Posted by Estella on August 28, 2006, at 1:30:27
In reply to Re: Woo hoo a rant fest :-), posted by Jost on August 25, 2006, at 12:01:06
> There used to be a theory that different therapist/personalities would be drawn to different therapy modalities. It seems to have dropped form view, but it was there.
:-)
There is probably some truth to that. There is probably something to do with the training too. Different orientations often have different training associated. I mean, many years of med school to do something psychodynamic, a more general arts / social science / science degree to do something cognitive / behavioural. Education to do the more humanistic type theories etc.> Also, there was a theory that if you were a freudian, everyone had hysteria (until hysteria disappeared, and then everyone had whatever freudians believed in, then), while biological types thought everyone had bad brain chemistry, and existentialists thought everyone needed to grapple with existential dilemmas.
Yeah. I guess there are different general frameworks and the frameworks are supposed to explain human development / normal human psychology fairly generally. As such, all behaviour is viewed through the general framework. Different theories about people are a little like different Kuhnian paradigms. Where different theorists are living in different worlds being driven by different questions, applying different research methods, to find different answers. I wrote something a little about this but I focused on behaviourism and the cognitive revolution as different Kuhnian paradigms and didn't even look at psychoanalytic models and humanistic models and so on and so forth...
> So, for example, in the famous experiment where all these "normal" people went to psych hospitals and claimed to hear voices saying something (it wasn't something you'd expect voices to say, either--more like "balance your checkbook NOW" as opposed to "the fbi has planted receivers into my fillings")-- once people were in the hospital, nothing they did could convince anyone that they were sane. Everything was somehow consistent with the diagnosis of schizophrenia-- like they were paranoid, or resistant to treatment, or whatever.Yeah. That was a bit of a scandal that was. It was done many years ago now. You aren't allowed to replicate it (ethics). People typically say that you wouldn't find that these days, but you aren't allowed to replicate so who knows.
> I also read somewhere that if a little boy and a little girl are crying, people will think the boy is angry and the girl is sad.I hadn't heard that one.
> Since arguably your judgments about what you're feeling are partly determined by what you're told you're feeling, these interpretations could be internalized, and elaborated. Even after people have other experiences in which they are angry or sad (or, as often, both at once), this could lead them to overidentify with the angry or sad elements of their emotions.
Yeah.
> Emotions are an interesting subject.I used to think so lol. Actually... I guess I still do. I just don't want that to be my main topic anymore.
> The CBTers seem awfully sure that there's one type of connection, which can be reversed or broken mechanically-- without having thought through the complexities or the full usefulness of their method.
Yeah. Though to be fair I guess they could allow that there is a feedback loop between physiological response and thoughts so that sometimes physiological response is what triggers the thoughts but the thoughts make the physiological response worse (or refire it) and round and round... And you have to break into the cycle somewhere so lets pick somewhere (thoughts) and just run with that. I think more enlightened theorists see it that way. Also, relaxation training etc targets the physiological responses more directly. I guess the trouble I have is the huge focus on thoughts. Maybe... It depends on what your problem is. Maybe... It depends on how sensitive your therapist is. I guess a good therapist goes with what the client finds helpful and is able to be a bit flexable and adaptable with respect to finding out what is helpful. Some therapists are okay with this. Others... Have their little tool kit and when things don't work out as the text books say they should then they are at a loss.
Reductionism is interesting. I'm reading some stuff at the moment on whether the biological level of explanation / treatment is fundamental (as the medical model seems to suggest) or whether the psychological and social levels might be fundamental for some disorders. Interesting... One notion is that the level where the generalisations are most robust is the fundamental level. For some disorders... Generalisations are most robust at the psychological or social levels of explanation whereas the neurology is a f*cking mess. I love philosophy sometimes :-)
poster:Estella
thread:679557
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20060826/msgs/680726.html