adults you would be speaking a completely different language -- it is the same with your emotions, bounadries and limits, beliefs about yourself and others, how to meet your needs and so much more.
So, do not dismiss exploring your relationship with your parents -- it is the foundation for everything else in your life.
That is a psychotherapy cliche, but it has a lot of merit to it.
Significant adults in your life have imprinted/caused MOST of the ways you approach love or work. Just think of how vital those adults were to teach you language -- without them you wouldn't be speaking at all; with other adults you would be speaking a completely different language -- it is the same with your emotions, bounadries and limits, beliefs about yourself and others, how to meet your needs and so much more.
So, do not dismiss exploring your relationship with your parents -- it is the foundation for everything else in your life.
Not at all, I actually liked the idea a lot. It's just hard for me to take a any positive feedback from a person I pay to listen to the said feedback.
I think you're interpreting "trust" mostly in terms of "this person will tell me true things", but telling you the truth is pretty far down the list of what therapists do. "Truth" is often not even well-defined when it comes to your internal mental state.
Most of the truths that you hear in a good therapy session will come out of your own mouth. You just didn't know they were in there until the therapist guided you to them.
Try to think of "trust" more in terms of safety. With a good therapist, you can trust that if you share your truth with them, with all it's ugly dark aspects, that they will not use that knowledge to harm you.
Most of the truths that you hear in a good therapy session will come out of your own mouth. You just didn't know they were in there until the therapist guided you to them.
Try to think of "trust" more in terms of safety. With a good therapist, you can trust that if you share your truth with them, with all it's ugly dark aspects, that they will not use that knowledge to harm you.
You should tell this to your therapist and see what happens. To me I've learned a lot following this line of thought.
For you, it sounds like you think that the therapist "might just be doing it because I'm paying them", and that their emotions care towards you might not be genuine? Maybe that you want a kind of selfless care and the monetary aspect would make it feel less selfless or sincere?
For you, it sounds like you think that the therapist "might just be doing it because I'm paying them", and that their emotions care towards you might not be genuine? Maybe that you want a kind of selfless care and the monetary aspect would make it feel less selfless or sincere?
> It's just hard for me to take a any positive feedback from a person I pay to listen to the said feedback.
If someone is crying, you are getting emotional feedback from that person that they need help. They could cry for any number of reasons but the feedback they provide you by crying remains the same until you discuss it more. Paid feedback or not - outsiders will provide you similar feedback that will be relevant to you because they are able to empathize (that is if you are honest).
But I get you. if you think of paid feedback as fake reviews on playstore, you will get discouraged. It's hard to give a fake plausible review and it's quick to spot for human interaction though.
If someone is crying, you are getting emotional feedback from that person that they need help. They could cry for any number of reasons but the feedback they provide you by crying remains the same until you discuss it more. Paid feedback or not - outsiders will provide you similar feedback that will be relevant to you because they are able to empathize (that is if you are honest).
But I get you. if you think of paid feedback as fake reviews on playstore, you will get discouraged. It's hard to give a fake plausible review and it's quick to spot for human interaction though.
Don't think of it as an exchange of money for a service. Think of it as making sure your therapist can continue helping you and that he or she doesn't have to take a part time job to pay for their vocation. It's like how some people tithe to a church and put money in a priest's collection plate. They're making sure the priest can follow his or her vocation full-time. The money doesn't create the vocation.
> the idea of trusting and leaning on someone who sees me once a week to do job and get paid seemed just wrong
It seemed wrong to me at first, too, but eventually I saw how it made sense. The aspects of the relationship that would normally be fraught with fear and uncertainty -- is this person invested in my happiness, will this person respect my confidences, will this person use what they know about me against me, will this person turn against me if they learn my shameful weaknesses -- are encoded in their professional obligations. That's not enough for it to be a great working relationship (you need some personal chemistry as well) but it's a great foundation to start from.
It seemed wrong to me at first, too, but eventually I saw how it made sense. The aspects of the relationship that would normally be fraught with fear and uncertainty -- is this person invested in my happiness, will this person respect my confidences, will this person use what they know about me against me, will this person turn against me if they learn my shameful weaknesses -- are encoded in their professional obligations. That's not enough for it to be a great working relationship (you need some personal chemistry as well) but it's a great foundation to start from.
I would agree with you, you can't pay someone to replace what your parents didn't do with a session once a week.
Did you ever consider looking for another therapist?
Did you ever consider looking for another therapist?
Yes, I'm overall optimistic about therapy in general. I did get some valuable things out of my sessions, and I think it would've been hard to find these things somewhere else.
Therapists tend to get expensive though, when I improve my financial situation I'll definitely look for some more.
Therapists tend to get expensive though, when I improve my financial situation I'll definitely look for some more.
I've been diagnosed with BPD.
I've seen three personal therapists and a couples therapist. They all helped and I learned some tricks from them, clarified things, my BPD symptoms have diminished, but they tend to do so with age without any therapy.
All therapists sucked in the same regard -- they fail to follow through -- I've heard so many times "oh, for this issue I know this great exercise and this great technique, we'll practice, bla bla bla", only to forget about it by the next session.
I've seen three personal therapists and a couples therapist. They all helped and I learned some tricks from them, clarified things, my BPD symptoms have diminished, but they tend to do so with age without any therapy.
All therapists sucked in the same regard -- they fail to follow through -- I've heard so many times "oh, for this issue I know this great exercise and this great technique, we'll practice, bla bla bla", only to forget about it by the next session.
Also a BPD. I see therapists on and off. I’ll do a session every two weeks and then drop off, sometimes I’ll find a new therapist because I want something new.
That's not good and not bad. As far as I know, if you want to help with BPD by therapy, its better to have the same therapist, given you two have a plan to improve certain aspects.
I'm currently seeing a female therapists that runs some groups for DBT for BPD; but given that I'm (highly)functional and male(that's just me being mean), it's just 5% of the sessions(after an occasional flare up) that she acknowledges my BPD.
I'm currently seeing a female therapists that runs some groups for DBT for BPD; but given that I'm (highly)functional and male(that's just me being mean), it's just 5% of the sessions(after an occasional flare up) that she acknowledges my BPD.
Yeah. I’m sad that men with BPD are recognised so much less... I had a psychiatrist in a big hospital tell me that my diagnosis is wrong because men can’t get BPD.
To whoever downvoted GP: please don’t unless you actually have experience.
To whoever downvoted GP: please don’t unless you actually have experience.
I have seen a couple therapists as well. In my experience, their service is a partnership, not a one-way fix. If they forget something, remind them. If you are feeling something they aren't bringing up, bring it up yourself. Therapists are not parents who will carry you through your problems, they are advisors to help you see the problem and learn some techniques to help. You still need to do the work, which includes directing the conversation at times.
If the therapist doesn't have its shit together it undermines trust that they can help other people get their shit together.
"To complicate matters, numerous studies over the past few decades have reached what seems a counterintuitive conclusion: that all psychotherapies have roughly equal effects."
The article gives a number of possible explanations for this, but not the obvious one: that the effect of psycho-therapy right now might not be more than a placebo effect. I wonder why this could not be the case.
The article gives a number of possible explanations for this, but not the obvious one: that the effect of psycho-therapy right now might not be more than a placebo effect. I wonder why this could not be the case.
Or just the simple salve of talking to someone (who is payed to listen to you intently). We are social creatures after all.
I think it's because of the quality of the alliance, this is of course also what the article argues. According to my memory the studies have the same effect because of the therapist, not because of the placebo effect of the method. If it would be primarily a placebo effect you'd expect non-empathic therapist to do just as good.
I think CBT therapy scored better on average, so in that case it's not only the therapist but also the method.
I think CBT therapy scored better on average, so in that case it's not only the therapist but also the method.
I can understand the relationship between the two is what makes the difference. But the framework and the tools must as well.
Given the same level of trust, empathy, communication, etc, one form of therapy should give different results than other. They can't all be equal.
Unless ofc none of them do anything. I can find no other possible explaination.
Given the same level of trust, empathy, communication, etc, one form of therapy should give different results than other. They can't all be equal.
Unless ofc none of them do anything. I can find no other possible explaination.
> They can't all be equal Unless ofc none of them do anything.
I often think of my therapist like a personal trainer. If you get a personal trainer, and go regularly, you will get fit. The particular workout they use does not matter so much as just going. Maybe one trainer would improve my cardio more, another would make me better at lifting weights and burst strength. Either way I am going to be healthier for going.
I often think of my therapist like a personal trainer. If you get a personal trainer, and go regularly, you will get fit. The particular workout they use does not matter so much as just going. Maybe one trainer would improve my cardio more, another would make me better at lifting weights and burst strength. Either way I am going to be healthier for going.
Running and weighlifting clearly net different results. So no.
Weightlifting increases your resting metabolism, while cardio burns more calories per session. If you were doing either of these in the right ratio, and sampled weekly for total calories burned, you would not be able to tell the difference between the two.
Similarly, I'm not arguing that there is no difference between different therapies, just that the way we measure is only able to say the equivalent of "most types of regular exercise result in increased burning of calories"
Similarly, I'm not arguing that there is no difference between different therapies, just that the way we measure is only able to say the equivalent of "most types of regular exercise result in increased burning of calories"
Calories burned is just such a small part of exercising, weightlifting and running have massive differences in results in all other areas. Saying you can't tell the difference between the two is just ridiculous, I'm sorry.
But ok, let's just focus on the single aspect that makes your argument hold a drop of water: calories. If you try to burn as much calories with weightlifting you will end up at least overtrained if not injured (thousands of calories per day eaten by PED users does not count). Running on the other hand can get you to Auschwitz physique pretty safely.
Which brings me to another massive difference: the failure scenarios of both techniques. You can get injured and harm your health in completely different ways. Weight lifting has vastly higher injure rates. What about therapy? There is something that can influence you but only in a good way? No way to over do it or do it wrongly? And all techniques are equal in this regard as well? I can tell you another thing which has these properties of "all are equal, nothing can harm you": homeopathy. Because again, it doesn't do anything.
But ok, let's just focus on the single aspect that makes your argument hold a drop of water: calories. If you try to burn as much calories with weightlifting you will end up at least overtrained if not injured (thousands of calories per day eaten by PED users does not count). Running on the other hand can get you to Auschwitz physique pretty safely.
Which brings me to another massive difference: the failure scenarios of both techniques. You can get injured and harm your health in completely different ways. Weight lifting has vastly higher injure rates. What about therapy? There is something that can influence you but only in a good way? No way to over do it or do it wrongly? And all techniques are equal in this regard as well? I can tell you another thing which has these properties of "all are equal, nothing can harm you": homeopathy. Because again, it doesn't do anything.
Different patients have different therapeutic needs. So yes.
More specifically, just like some clients of a personal trainer may need to lose bodyfat and some may need to gain muscle, implying that cardio may be indicated for some people and weightlifting for others; patients with different therapeutic needs may benefit from different therapies.
More specifically, just like some clients of a personal trainer may need to lose bodyfat and some may need to gain muscle, implying that cardio may be indicated for some people and weightlifting for others; patients with different therapeutic needs may benefit from different therapies.
The framework and the tools are mechanisms for establishing trust and for eliciting feelings and sensations. But it's the rapport with the therapist that seems to matter the most.
[deleted]
I have worked in psychotherapy research. One way the possibility you raise is dealt with is by comparing what goes on in successful therapy with what goes on in unsuccessful therapy.
Really long article but this is the crux:
> The emotional bond and the collaboration between client and therapist – called the alliance – have emerged as a strong predictor of improvement, even in therapies that don’t emphasise relational factors.
> Until recently, most studies of this alliance could show only that it correlates with better mental health in clients, but advances in research methods now find evidence for a causal link, suggesting that the therapy relationship might indeed be healing. Similarly, research into the traits of effective therapists has revealed that their greater experience with or a stricter adherence to a specific approach do not lead to improved outcomes whereas empathy, warmth, hopefulness and emotional expressiveness do.
> The emotional bond and the collaboration between client and therapist – called the alliance – have emerged as a strong predictor of improvement, even in therapies that don’t emphasise relational factors.
> Until recently, most studies of this alliance could show only that it correlates with better mental health in clients, but advances in research methods now find evidence for a causal link, suggesting that the therapy relationship might indeed be healing. Similarly, research into the traits of effective therapists has revealed that their greater experience with or a stricter adherence to a specific approach do not lead to improved outcomes whereas empathy, warmth, hopefulness and emotional expressiveness do.
>The emotional bond and the collaboration between client and therapist – called the alliance – have emerged as a strong predictor of improvement, even in therapies that don’t emphasise relational factors.
Yeah, OK, I might buy that as much as I might buy any result associated with something as nebulous as psychotherapy. How do they characterize this, exactly?
Having good feelings about a therapist you got better from ... you probably have better feelings about a podiatrist associated with fixing your foot pain than the one who didn't as well. That doesn't mean your feelings are causal of your foot getting better. In fact the podiatrist (or therapist) might not have done anything real either; sometimes you just get better.
Yeah, OK, I might buy that as much as I might buy any result associated with something as nebulous as psychotherapy. How do they characterize this, exactly?
Having good feelings about a therapist you got better from ... you probably have better feelings about a podiatrist associated with fixing your foot pain than the one who didn't as well. That doesn't mean your feelings are causal of your foot getting better. In fact the podiatrist (or therapist) might not have done anything real either; sometimes you just get better.
As the article makes clear, it is not just general good feelings, but the specific, back-and-forth interactions between the therapist and the patient.
That's great: how are these specific interactions measured? Without that being something actually measurable in the corporeal world, it's just gibberish and assertions.
Very detailed observation, in particular using video tapes.
That's not a helpful answer. What's the scoring system? What are the visual cues used, and how is it used in a linear regression model? The article is making strong claims: it never tells us what the data are, and how they differ from "well that's just your opinion, man."
Trauma therapist-in-training here... There has been an increasing amount of research in recent years on the importance of the “therapeutic alliance” - Bruce Wampold has done a lot of work around this topic. There are also assessment tools that have been developed to help measure the strength of the therapeutic relationship, for example the “Working Alliance Inventory.” Measures like this may look at consensus among treatment goals; sense of confidence in the therapist; commitment to the work/relationship; mutual trust; actually liking of one another, etc. Not sure what type of measure or specific research was relied upon for the article (in fact I didn’t read it, was more interested in reading peoples’ comments actually), but hope that helps!
The reason that the article doesn't go into that sort of thing is it was written for the general public. I am not expert in this area. I do know that over the years I have read a great many articles for the general public that refer to scientific study of infant-mother interaction. If you are seriously interested, do some research and read up about it.
Let me add that, I do understand that people in the therapy field often make claims that are unsupported by scientific research, and so I can understand that you are suspicious in this case. But this field is different, there is lots of sound research.
Let me add that, I do understand that people in the therapy field often make claims that are unsupported by scientific research, and so I can understand that you are suspicious in this case. But this field is different, there is lots of sound research.
>I am not expert in this area
> But this field is different, there is lots of sound research.
Come on man: pick one. I read the article as you did, and it seems like a big pile of moosh, just as most things in psychology that don't involve large sums of money. If you know something about it: share why I should trust this shit other than "trust me, the non expert." If not; not saying anything is an option.
> But this field is different, there is lots of sound research.
Come on man: pick one. I read the article as you did, and it seems like a big pile of moosh, just as most things in psychology that don't involve large sums of money. If you know something about it: share why I should trust this shit other than "trust me, the non expert." If not; not saying anything is an option.
> Things get even more puzzling if you consider the sheer number of therapies on offer and the conflicting methods that they often employ. Some want you to feel more (eg, psychodynamic and emotion-focused approaches); others to feel less and think more
They all share being heard, raw, and I believe that is key.
I spent time talking with a consoler years ago to work through some personal issues, and I genuinely feel having someone there to listen in a way where I knew judgements on their part would never threaten our relationship was the true value. Being able to just tell someone how I felt about things, clearly and honestly, without the need to self censor or sugar coat - particularly in the way I would with a friend - helped more than anything else.
They all share being heard, raw, and I believe that is key.
I spent time talking with a consoler years ago to work through some personal issues, and I genuinely feel having someone there to listen in a way where I knew judgements on their part would never threaten our relationship was the true value. Being able to just tell someone how I felt about things, clearly and honestly, without the need to self censor or sugar coat - particularly in the way I would with a friend - helped more than anything else.
If this resonates with you, or you're thinking about therapy, I recommend reading 'The Drama of the Gifted Child', by Alice Miller.
Don't be put off by the title, it's a great read regardless if you're think you're gifted or not. Gifted in this context means something closer to 'sensitive'.
This, together with therapy, has significantly improved my life.
Don't be put off by the title, it's a great read regardless if you're think you're gifted or not. Gifted in this context means something closer to 'sensitive'.
This, together with therapy, has significantly improved my life.
It's so sad to hear about mom/mother/maternal so much in that article, and so little about the father's side of things. I want to believe that I can be an emotionally-nurturing influence on my kids, it feels like such a shame that there was zero mention that a male can fulfill this role - does the science say it's not possible at all?
Otherwise a great article and some sections certainly did resonate.
Otherwise a great article and some sections certainly did resonate.
There was a halfhearted attempt to remind that this figure doesn't have to be the mother:
"By contrast, children of unresponsive or insensitive caregivers form insecure attachment. They become anxious and easily distressed by the smallest sign of separation from their attachment figure... Finally, children with abusive caregivers become disorganised: they switch between avoidant and anxious coping, engage in odd behaviours and, like Cora, often self-harm."
So this is an implicit acknowledgement that the gender of that early caregiver matters less than that they are nurturing.
But I agree, the article is remiss in explicitly making mention that the gender of the early caregiver does not matter - especially given that the other half of the article is devoted to a male-female relationship (Cora and her therapist) which clearly contradicts the assumption that this needs to be a mother-child.
Personally, I would have loved to see mention that even those with one stable caregiver can still develop issues when the other caregiver is not stable, or worse: that the other caregiver does not care. That often results in a person forming good relationships with their friends, but having a different (worse) standard of conduct towards their romantic partner - e.g. a child who sees their same-gendered parent [physically or verbally] abused, and once an adult, enters into an abusive relationship because that is what is normal to them in regards to the "other" gender.
"By contrast, children of unresponsive or insensitive caregivers form insecure attachment. They become anxious and easily distressed by the smallest sign of separation from their attachment figure... Finally, children with abusive caregivers become disorganised: they switch between avoidant and anxious coping, engage in odd behaviours and, like Cora, often self-harm."
So this is an implicit acknowledgement that the gender of that early caregiver matters less than that they are nurturing.
But I agree, the article is remiss in explicitly making mention that the gender of the early caregiver does not matter - especially given that the other half of the article is devoted to a male-female relationship (Cora and her therapist) which clearly contradicts the assumption that this needs to be a mother-child.
Personally, I would have loved to see mention that even those with one stable caregiver can still develop issues when the other caregiver is not stable, or worse: that the other caregiver does not care. That often results in a person forming good relationships with their friends, but having a different (worse) standard of conduct towards their romantic partner - e.g. a child who sees their same-gendered parent [physically or verbally] abused, and once an adult, enters into an abusive relationship because that is what is normal to them in regards to the "other" gender.
I've been significantly "involved" in this area in the last few years, and as far I see it, it's pretty much the standard blend of gender roles and nature-vs-nurture.
Most of the western societies are still based on the mother educator and father provider model. On top of this, I personally agree that mothers tend to have the qualities that makes it easier to deal with children (in a wide sense), which creates a positive feedback (or negative, depending on the POV).
None of this is out of reach for fathers. My opinion is that with some effort and an equal amount of dedication, binding and influence on children are equal (although of course, different in nature). However, it's generally uphill.
Keep in mind that once you start to notice the gender role, even more than hearing little about fathers, you'll see the negative stereotypes: check out how are the separated fathers are depicted in the cinema - it's something that "can't be unseen".
Having said that, there's movement of course, primarily in/from the Scandinavian countries. Generally speaking, gender equality increases towards the north of Europe. American countries are, I suppose, a bit of a patchwork (definitely some countries are very "behind").
I'm not sure how much time, and if ever, genders will equalize, in particular in the literature/arts depiction. Ultimately, it's also a choice - fathers being providers is not implicitly negative, it's a cultural choice (in the context of a country). Laws, they definitely need to adapt, though!
Most of the western societies are still based on the mother educator and father provider model. On top of this, I personally agree that mothers tend to have the qualities that makes it easier to deal with children (in a wide sense), which creates a positive feedback (or negative, depending on the POV).
None of this is out of reach for fathers. My opinion is that with some effort and an equal amount of dedication, binding and influence on children are equal (although of course, different in nature). However, it's generally uphill.
Keep in mind that once you start to notice the gender role, even more than hearing little about fathers, you'll see the negative stereotypes: check out how are the separated fathers are depicted in the cinema - it's something that "can't be unseen".
Having said that, there's movement of course, primarily in/from the Scandinavian countries. Generally speaking, gender equality increases towards the north of Europe. American countries are, I suppose, a bit of a patchwork (definitely some countries are very "behind").
I'm not sure how much time, and if ever, genders will equalize, in particular in the literature/arts depiction. Ultimately, it's also a choice - fathers being providers is not implicitly negative, it's a cultural choice (in the context of a country). Laws, they definitely need to adapt, though!
Probably a mistake to treat parenting styles as exogenous. Parents respond to their child’s temperaments too. It’s easy to be attached to an easy-going child. A kid that’s always crying is going to wear you out.
That's quite true. However, the article doesn't describe parents as such, it describes the actually style of parenting that took place, whatever were the reasons things went that way rather than another.
Perhaps a kid that is always crying is attempting and failing to communicate pain or discomfort.
I've been told that I was a miserable newborn--I cried nonstop for months and months and my screams made everybody around me miserable too.
My mother was told by family that I needed to cry it out, but 6 months on there was no difference. I was taken in to the hospital and was found to have had a hernia which required surgery.
After surgery, I'm told, I was absolutely quiet and unproblematic. Through the rest of my childhood and teenage years I was the 'easy-going' kid of the family. Through therapy I have learned that my attachment style is avoidant, and I have no doubt that this early experience (among others) heavily influenced the way I process emotions and feelings.
It isn't that I was a naturally 'easy-going' kid, or that I didn't have the troubles that my siblings had. I felt things, but my experiences taught me not to express them. I formed a tendency to over-intellectualize my experience and, in retrospect, heavily suppress negative emotions and even physical pain. My nature was not to seek out help when I felt immense pain, but to persist with self-reliance, at all costs.
Like the commenter above, therapy has done wonders for me in learning to recognize my feelings and having the capability in processing them in a healthy way.
I am not a parent and so I can't speak to the difficulty of a child's temperament; I have no doubt that one child's personality might be much more difficult to handle than another. A parent is clearly going to be affected to their children's temperament, but the parent is also responsible for teaching the child how to process those emotions, and is significantly more equipped in dealing with how the child affects them than the child is at dealing with how their parent affects them.
I've been told that I was a miserable newborn--I cried nonstop for months and months and my screams made everybody around me miserable too.
My mother was told by family that I needed to cry it out, but 6 months on there was no difference. I was taken in to the hospital and was found to have had a hernia which required surgery.
After surgery, I'm told, I was absolutely quiet and unproblematic. Through the rest of my childhood and teenage years I was the 'easy-going' kid of the family. Through therapy I have learned that my attachment style is avoidant, and I have no doubt that this early experience (among others) heavily influenced the way I process emotions and feelings.
It isn't that I was a naturally 'easy-going' kid, or that I didn't have the troubles that my siblings had. I felt things, but my experiences taught me not to express them. I formed a tendency to over-intellectualize my experience and, in retrospect, heavily suppress negative emotions and even physical pain. My nature was not to seek out help when I felt immense pain, but to persist with self-reliance, at all costs.
Like the commenter above, therapy has done wonders for me in learning to recognize my feelings and having the capability in processing them in a healthy way.
I am not a parent and so I can't speak to the difficulty of a child's temperament; I have no doubt that one child's personality might be much more difficult to handle than another. A parent is clearly going to be affected to their children's temperament, but the parent is also responsible for teaching the child how to process those emotions, and is significantly more equipped in dealing with how the child affects them than the child is at dealing with how their parent affects them.
This is a good and interesting read regardless, but I'll just point out that when studies are properly controlled for confounders, the "relationship with the early caregivers" matters much less than we want to think. Maybe not even at all.
What shapes us are our interactions with our early peers. This makes sense from a hunter-gatherer point of view too; those are the people we will spend almost all our life with.
I highly recommend reading The Nurture Assumption for more on this. The author effectively argues with evidence for why relationships with parents are nothing more than relationships with parents.
It really opened my eyes both for things that went on in my upbringing, the upbringing of people I know, and taught me what is going to be important as I raise my son.
What shapes us are our interactions with our early peers. This makes sense from a hunter-gatherer point of view too; those are the people we will spend almost all our life with.
I highly recommend reading The Nurture Assumption for more on this. The author effectively argues with evidence for why relationships with parents are nothing more than relationships with parents.
It really opened my eyes both for things that went on in my upbringing, the upbringing of people I know, and taught me what is going to be important as I raise my son.
The existence of several attachment disorders, where insecure parenting styles and resulting poorly developed attachment has been irrefutably shown to be the cause of the disorder, refutes any claims that "the relationship with early caregivers might not matter at all"
For an extreme result of poorly developed attachment see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_attachment_disorder
Several comments here are dismissive of attachment theory and the importance of proper development of attachment. I don't really know why but it might be the unfortunate existence of the pseudoscientific "attachment therapy" which has nothing to do with what the article is about:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attachment_therapy
For an extreme result of poorly developed attachment see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_attachment_disorder
Several comments here are dismissive of attachment theory and the importance of proper development of attachment. I don't really know why but it might be the unfortunate existence of the pseudoscientific "attachment therapy" which has nothing to do with what the article is about:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attachment_therapy
How does one go about irrefutably showing insecure parenting leads to attachment disorders that affect people outside of the home? Genuine curiosity.
I was too brash, of course there's no 100% guaranteed proven causality.
But "experiments", or rather observations, on for example Romanian orphanages show such strong evidence that, in my experience, this has become child psychology dogma
But "experiments", or rather observations, on for example Romanian orphanages show such strong evidence that, in my experience, this has become child psychology dogma
I think the reaction you are seeing has to do with Attachment Theory used as a cudgel by speakers to allow narcissist and egotists to dismiss their shitty behavior. Esther Perel is a great example. She's like a modern day Ayn Rand who thinks listening to your partner is akin to cutting off your own arm. And she backs that up with wave after wave of attachment theory gibberish.
That sounds like an extension of Attachment Therapy as a tool for narcicists. It fits the same "narcissists looking to abuse children for not loving them like they believe they are entitled to - and the horrific death of the child from their actions is never their fault". That and associated discredited refrigerator mother trope for autism along with every pet theory whose only common thread is "not genetic".
The legacy of bad ideas makes it questionable as a useful form of guidance especially when lacking more concrete successes analagous to eugenics as a pseudoscientific corruption of genetics.
The legacy of bad ideas makes it questionable as a useful form of guidance especially when lacking more concrete successes analagous to eugenics as a pseudoscientific corruption of genetics.
I think it comes down to how extreme the relation is.
In the article there ia a large portion about abusive relationships and other cases warranting a therapist's intervention. In these situations, sure parents behavior will leave a strong and lasting impact on children.
For more standard cases, parents will provide a supporting enough environment (even if not perfect) and will make their kid interact more with the world, be it school, activities etc., limiting the impact of their own direct behavior.
To get back to your point, parent's thinking and behavior is fundamental IMO, but usually not just in a direct, person to person way. It would be more on the environment and social position they provide to their children.
In the article there ia a large portion about abusive relationships and other cases warranting a therapist's intervention. In these situations, sure parents behavior will leave a strong and lasting impact on children.
For more standard cases, parents will provide a supporting enough environment (even if not perfect) and will make their kid interact more with the world, be it school, activities etc., limiting the impact of their own direct behavior.
To get back to your point, parent's thinking and behavior is fundamental IMO, but usually not just in a direct, person to person way. It would be more on the environment and social position they provide to their children.
I feel this is a more accurate assessment. The relationship between abuse/quality of parenting and anxiety/disfunction can't be thought of as linear.
When parenting starts qualifying as abuse, there is a pretty steep increase. Otherwise, genetic temperament and environmental interactions have more influence.
When parenting starts qualifying as abuse, there is a pretty steep increase. Otherwise, genetic temperament and environmental interactions have more influence.
All true. Very well put.
> This is a good and interesting read regardless, but I'll just point out that when studies are properly controlled for confounders, the "relationship with the early caregivers" matters much less than we want to think. Maybe not even at all.
No, it matters. Baby cries, caregiver shows up. Repeated over and over, that's how babies form bonds. Baby has a need, need is met. If the need is not met, that is trauma and it affects the way baby forms bonds. Forming bonds starts this early and it matters a lot.
No, it matters. Baby cries, caregiver shows up. Repeated over and over, that's how babies form bonds. Baby has a need, need is met. If the need is not met, that is trauma and it affects the way baby forms bonds. Forming bonds starts this early and it matters a lot.
Children are far more resilient than they get credit for. Short of actual abuse, malnutrition, or other terrible things, crying (and not meeting social needs) is not obviously harmful for baby.
Sure, baby will have a weak(er) bond with their primary caregivers if that happens, but it does not affect how they turn out later in life with other people. If it does, it is only after genetics and same-age peers have had their much bigger effects.
I do recommend reading The Nurture Assumption, which is about that specific assumption that the relationships with parents would be important in all other thing in life. It has not been proven in any strong studies.
Sure, baby will have a weak(er) bond with their primary caregivers if that happens, but it does not affect how they turn out later in life with other people. If it does, it is only after genetics and same-age peers have had their much bigger effects.
I do recommend reading The Nurture Assumption, which is about that specific assumption that the relationships with parents would be important in all other thing in life. It has not been proven in any strong studies.
> but it does not affect how they turn out later in life with other people.
Citation please, because there is a lot of peer reviewed literature that claims the exact opposite. One place to start with that literature would be Bowlby.
Citation please, because there is a lot of peer reviewed literature that claims the exact opposite. One place to start with that literature would be Bowlby.
I did cite Harris' The Nurture Assumption, which argues this incredibly lucidly. IIRC she does reference Bowlby too.
Thanks for pointing it out, its not a peer reviewed publication but its at least something. Its a minority view though. Here is what Wikipedia has to say about its reception:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nurture_Assumption#Recepti...
The Nurture Assumption received mixed responses. The neuroscientist Robert Sapolsky says her book is "based on solid science".[6] The psychologist Steven Pinker of Harvard predicts that the book "will come to be seen as a turning point in the history of psychology".[7] However, the psychologist Frank Farley claims that "she's taking an extreme position based on a limited set of data. Her thesis is absurd on its face, but consider what might happen if parents believe this stuff!"[6] Wendy Williams, who studies how environment affects IQ, argues that "there are many, many good studies that show parents can affect how children turn out in both cognitive abilities and behavior".[6] The psychologist Jerome Kagan argues that Harris "ignores some important facts, ones that are inconsistent with this book's conclusions".[8] Harris rejects the idea that The Nurture Assumption will encourage parents to neglect or mistreat their children.[9] She maintains that parents will continue to treat their children well "for the same reason you are nice to your friends and your partner, even though you have no hopes of molding their character. For the same reason your great-grandparents were nice to their children, even though they didn't believe in the nurture assumption".[10]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nurture_Assumption#Recepti...
The Nurture Assumption received mixed responses. The neuroscientist Robert Sapolsky says her book is "based on solid science".[6] The psychologist Steven Pinker of Harvard predicts that the book "will come to be seen as a turning point in the history of psychology".[7] However, the psychologist Frank Farley claims that "she's taking an extreme position based on a limited set of data. Her thesis is absurd on its face, but consider what might happen if parents believe this stuff!"[6] Wendy Williams, who studies how environment affects IQ, argues that "there are many, many good studies that show parents can affect how children turn out in both cognitive abilities and behavior".[6] The psychologist Jerome Kagan argues that Harris "ignores some important facts, ones that are inconsistent with this book's conclusions".[8] Harris rejects the idea that The Nurture Assumption will encourage parents to neglect or mistreat their children.[9] She maintains that parents will continue to treat their children well "for the same reason you are nice to your friends and your partner, even though you have no hopes of molding their character. For the same reason your great-grandparents were nice to their children, even though they didn't believe in the nurture assumption".[10]
She does reference plenty of peer-reviewed material that both supports and argues against her viewpoint. I normally wouldn't accept a minority viewpoint as such, but the arguments are very strong.
As I said, I recommend reading it. Do what you want with that information!
As I said, I recommend reading it. Do what you want with that information!
Yeah sure, thanks for the recommendation. Should be an interesting read.
There are many years thereafter to make up for any gaps in this process. Speaking as a parent of young children, the kid is going to do better long term if the parent is socially permitted to allow a baby to cry sometimes- because feeling like you must answer the cry at the drop of a hat every single time lest ruin your child for life, is how people snap. Sometimes you just need to lay on the floor & cry yourself for a few minutes.
> ... permitted to allow a baby to cry sometimes...
Nothing I said contradicts this - as long as you have a bond with your child.
If all you want to do is lay on the ground yourself and cry and you aren't meeting the child's needs, that is neglect and it is trauma and it does affect the child.
Nothing I said contradicts this - as long as you have a bond with your child.
If all you want to do is lay on the ground yourself and cry and you aren't meeting the child's needs, that is neglect and it is trauma and it does affect the child.
Attachment theory has been extensively researched. I’m all for alternative views - and entirely agree that early peers are significant; however, there are some fairly regular, predictable, and significant outcomes that come from parent-child relationships. I don’t think it can be so easily dismissed.
All of the significant ones I know can equally well be explained by genetics or early peers. Do you have a concrete example where these are controlled for and the effect remains?
My wife is the one who does this for a living - but my understanding is that, for example, 1) disorganized attachment is not predictive of later social, emotional, educational and mental health problems but is a moderate to significant risk factor, 2) infant disorganized attachment expression should not be used to assume parental abuse, but has a strong correlation with parent-child relationships featuring abuse, neglect, emotional dependency, etc., 3) while a risk factor, other safe/stable/nuturing relationships early in life can mitigate the negative potential effects.
I don’t have specific citations, and I’m not arguing it’s rock solid, settled science, but suggesting parent-child relationships may have no effect at all is out on the edge of reasonable.
I don’t have specific citations, and I’m not arguing it’s rock solid, settled science, but suggesting parent-child relationships may have no effect at all is out on the edge of reasonable.
Despite what one may think, I agree with most of what you said. Only with some additional observations:
1) We would expect attachment problems to be a risk factor purely based on genetics and environment. Which is indeed what we find. Personality traits like that have stronger correlation with a) your biological parents than the parents you grew up with, and b) your friends' parents than the parents you grew up with.
2) Absolutely. The way a child views their relationship with their parents is a huge signal about what their relationship with their parents is like.
3) Yes, because environment effects are the next most important thing, after genetics.
Genetics and environment outside of the home is strongly correlated with parent relationship, which is why this is so hard to study and get right. It is possible to control for those factors though, and the result is surprising -- but makes sense from an evolutionary hunter-gatherer perspective.
1) We would expect attachment problems to be a risk factor purely based on genetics and environment. Which is indeed what we find. Personality traits like that have stronger correlation with a) your biological parents than the parents you grew up with, and b) your friends' parents than the parents you grew up with.
2) Absolutely. The way a child views their relationship with their parents is a huge signal about what their relationship with their parents is like.
3) Yes, because environment effects are the next most important thing, after genetics.
Genetics and environment outside of the home is strongly correlated with parent relationship, which is why this is so hard to study and get right. It is possible to control for those factors though, and the result is surprising -- but makes sense from an evolutionary hunter-gatherer perspective.
You should read up on Russian orphans.
And Romanian ones. I have. Here's what I learned:
A complete lack of social bonding during the first few years of life is very detrimental. Shitty bonding, or bonding with non-parents (even peers, such as siblings or friends) means it's still possible to learn to lead a normal life.
The problem with the orphanages you refer to was that not only were staff not allowing children to bond with them -- children were shifted around specifically in order to prevent them from bonding with peers. This incredibly cruel thing was done because they thought it would be worse for children to have their bond torn than not have it in the first place.
Turns out developing brains need some baseline level of social interaction to grow the correct structures.
A complete lack of social bonding during the first few years of life is very detrimental. Shitty bonding, or bonding with non-parents (even peers, such as siblings or friends) means it's still possible to learn to lead a normal life.
The problem with the orphanages you refer to was that not only were staff not allowing children to bond with them -- children were shifted around specifically in order to prevent them from bonding with peers. This incredibly cruel thing was done because they thought it would be worse for children to have their bond torn than not have it in the first place.
Turns out developing brains need some baseline level of social interaction to grow the correct structures.
This is why attachment "disorders" are considered along a spectrum. Yes, initial "shitty bonding" e.g. insecure attachment with your mother or father can be overcome, it could be a grandparent, uncle or someone else who provides the attachment you need. And what we are talking about really is stable emotional co-regulation. That's the whole point of the article and modern attachment theory based therapy as far as I understand it.
Having fostered children as young as 15 months, I think it's patently absurd to claim that the relationship with early caregivers matters not at all.
The effects of abuse and neglect are so large, and so hard to change after age 3 or so, that you really don't need a big sample size to see it.
It's entirely possible that the threshold at which nurture no longer matters is so low that most parents are far above the bar, but I guarantee you if you did an experiment where you spanked a 6 month old every time they cried, or left a 14 month old in a car with a box of cereal and a sippy cup alone for 12 hours every weekend, you would measure some long-term affects quite easily.
The effects of abuse and neglect are so large, and so hard to change after age 3 or so, that you really don't need a big sample size to see it.
It's entirely possible that the threshold at which nurture no longer matters is so low that most parents are far above the bar, but I guarantee you if you did an experiment where you spanked a 6 month old every time they cried, or left a 14 month old in a car with a box of cereal and a sippy cup alone for 12 hours every weekend, you would measure some long-term affects quite easily.
How much of your agreement with The Nurture Assumption do you think is from the Most Recently Read Book Fallacy?
I find I’m easily persuaded by good writing, and the most recent book I’ve read tends to hold an outsized slice of my thinking until I’m a book or two past it.
I find I’m easily persuaded by good writing, and the most recent book I’ve read tends to hold an outsized slice of my thinking until I’m a book or two past it.
I wouldn't be able to say. Probably more than I would like! I have been seeking opposing viewpoints since I read it, though (which is part of the reason I wrote my comment here), and none have yet been very convincing.
Peer relations are very important. But from what I recall, that book doesn't really address what the article is about, partly because many of the developments took place after it was written.
And by the way, are you saying that, if you were a man married to a woman and you had children, you wouldn't be bothered if she was insensitive or abusive with them, because it would have no long-term effects on their personalities?
And by the way, are you saying that, if you were a man married to a woman and you had children, you wouldn't be bothered if she was insensitive or abusive with them, because it would have no long-term effects on their personalities?
[deleted]
> All of this suggests a tantalising alternative to both the medical professional’s and the layperson’s view of therapy: that what happens between client and therapist goes beyond mere talking, and goes deeper than clinical treatment. The relationship is both greater and more primal, and it compares with the developmental strides that play out between mother and baby, and that help to turn a diapered mess into a normal, healthy person.
Oh man, pop culture is rediscovering the use of psychoanalysis, finally! Transference is so important!
> I am referring to attachment.
Oh. God dammit.
Can't escape the vortex of "science", leading to the massive fragmentation of psychological frameworks, destroying the field's credibility.
Oh man, pop culture is rediscovering the use of psychoanalysis, finally! Transference is so important!
> I am referring to attachment.
Oh. God dammit.
Can't escape the vortex of "science", leading to the massive fragmentation of psychological frameworks, destroying the field's credibility.
Yes, you might call this the psychoanalytic idea of transference. However, the psychoanalytic understanding of infant psychology, and the infant-mother relationship, is radically different from the one presented here. Furthermore, Freud developed his ideas in this area by a very indirect method, and before any real scientific investigation had been done. In recent decades a great deal of research has now been done, and it has made clear the Freudian view was quite mistaken.
Really? I've been seeing evidence that, although Freud's concrete causal theories aren't correct (penis envy, etc), his metapsychology and structural models (particularly the work that surrounds his unpublished Project for a Scientific Psychology, a sort of proto-structuralist view of psyche) are being vindicated via neuropsychology. See https://headbirths.wordpress.com/2018/04/05/friston-on-freud...
Also, plenty of psychoanalysts were aware of the failures in Freud's theories, so you end up with theorists like Klein and Lacan who correct them while still maintaining an overall consistent model, which is _the_ thing that modern psychology lacks.
Also, plenty of psychoanalysts were aware of the failures in Freud's theories, so you end up with theorists like Klein and Lacan who correct them while still maintaining an overall consistent model, which is _the_ thing that modern psychology lacks.
The question here is infant and child psychology, and for that you need direct observation. Freud didn't do this, and he came up with an infant psychology that in key ways was simply wrong. The same is true of Lacan. Klein was a step in the direction.
Part of the problem is that the needed scientific methods did not exist. But in recent decades they have been developed, and so we now have a vastly better understanding. And that in turn has enormous implications for psychotherapy.
As to neuropsychology, I am not familiar with that field, so my question is what does it have to say about infant psychology.
Part of the problem is that the needed scientific methods did not exist. But in recent decades they have been developed, and so we now have a vastly better understanding. And that in turn has enormous implications for psychotherapy.
As to neuropsychology, I am not familiar with that field, so my question is what does it have to say about infant psychology.
I'd argue pop culture started catching on when The Sopranos aired
Or when Hitchcock's Spellbound was released in 1945.
Well, Freud was big back in the day, and then fell out of favor. And psychoanalytic theory still gets used in media and lit crit (and in writing the shows themselves), but... not in what it was built for, therapy.
Last I checked it does about as well as all other types of therapies in studies.
What does it say about the theories of mind underlying the different schools of therapy that they all work about equally well?
What does it say about the theories of mind underlying the different schools of therapy that they all work about equally well?
Ah, "Studies" whose language and inventories are already rooted in particular paradigmatic understandings of psychology. I would expect psychoanalysis to do worse, in the studies, than "regular" psychology! Damning that it doesn't!
(Restatement from a comment I posted previously[0] in a related thread.)
My go-to reference is
Attachment Disturbances in Adults: Treatment for Comprehensive Repair by Daniel P. Brown PhD & David S. Elliott PhD. [1]
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21739622
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Attachment-Disturbances-Adults-Treatm...
My go-to reference is
Attachment Disturbances in Adults: Treatment for Comprehensive Repair by Daniel P. Brown PhD & David S. Elliott PhD. [1]
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21739622
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Attachment-Disturbances-Adults-Treatm...
About age of 20 I suddenly became unable to pee in urinals. Can't pee in aircraft toilets either or anywhere I feel like I'm under scrutiny in some way. I've endured what felt to me like severe physical pain on long haul travel. I can't persuade my subconscious to let me pee even though I really want to.
No idea why this happened to me, having previously had no problems whatsoever. The only thing that I can think of was getting a gay approach at about that age but I can't say that was the cause of it though I think it might have been.
I also have trouble with this. It helps if I pretend that I'm somewhere else, where I'd be comfortable doing my business. I think, "I'm at home, in my own bathroom. I was playing a video game and I paused it to take a quick leak."
Yes I've tried that but I can't seem to fool my subconscious it seems.
This really resonated with me
[deleted]
I wonder if one alternate explanation for the "dodo theory" is like antidepressants in that the average level of effectiveness in aggregate is fairly low but each individual patient usually has several which work for them. I am not an expert admittedly.
Summary:
"... the deeper reason why no single psychotherapy seems to provide unique advantages over any other is that they ALL work because of shared elements. Chief among these is the therapeutic relationship, connected to positive outcomes by a wealth of evidence."
"The emotional bond and the collaboration between client and therapist – called the alliance – have emerged as a strong predictor of improvement, even in therapies that don’t emphasize relational factors..." cites co-author of the book "Attachment in Therapeutic Practice" (2018).
".. what if, attachment theory asks, therapy gives you the chance to reach back and repair your earliest emotional bonds, correcting, as you do, the noxious mechanics of your mental afflictions?"
"... the deeper reason why no single psychotherapy seems to provide unique advantages over any other is that they ALL work because of shared elements. Chief among these is the therapeutic relationship, connected to positive outcomes by a wealth of evidence."
"The emotional bond and the collaboration between client and therapist – called the alliance – have emerged as a strong predictor of improvement, even in therapies that don’t emphasize relational factors..." cites co-author of the book "Attachment in Therapeutic Practice" (2018).
".. what if, attachment theory asks, therapy gives you the chance to reach back and repair your earliest emotional bonds, correcting, as you do, the noxious mechanics of your mental afflictions?"
Like clockwork, every decade or so, someone says "Hey, we haven't looked at attachment theory in a while! We can get a few pubs and a book out of it.". A bunch of studies later, we see the repeat of all the previous findings: inconclusive, some interesting patterns, nothing super repeatable with strong effects.
It's fine to revisit and revise past theory work. It's just surprising that after 70 years, this theory that should explain so much, after scrutiny, just... doesn't.
Looking forward to the latest revisions to see how to apply attachment patterns to our modern world. I have popcorn in hand.
It's fine to revisit and revise past theory work. It's just surprising that after 70 years, this theory that should explain so much, after scrutiny, just... doesn't.
Looking forward to the latest revisions to see how to apply attachment patterns to our modern world. I have popcorn in hand.
Well if you want to make the argument that attachment theory is junk then you should provide some evidence.
That's not really the way science works. The theory drives testable hypotheses. We look at data to feel some confidence that the hypotheses are correct. If we don't find that data, we can continue to believe in the theory, but with less and less confidence. If a theory cannot be supported, then I can make the claim that its not correct in its current form. I don't think it's junk, but more that it's causal impact may be less than the theory purports.
And sure, we can have an alt theory that goes against Attachment theory, and generate hypos from that, and put them to the test. Answering a different question, but same problem: can't just say "won't work", need to generate specific testable hypotheses.
I'm just pointing out that the theory is nice and should have more provable (and supported) predictions, but it keeps having limited support from research, fades from view, comes back around, history repeats.
After a while, our confidence goes very low. But it's not zero, and the fact that it keeps showing up again provides new hope. The theory is attractive so I hope we find its proper alignment through this latest iteration. But it has a tough road to hoe.
And sure, we can have an alt theory that goes against Attachment theory, and generate hypos from that, and put them to the test. Answering a different question, but same problem: can't just say "won't work", need to generate specific testable hypotheses.
I'm just pointing out that the theory is nice and should have more provable (and supported) predictions, but it keeps having limited support from research, fades from view, comes back around, history repeats.
After a while, our confidence goes very low. But it's not zero, and the fact that it keeps showing up again provides new hope. The theory is attractive so I hope we find its proper alignment through this latest iteration. But it has a tough road to hoe.
Right now the scientific consensus is in for attachment theory.. I asked you to provide evidence or an alternative that it is not. What is the experiment that proves the null hypothesis? You claim it does not replicate? Ok, show me some papers.
"That's not really the way science works. The theory drives testable hypotheses."
Aside from the ethical considerations of using human subjects to test hypotheses, you also won't like genomic/bioinformatics/physics, if you faithfully adhere to the Popper doctrine.
"That's not really the way science works. The theory drives testable hypotheses."
Aside from the ethical considerations of using human subjects to test hypotheses, you also won't like genomic/bioinformatics/physics, if you faithfully adhere to the Popper doctrine.
Perhaps we follow different sources. Bowlby and Ainsworth suggest that att drives many, many behaviors and thought processes. Clinical psych has found situations where the theory applies and some therapies have had success. Yet social psych, for example, has not found similar success using this basis to predict behaviors or mental processes, for example, on relationship behaviors as adults. Since so many other theories do drive predictions across branches of science, then it's hard to believe that this theory, even after all the evolution its had, is as general as it should or could be. Not to say it won't get there, or that it's wrong, but that it gets at something without quite getting there (to put it very vaguely).
I'm not sure I get your final point: while Popper was never a fan of social sciences, psychologists have spent years running testable hypotheses and experimenting with them. Att is just a preexisting condition, and therefore should drive a repeatably different response to certain stimuli; I don't think anyone was suggesting we try raising babies in diff att styles.
But yeah, if you take Popper at his word, lots of work goes out the window (I avoided saying "pops"). I'm gonna choose a middle ground here, and see where att theory goes. I have high hopes!
I'm not sure I get your final point: while Popper was never a fan of social sciences, psychologists have spent years running testable hypotheses and experimenting with them. Att is just a preexisting condition, and therefore should drive a repeatably different response to certain stimuli; I don't think anyone was suggesting we try raising babies in diff att styles.
But yeah, if you take Popper at his word, lots of work goes out the window (I avoided saying "pops"). I'm gonna choose a middle ground here, and see where att theory goes. I have high hopes!
I would think it's very difficult to study human attachment using effect sizes. The sheer diversity of attachments a human makes and the rate at which each attachment changes means you're almost certainly seeing some confounding effects. You could bin attachment into styles and levels but it's more like a continuous function and you can never be certain that your bin sizes are adequate to describe the whole variability of the system.
stuff makes sense now
abellerose(5)
TL;DR having personal bonds helps you be a normal person. If you didn't have them in early life a therapist can act as someone forms bonds.
In general though psychotherapy is a bunch of quack, as stated in the article the only thing that really matters is the patient and shrink working together.
In general though psychotherapy is a bunch of quack, as stated in the article the only thing that really matters is the patient and shrink working together.
The point is to get the tools to develop a secure attachment with yourself with the end goal of developing an integrated emotional response.
My multi-year long journey of what I learned and getting back to health - which most visibly manifested itself as CFS symptoms (Post exertional malaise) - can be summed up as:
Trusting the therapist and understanding they are not perfect humans themselves. Accepting they are not going to fix me, they are a companion on the journey, I must fix myself with their help.
Going on a journey through all major points in my past and re-experiencing what I'd been through. Whilst having the therapist with me to slowly help unfold the emotions and understand it from a different perspective (i.e. I did not cause the bad things that happened to me, it was not my fault).
This helped me build a foundation, a place of support that didn't rely on other people, which gave me self-confidence to listen to the negative self-talk that I had blocked off for years, because it was too overwhelming to hear. When I started listening to this self-talk, I could then start to converse with it. e.g. "You aren't good enough", "Perhaps I'm not, but let's see what happens when I apply my focus to it", which started taking away its power and effect over me.
Which led me to realising that my intellect and conscious part of my mind is probably only in control of 20%-30% of me. That I'm not a fully logically creature and that I needed to come to peace with my body's needs and messages from my less conscious mind and work together as an integrated whole, rather than trying to force my will based on pure 'rational' thought.
Life has been considerably better since and my decades of depression and low energy have begun to abate.
Whilst the points may seem simple, understanding like this rarely comes from knowing in the conscious mind. It is understanding that has to be understood at a deep level, which is why therapy can take a long time. My favourite way of describing this conscious acceptance but lack of sub-conscious understanding can be summed up as: “I know that, but try telling me that”.