I’m dealing with anxiety episodes that seems to contain elements of pure o ocd. I have been avoiding medication because I have a deep faith in my psychoanalysis sessions. I can see and feel how my upbringing has created the reasons why Im feeling anxious. temporalily I experience intrusive thoughts. I can see those thoughts are not real, and now they don’t disturbe me much. But my heartbeats are still high and keep searching for solutions to that. I have dig a lot since the start, lowering my resistance to remember. But the fear of not been capable of dealing qith the anxiety is overwhelming. My question is, is it possible to deal with these situations if I commit as Im doing it to psychoanalysis? It’s a weird mix of been capable of seeing the connections between past and present, but my body is not accepting them.
I've been dealing with Neurosis what they call OCD now for 32 years. Until I discovered that my upbringing and most importantly my unconscious causing all these symtoms. Neurosis your dealing with is from the unconscious like a dream. It has taken me two years of psychoanalysis to get out of this nightmare. Goodluck
This is a very interestig starting point. I wonder whether it is also an end point: whatever the technique, is the way the therapist builds a relationship to her patient the only relevant point? Which then would mean that a good astrologer or a patient philosopher could have the same effect on his clients. Would you agree with this? In this case, would you say that the techniques are here only to help the practioner have a proper way of building therapeutic relationships (and maybe be of significant meaning or attraction to his patients to induce the liminal minimal trust in the relationship)? And if not, what else then other than relationship would be necessary for a psychotherapy to be effective? In either cases, what would you say is the proper advantages and difficulties of the psychoanalytic approach per se?
Thank you very much for your comment. You make a very valid point that is not sufficiently conveyed in the video: the "ingredients" that make a psychotherapy effective are many. Among them are characteristics of the patients, characteristics of the therapist, the disorder(s) being treated and characteristics of the particular treatment modality (psychoanalysis vs. CBT, for example). Once all of these have been accounted for, there remains a group of factors that have an important influence (up to 40% of the variance). This group of factors are called "common factors" of therapy: regardless of the particular kind of therapy, there is something effective that all therapies somehow have. These common factors have been partially explained by the therapeutic alliance or therapeutic relationship. This is not only valid for psychoanalysis, but for all therapies that show effectiveness. In that sense, I am afraid I cannot straightforwardly disagree with the fact that a good astrologer, philosopher, homeopath, a priest, a devoted teacher, a good mother indeed are able to reverse many mental health conditions by the power of healthy relationships. It is hard work, but some people might be naturally good at establishing these relationships. The big difference between these people and psychotherapists is that psychological science attempts at elucidating where does the power of good relationships lays, what are its components, how generalisable such components are, how to create techniques that allow the power of healthy human relationships to be maximised in therapy, how to teach those techniques, how to measure them, etc.
Meta-analysis does not show that psychotherapy works better than medications, and certainly not for bipolar or schizophrenia. Psychotherapists like to believe it does, however.
Thank you for your comment. Indeed, schizophrenia, ADHD, bipolar disorder, and dysthymia have psychopharmacology as most effective treatment.Even in these cases, though, strong evidence indicates that psychotherapy administered along with psychopharmacology is more effective than medication alone in treating these more severe mental disorders. When it comes to other mental health disorders, including the so called "common mental health disorders" (depression and anxiety), meta-analytic evidence shows superiority of psychotherapy over psychopharmacotherapy and in some disorders, even over the combination between psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy. Some meta-analytic studies in most mental disorders (with the exceptions mentioned above) might show a short-term equivalence between psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy, but the effectiveness of psychotherapy is maintained at longer follow-up, while the effectiveness of medications fades rapidly at post-treatment.
I’m dealing with anxiety episodes that seems to contain elements of pure o ocd. I have been avoiding medication because I have a deep faith in my psychoanalysis sessions. I can see and feel how my upbringing has created the reasons why Im feeling anxious. temporalily I experience intrusive thoughts. I can see those thoughts are not real, and now they don’t disturbe me much. But my heartbeats are still high and keep searching for solutions to that. I have dig a lot since the start, lowering my resistance to remember. But the fear of not been capable of dealing qith the anxiety is overwhelming. My question is, is it possible to deal with these situations if I commit as Im doing it to psychoanalysis? It’s a weird mix of been capable of seeing the connections between past and present, but my body is not accepting them.
I've been dealing with Neurosis what they call OCD now for 32 years. Until I discovered that my upbringing and most importantly my unconscious causing all these symtoms. Neurosis your dealing with is from the unconscious like a dream. It has taken me two years of psychoanalysis to get out of this nightmare. Goodluck
nothing was said here about curing potential of psychoanalysis per se - I wonder why
Very strong video. You are breaking the curse that people put on it.
He is not breaking anything.
This is a very interestig starting point. I wonder whether it is also an end point: whatever the technique, is the way the therapist builds a relationship to her patient the only relevant point? Which then would mean that a good astrologer or a patient philosopher could have the same effect on his clients. Would you agree with this? In this case, would you say that the techniques are here only to help the practioner have a proper way of building therapeutic relationships (and maybe be of significant meaning or attraction to his patients to induce the liminal minimal trust in the relationship)? And if not, what else then other than relationship would be necessary for a psychotherapy to be effective? In either cases, what would you say is the proper advantages and difficulties of the psychoanalytic approach per se?
Thank you very much for your comment. You make a very valid point that is not sufficiently conveyed in the video: the "ingredients" that make a psychotherapy effective are many. Among them are characteristics of the patients, characteristics of the therapist, the disorder(s) being treated and characteristics of the particular treatment modality (psychoanalysis vs. CBT, for example). Once all of these have been accounted for, there remains a group of factors that have an important influence (up to 40% of the variance). This group of factors are called "common factors" of therapy: regardless of the particular kind of therapy, there is something effective that all therapies somehow have. These common factors have been partially explained by the therapeutic alliance or therapeutic relationship. This is not only valid for psychoanalysis, but for all therapies that show effectiveness.
In that sense, I am afraid I cannot straightforwardly disagree with the fact that a good astrologer, philosopher, homeopath, a priest, a devoted teacher, a good mother indeed are able to reverse many mental health conditions by the power of healthy relationships. It is hard work, but some people might be naturally good at establishing these relationships. The big difference between these people and psychotherapists is that psychological science attempts at elucidating where does the power of good relationships lays, what are its components, how generalisable such components are, how to create techniques that allow the power of healthy human relationships to be maximised in therapy, how to teach those techniques, how to measure them, etc.
Meta-analysis does not show that psychotherapy works better than medications, and certainly not for bipolar or schizophrenia. Psychotherapists like to believe it does, however.
Thank you for your comment. Indeed, schizophrenia, ADHD, bipolar disorder, and dysthymia have psychopharmacology as most effective treatment.Even in these cases, though, strong evidence indicates that psychotherapy administered along with psychopharmacology is more effective than medication alone in treating these more severe mental disorders.
When it comes to other mental health disorders, including the so called "common mental health disorders" (depression and anxiety), meta-analytic evidence shows superiority of psychotherapy over psychopharmacotherapy and in some disorders, even over the combination between psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy. Some meta-analytic studies in most mental disorders (with the exceptions mentioned above) might show a short-term equivalence between psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy, but the effectiveness of psychotherapy is maintained at longer follow-up, while the effectiveness of medications fades rapidly at post-treatment.
Very interesting
@@nlorenzini Well, to assume that depression is one distinct "disorder" is quite controversial actually.
🥱
It does not work 😂
Worked for me.👋🏻 And I know you don't give a shit.
His accent a bit much. Losing some words and thus ideas.