![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 6 to 30 of 45. Go back in thread:
Posted by baseball55 on January 14, 2014, at 20:03:42
In reply to Attachment Theory?, posted by SLS on January 13, 2014, at 22:18:23
Just to expand on Alex's reply. Toddlers are in a room with their mothers. The mother leaves and then researchers evaluate how toddler responds when mother returns. Secure attachment - toddler welcomes mother back and plays happily. Anxious attachment - toddler fusses and seems ambivalent about mother's return. Avoident attachment - toddler ignores mother.
Theory is that attachment issues/relationship issues as adults are related to early parent/child attachment. There is no actual evidence for this, because no long-term longitudinal studies, but the idea makes sense from a psychodynamic perspective.
Children who could not form a bond with a parent (avoident attachment) will have difficulty forming bonds as adults. Personally, I know for a fact I was a case of avoident attachment. I actually ran away from my mother when I was three and ran away from home when I was five. I had tremendous difficulty as an adult in forming close bonds with people.
The theory is that borderline-type characteristics (fear of abandonment, unstable relationships) in adults probably started as anxious attachment in early childhood.
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 17, 2014, at 0:56:00
In reply to Re: Attachment Theory?, posted by baseball55 on January 14, 2014, at 20:03:42
> Toddlers are in a room with their mothers. The mother leaves and then researchers evaluate how toddler responds when mother returns. Secure attachment - toddler welcomes mother back and plays happily. Anxious attachment - toddler fusses and seems ambivalent about mother's return. Avoident attachment - toddler ignores mother.
>
> Theory is that attachment issues/relationship issues as adults are related to early parent/child attachment.Sorry if this is a tangent. If you guys want, I'll start a new thread.
Posters are at a site with the moderator. The moderator leaves. How do the posters respond when the moderator returns?
Bob
Posted by 10derheart on January 17, 2014, at 11:35:19
In reply to Re: Attachment Theory?, posted by Dr. Bob on January 17, 2014, at 0:56:00
Oh for ^&**&^^% sake, Dr. Bob. Your choice of analogy is....[insert any preferred uncivil expression].
Really?
Perhaps we all should break out the pacifiers and diapers and move along to the kiddie pool as HC likes to suggest.
Thanks ever so much. Not.
Posted by HomelyCygnet on January 17, 2014, at 12:11:40
In reply to Re: Attachment Theory? » Dr. Bob, posted by 10derheart on January 17, 2014, at 11:35:19
Posted by SLS on January 17, 2014, at 14:09:54
In reply to Re: Attachment Theory? » Dr. Bob, posted by 10derheart on January 17, 2014, at 11:35:19
Nice to see you!
:-)
(I get attached to the good ones).
- Scott
Posted by sigismund on January 17, 2014, at 14:58:27
In reply to Re: Attachment Theory?, posted by Dr. Bob on January 17, 2014, at 0:56:00
>Posters are at a site with the moderator. The moderator leaves. How do the posters respond when the moderator returns?
And will he be the same?
Posted by SLS on January 17, 2014, at 15:22:06
In reply to Re: Attachment Theory? » Dr. Bob, posted by sigismund on January 17, 2014, at 14:58:27
> >Posters are at a site with the moderator. The moderator leaves. How do the posters respond when the moderator returns?
>
> And will he be the same?lol
With all due respect to the moderator, I must say that that was brilliant.
- Scott
Posted by sleepygirl2 on January 17, 2014, at 19:54:24
In reply to Re: Attachment Theory?, posted by Dr. Bob on January 17, 2014, at 0:56:00
There are variables at play here, but I think it's worth considering how we might react to the comings and goings of many people in our lives, including dr bob, and how it relates to our own attachment experiences.
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 19, 2014, at 3:04:23
In reply to Re: Attachment Theory? » sigismund, posted by SLS on January 17, 2014, at 15:22:06
> > > Posters are at a site with the moderator. The moderator leaves. How do the posters respond when the moderator returns?
> >
> > And will he be the same?
>
> lol
>
> With all due respect to the moderator, I must say that that was brilliant.I must say I agree. :-)
Bob
Posted by Twinleaf on January 22, 2014, at 16:39:54
In reply to Attachment Theory?, posted by SLS on January 13, 2014, at 22:18:23
Just noticed this thread, and thought I would comment because I have been having a type of therapy based on it. The concept that relative failures in secure attachment during early childhood were responsible for anxiety and depressive disorders in later life were suggested about 50 years ago by John Bowlby in the UK. Mary Main and others in the US classified attachment into four types: Secure, Insecure (attached but anxious), Avoidant (avoiding closeness, tending to anger if approached too closely), and Disorganized ( the most severe, indicating a complete lack of ability to attach as sometimes seen in orphans).
One of the most significant therapists to base his work on attachment in recent years is Allan Schore of UCLA. He thinks that the most important function of the mothering figure in the first two years of life is to foster a secure attachment so that the infant lays down the proper neurons and connections in the right hemisphere so as to be able to regulate its own anxiety and distress. Therapy is modeled on what a "good enough" mother does with an infant - such things as allowing the client to take the lead in choosing the topic, staying with whatever feelings are there, not asking questions or changing the subject, not analyzing or interpreting ( those would be left hemisphere functions). It is based on the understanding that the mother uses her own right hemisphere as well as a variety of non-verbal communications ( gaze, intuition, body movement), to let the client's right (unconscious) hemisphere know that it is understood. The most amazing thing is that new neuronal connections can be formed throughout adult life that allow a client to become more securely attached, both to the therapist and other important people, and will also allow him to gain new brain structures which make greater emotional self-regulation possible. This kind of therapy is so new ( since about 2000) that it's hard to find a therapist who does it. If you are someone who feels they have deficits in early mothering, this kind of therapy is ideal, and can be life-transforming. I feel certain it will rapidly gain many more therapists who are trained to do it.
Posted by SLS on January 22, 2014, at 17:03:07
In reply to Re: Attachment Theory? » SLS, posted by Twinleaf on January 22, 2014, at 16:39:54
Posted by baseball55 on January 22, 2014, at 19:35:51
In reply to Re: Attachment Theory? » SLS, posted by Twinleaf on January 22, 2014, at 16:39:54
Thanks for this. Very interesting and informative. However, I would raise one issue. While therapy based on this kind of detailed analysis may be new, the idea of therapy as a kind of re-parenting is not very new at all. I don't recall the names and dates, but for at least a few decades, therapists practicing psycho-dynamic therapy rejected most Freudian ideas in favor Kohut's self-psychology whcih emphasized the idea that the therapist should act as a "good-enough" parent, providing unconditional positive regard (secure attachment), mirroring the patient's emotional state (engaging the right brain), and working through the transference until the patient could mourn their lack of a secure childhood and learn to soothe and become compassionate to themselves.
Both my 74 year old psychiatrist and my 45 year old social worker/therapist, subscribe to this view, though their language is slightly different. Glen Gabbard, who has written two textbooks on psychodynamic therapy for psychiatrists in training, subscribes to this view.
So I'm not sure how new or unique this attachment therapy is. Ultimately, I think most therapy is about forging a strong attachment with a therapist, learning to feel secure in that attachment, and, through that attachment, learning to venture out in the world safely, as a securely attached baby crawls away and looks over her shoulder to be sure the parent is still there.
Studies of therapy show over and over that the most important variable in therapeutic impact is the quality of the relationship between therapist and patient. Even Freud came to believe that the transference (attachment of patient to therapist) was the most important part of therapy.
Posted by Twinleaf on January 22, 2014, at 19:56:02
In reply to Re: Attachment Theory? » Twinleaf, posted by baseball55 on January 22, 2014, at 19:35:51
You make excellent points. I didn't know too much about those earlier therapists, but they were obviously very important in the development of the ideas I was discussing.
Posted by Phillipa on January 22, 2014, at 19:58:33
In reply to Re: Attachment Theory? » SLS, posted by Twinleaf on January 22, 2014, at 16:39:54
Melanie Klein had a pdoc that believed in her. Phillipa
Posted by alexandra_k on January 23, 2014, at 17:12:55
In reply to Re: Attachment Theory? » SLS, posted by Twinleaf on January 22, 2014, at 16:39:54
Nice post. I was hoping you would come and say something on this thread.
My therapist in Australia was of this sort of theoretic orientation. John Briere was one therapist he suggested to me.
I find the right brain connection... Emotional resonance... Whatever...
I find it to be almost too much to bear. Invasive? Too intimate? Something...
I'm not sure if it is because of lack of trust that I have because of past trauma... Or if it is more that I've always just been this way... But it is very hard for me.
I think mostly therapy with him was about exposure / desensitisation for me. Mostly it felt... Icky. Thats about the best I can explain it.
I think there is something to it. Especially with respect to learning how to self soothe and regulate emotions / physiological arousal. I'm not sure that that is what is needed for me anymore (perhaps because I got that from him already)... But I think it is something that a lot of people could profit from.
Posted by Twinleaf on January 24, 2014, at 9:19:32
In reply to Re: Attachment Theory? » Twinleaf, posted by alexandra_k on January 23, 2014, at 17:12:55
It sounds like you got a lot out of your experience with that therapist. I think you are not at all alone in finding it stressful; we all start with varying degrees of difficulty in emotional self-regulation and attachment impairments. It can be really hard just being in a therapeutic relationship!
I think it's remarkable that this type of therapy can actually allow our right hemispheres to form the neuronal connections which did not get formed in infancy because of inadequate mothering. Once you've got those connections, you are much better able to moderate your own distress without needing a therapist.
Posted by alexandra_k on January 24, 2014, at 15:06:09
In reply to Re: Attachment Theory?, posted by Twinleaf on January 24, 2014, at 9:19:32
autistic kids don't like it though, yeah? they find eye contact to be... arousing. not calming. the other person attempting to do the resonance thing can be... distressing. not soothing. i do wonder if i'm wired up a little bit differently in this respect. what other people seem to seek... i have an aversion to. i thought it was because my mother was so over-stimulating / insensitive to me / dysregulated and unpredictable herself... and maybe that was part of it (withdrawing from her was the best thing i could do to become calm). but maybe... i would have been a little like this with any caregiver. i guess we'll never know. about me, anyway.
Posted by Twinleaf on January 24, 2014, at 15:48:29
In reply to Re: Attachment Theory?, posted by alexandra_k on January 24, 2014, at 15:06:09
Don't you think babies instinctively know whether it's best for them to withdraw or approach in a given situation? From what you have written about your mother, she was quite dysregulated herself, and secure attachment may not have been a possibility. But there's clearly nothing wrong with you, in the sense that you have all the things you need to grow and change in the right circumstances. This is just my personal opinion, but I think giving you a diagnosis on the autistic spectrum may have been the easiest way for them to provide you with the financial and housing aid you need without committing themselves to very much in the way of therapy. Even if there is a little truth to the idea of an autistic spectrum disorder, attachment-focused therapy can help a great deal with both autism and impaired emotional attachment. Here in the US, it is always a part of comprehensive treatment for children with autistic spectrum. The over-riding problem is how expensive really good treatment is.
Posted by alexandra_k on January 24, 2014, at 21:39:54
In reply to Re: Attachment Theory? » alexandra_k, posted by Twinleaf on January 24, 2014, at 15:48:29
Perhaps. But then... I didn't really take much pleasure in... Eye contact. And even a brief moment of emotional resonance in therapy was... Excruciating for me, somehow. Very intense. Would leave me exhausted and... Reeling... For days. Not pleasurable for me. Felt like exposure therapy more than anything else.
I suppose it is possible that it is a learned aversion, though. I certainly have become a lot more sensitive to things since I quit smoking. Smells. Tastes. And the gym... Part of learning to move... Part of my rehab... Has been about learning to feel. To take pleasure in the fast movement (and moment of weightlessness) in Olympic Weightlifting. I love spinning with weights as a counterbalance... And swinging from the pull up bars... Jumping... I wish I could back flip but I'm a bit scared... Headstand / handstand... The feeling of being upsidedown... Standing on one foot, even. And balancing about on a gym ball...
I think there was an element of the dx being... helpful... with respect to assistance for housing etc. To start with I thought that was all there was to it, really. But over time I've started to think...
They do seem genuinely interested in me in some respects... As a case of a female on the spectrum -- because current thought is that females are being under-diagnosed because they present differently. And also... I think one of the things they are giving me / trying to give me... Is access to a strong, capable, ... I don't quite know what to say... Support system. Consumer advocacy. Because the thing is... A lot of people are campaigning for 'different' rather than 'deficient' or 'broken' or whatever. The idea that... Perhaps there really isn't anything wrong with me. It is just that I'm a really bad fit for certain environments (e.g., ones containing gregarious, loud, jostly, people who are mostly focused on people connection). I... Simply can't function in that kind of environment. But then... They simply couldn't function in the kind of environment that is ideal for me.
Not better.. Not worse.. Just... Different. Different ways of being. Diversity. It's a good thing. We don't know how the environment will shift or...
This is...
It is some kind of peace for me. Resolution. Actually. This was... This was where my thesis was going, actually. But this just sort of happened to me... I don't actually feel that I have anything to contribute to hte field at present. But... Well... Wittgenstein said that philospophy was a form of therapy... And I think... It has helped me come to peace.
So... The resonance thing... I think the resonance is a form of intimacy / connection. And a sensitive parent / therapist is sensitive to when connection is needed and when distance is needed. Sometimes connection is soothing... Sometimes connection is arousing... How is it different? What is different about a soothing vs arousing connnection? Calming vs startling? Exciting vs calming? Some people love the exhiliration of roller coasters... Other people feel very sick... Others are very frightened...
In the gym... When things feel hard... Some people back away from it. Some are actively frightened of it. Other people grit their teeth resolve their faces and throw themselves in full force.
I think you can learn to be a bit different... How our parents react to things affects how we react as children... Whether we are bold to take risks or whether we huddle in the corner fussing... Whether we like the roller coaster or feel scared... But then certain other things just don't feel right... Like someone touching us some place when we'd really rather they didn't... No matter how much they say we like it... I... Feel a bit like that about eye contact sometimes. When people search into my eyes... I feel like they are physically groping me.
People feel differently about this... Some people say that it is just looking with eyes... But It is so much more to me than that...
Some things are a bit plastic... Some cultures kiss strangers on the cheeks as greeting -- ain't nothing to it... Some people feel very uncomfortable hugging uncle so and so... Maaori greet by touching noses and -- inhaling each others breath. their life force. Most non-maaori don't do it properly - so it isn't expected... I get it... But I won't. I... Can't. For me... That is extremely intimate / personal. I think it is because I'm hyper-sensitive to things... Very easily overwhelmed.
I don't know.
Posted by alexandra_k on January 25, 2014, at 0:36:53
In reply to Re: Attachment Theory?, posted by alexandra_k on January 24, 2014, at 21:39:54
and then i watch film footage of behaviourist therapy or 'treatment' with autistic kids... teaching them to look in the eyes for food reward. you can see that they really don't want to. they don't like it. they'd really rather not do it. but they train them to do it, anyway... train them to be more 'normal'. why? not for the kids benefit... i really don't think...
and so my last therapist had this thing about emotional attunement or resonance or whatever it was... and therapy (for him... for me... whatever...) was about his trying to make that connnection with me.
and i felt a lot like those kids.
but i'm sure he knows whats best.
for me.
Posted by Twinleaf on January 25, 2014, at 8:12:35
In reply to Re: Attachment Theory?, posted by alexandra_k on January 25, 2014, at 0:36:53
According to Schore, the whole reason for attachment is to enable the right hemisphere of infants to grow the structures so that it can regulate itself emotionally. Whether it's a "good-enough" mother or a "good-enough" therapist, that can mean not just trying to engage, but looking away and allowing disengagement also - basically following the infant/ patient's lead and letting her determine whst happens at a given moment. I don't think taking the lead away and continually forcing engagement is helpful at all. No baby or adult likes that!
Posted by alexandra_k on January 25, 2014, at 18:37:52
In reply to Re: Attachment Theory? » alexandra_k, posted by Twinleaf on January 25, 2014, at 8:12:35
Yes, I think you are right.
Do you know if Shore or anyone else working on attachment theory has anything much to say about Autism?
I'm familiar with the stuff on Austism as lack of theory of mind... Depends a bit on what you mean by theory of mind... But it is looking like that perhaps isn't the most helpful characterization... I'm interested in other conceptions... That might be... Illuminating.
I guess there is a notion of Autism as failure of attachment... Attachment system is... Broken. Or otherwise f*ck*d up.
Temple Grandin wrote about how hugs were too much for her to bear... But she used to like getting under the couch cushions and having her sister sit on them. She found the deep pressure soothing. Or the squeeze machine... Cattle find pressure / the closeness to be calming... I guess some people do find straight jackets and seclusion cells to be calming... At least some of the time... I think that is why I love my foam roller so much... It... Desensitises me (or something) in a way I find helpful. Like how some kids that are really sensitive to tactile stimulation (e.g., crying because of scratchy clothes or tags or whatever) can benefit from being firmly brushed... There are films of little kids... It is curious to watch... They sort of like it... Just like watching a puppy or something that isn't quite sure whether they like it and then you get them in just the right place and they think it's great.
They are cases where people claim that they find other peoples presence / closeness to be... Arousing / stimulating rather than calming. So in terms of emotion regulation... What ones wants (in terms of soothing regulation, anyway) is to be... Left alone.
There is a 'solitary foraging' hypothesis. I don't know the specifics of the hypothesis, but I quite like the idea of a difference (a viably different behavioural strategy / way of being) rather than an across the board deficit. People are fun insofar as they are arousing or stimulating. They are a supersalient feature of the environment, indeed. One gets depressed or under-stimulated to the point of stupor without some imput from them (over a prolongued period), for sure. But... How can one relax around their unpredictability and their tendency to be our greatest threat?? I mean... That isn't a traumatic or unrealistic way to view people... We are in fact our own worst enemies. The worst things that have happened to people have been things that were deliberately inflicted by people.
Posted by Twinleaf on January 25, 2014, at 20:22:10
In reply to Re: Attachment Theory?, posted by alexandra_k on January 25, 2014, at 18:37:52
I don't know. I am reading Schore's latest book now; if there's anything about autism, I'll let you know.
Posted by alexandra_k on January 25, 2014, at 21:11:50
In reply to Re: Attachment Theory? » alexandra_k, posted by Twinleaf on January 25, 2014, at 20:22:10
there is probably an index.
i found this:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/15289168.2013.822741
'de-evolve'
'dysfunction'uh huh.
Posted by Twinleaf on January 25, 2014, at 21:53:05
In reply to Re: Attachment Theory?, posted by alexandra_k on January 25, 2014, at 21:11:50
No listing in the index.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Psychology | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.