Psychoanalysis

On another thread

I wrote:I suspect (but obviously cannot argue) that the pathological narcissism I described is a response to early life experiences and that schizoidism is more an inherited low social drive or instinct.

In response

sum1 wrote:Vaknin is clearly fond of the psychodynamic/psychoanalytical
(Freudian) approach to psychiatry, which deals with abstract
psychological processes rather than genes, neurotransmitters
and receptors.

I recently decided to learn more about narcissism so I ordered a book, Shame, The Underside of Narcissism by Andrew Morrison and as I was paging through it came across this sentence: "We also considered the phallic-oedipal and castration implications of his shame, (his puniness, his lack of power compared with his father), but they were not a major theme at this early stage of therapy." Reading books on such subjects as this takes some effort but when I come across a sentence like that all my commitment evaporates. So I continue my search for credible works on the subject, but am now paying close attention to the customer comments and filtering out books with any reference to Freudianism and the various offshoots thereof.

I've never received any therapy but I've always imagined that if I got any from a Freudian I would have to endure all the repulsive vocabulary: anal stage, Oedipus complex, oral stage, castration anxiety, penis envy (well, got one of those!), etc, ad nauseam, and then have everything I say be treated as denial of the very opposite. It all sounds like an effort to insult and humiliate you into mental health. Well, perhaps my attitude toward it and the criticisms I have read are more appropriate for earlier versions of Freudian practice and theory. I'm just wondering what the rest of you think of it; does anyone here think it has merit? Ranting, raving, humor, etc. welcome.

phineas wrote: "We also considered the phallic-oedipal and castration implications of his shame, (his puniness, his lack of power compared with his father), but they were not a major theme at this early stage of therapy."

I can never take seriously people who write and think like this. Dressing shame and embarassment in such language only confuses the issue completely. If you're ever confronted with such in a therapy setting, provided you do decide to try therapy of course, the only possible answer is to open your fly, take out your penis and start masturbating.

phineas wrote:I've never received any therapy but I've always imagined that if I got any from a Freudian I would have to endure all the repulsive vocabulary: anal stage, Oedipus complex, oral stage, castration anxiety, penis envy (well, got one of those!), etc, ad nauseam, and then have everything I say be treated as denial of the very opposite. It all sounds like an effort to insult and humiliate you into mental health. Well, perhaps my attitude toward it and the criticisms I have read are more appropriate for earlier versions of Freudian practice and theory. I'm just wondering what the rest of you think of it; does anyone here think it has merit? Ranting, raving, humor, etc. welcome.

No, I don't think it has any merit whatsoever. These therapists are useless I'd say, but perhaps to someone who is illogical, like i think narcissism really is, then perhaps it can help. After all if you don't follow straight lines then I don't think describing a straight line to you will help you towards your goal. I'm glad I've never encountered anyone of that school. My therapists incessant talk about emotions was more than enough for me.

I totally agree with you two.

I've wondered about why there are so many freudian therapists (at least here in France) and why they were still so respected, when it seems obvious to me that their theory is empty. One of the answers could be that some people are fascinated by words, especially if they're meaningless ; they'll feel cleverer if they can put two abstract words together, and will consequently be impressed by those who can do it (illustrating the belief that "the more complicated and incomprehensible, the more intelligent a work is").
I believe it is the same, to a lesser extent, with philosophical works, which i often find to be no more than empty words put together .

Back to the subject, I have attended some psychology lessons at university about Freud and his theory. Well, it was like a religion really, the teachers beeing gods and all the students hushing anyone who dared talking during their speech.
Once, a teacher had to write the addition on the board to calculate something+25
Another day, she told us of one of her patients having dreamt that wolves jumped at his throat ; as her name resembled "wolf", she interpreted it that way : the man was entering in the "transfer stage" of his therapy, and his dream meant that he wanted to kiss her or something like that. Really ... (no one contradicted her on that, it must have seemed obvious to all the students )

I'm not saying psychoanalysis is totally useless : it can help some people, mostly because of the "listening without judging" - or at least not judging aloud- aspect (in my opinion).

One of the answers could be that some people are fascinated by words, especially if they're meaningless ; they'll feel cleverer if they can put two abstract words together, and will consequently be impressed by those who can do it (illustrating the belief that "the more complicated and incomprehensible, the more intelligent a work is")

Another reason is that if you can convince yourself that all this is true then you can feel oh-so-clever when you can claim that you understand the real reason for someone else's behavior. Did you know that the real reason for the cold war was a competition over who had the bigger and more numerous phallic symbols?

I've studied psychiatry for three years now, and I love the concept of psychoanalysis....it's one of my favorite things to read about. But Freud? What a load of squat.