What is the nature of denial??

[Blagsta]

No, i need blagsta to tell me what HE thinks projection is.

You should know by now that even common terms can be open to debate, due to the connotaionly nature of language and how it is totally dependent on context to be fully understood. I have my own understanding of what projection is, but when blagsta appears to not have the same understanding (due to conflicting things in his post) i want to know what his is.

You do make me laugh

 

[Blagsta]

How about think about the possibility that even though you haven't read Freud, you might have a working knowledge of some of his ideas due to collateral reading, or just due to its prevalence in our society.

Of course he does. What is annoying me here is fela fan claiming ideas that are in common parlance as his own.

 

[Jonti]

I've never read anything actually written by Einstein, but I've heard of E=Mc2.

You'd probably enjoy reading this little book that Einstein wrote for the intelligent layman. He's a wonderfully clear writer. It is marvellous the way the ideas of relativity flow from the fact of the constancy of the speed of light.

Freud just wasn't in the same class, imho. Sure he opened up the study of human motivation as being not necessarily apparent to the individual, and that was a great achievement in itself. But his actual theories, unlike Einstein's, are pretty much superceded. Studies show that theories closely based on Freud's teachings are not particularly good. Psychoanalysis is not a good choice of therapy. Rational-emotive theory seems to be far more successful.

 

[Blagsta]

I would beg to differ actually. Psychoanalysis can be a very good therapy for deep rooted emotional problems. While some of Freud's theories have been superceded, things like repression, denial, projection, the unconscious etc are now pretty well accepted. In the UK, psychoanalysis has taken a lot from Melanie Klein (object relations), who's ideas are also pretty well accepted (splitting, the fact that we have internal representations of significant figures in our life etc).

 

[thought]

Interesting question, how does dyslexia affect reading of arabic script?

I know that with our alphabet, the dyslexic reader will make transposition errors, etc. I don't know enough about arabic writing, to know what kinds of errors would be common.

It like all things depends on the individual nature of your dyslexia.

there is a fantastic book called "how would I cope" If your really interested in understanding how hard it is for dyslexics try getting a copy

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dyslexia-Ho...ef=sr_1_1/026-3392087-9874830?ie=UTF8&s=books



As for the question re - arabic.. the main problem with the english language is the lack of its "sounding as its written / read" Which is why i could read french far better than english 'till my late teens...

the symbols, of arabic, may be more "structured" thus allowing a dyslexic person easier ways of recognising the "word"

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

It like all things depends on the individual nature of your dyslexia.

there is a fantastic book called "how would I cope" If your really interested in understanding how hard it is for dyslexics try getting a copy

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dyslexia-Ho...ef=sr_1_1/026-3392087-9874830?ie=UTF8&s=books



As for the question re - arabic.. the main problem with the english language is the lack of its "sounding as its written / read" Which is why i could read french far better than english 'till my late teens...

the symbols, of arabic, may be more "structured" thus allowing a dyslexic person easier ways of recognising the "word"

Thanks for that.

 

[Jonti]

Psychoanalysis can be a very good therapy for deep rooted emotional problems.

Can you cite any research to support that claim?

This study suggests otherwise ... (emphasis added)

Psychoanalytic or psychodynamic psychotherapy encompasses a number of psychotherapeutic interventions that may be brief or long term in duration...
Depression: In one of the most comprehensive and accomplished comparative psychotherapy outcome reviews, Roth and Fonagy (1996) found that psychodynamic psychotherapies achieved their minimal criteria for full empirical validation only in the treatment of depression for the elderly and failed to do so for the treatment of any other child or adult disorder. Results of two metaanalyses suggest that brief psychodynamic psychotherapy for the treatment of major depressive disorder is more effective than a waiting list control condition but probably less effective than other forms of psychotherapy (Depression Guideline Panel, 1993; [E], Jarrett and Rush, 1999 [F]).

This is not to deny that the ideas of repression, denial, projection, the unconscious etc are valid -- just to say there is evidence that psychoanalysis fails to make effective use of these notions. There are alternative, evidence based therapies that do rather better.

 

[Blagsta]

Here's some links to peruse

http://www.thecasselhospital.org/publications.htm
http://www.tavi-port.org/research.html
http://www.psychol.ucl.ac.uk/psychoanalysis/peter_publications.htm
http://www.psych.org/pnews/01-02-02/moredata.html
http://www.pep-web.org/document.php?id=apa.039.0871a

However the whole notion of "evidence based practice" is very much in dispute when it comes to "measurements" of people's subjective experience. How do we quantify and objectify people's subjective experiences? Is it even appropriate to objectify our subjective experience? Can you put a measurement on your happiness? Is that measurement equal to mine? If you were 8 on a 1 - 10 scale and I was 8 on 1 - 10 scale of happiness, could we say that our amount of happiness was objectively the same? If I was on an 8 when I filled in the test, would that mean I was an 8 half an hour later? Emotions and subjective experience are by their very nature dynamic. Is it possible to take a snapshot of something that is inherently in flux and say it means anything? I've ignored the question of who gets to decide what counts as evidence btw...

 

[Blagsta]

This is not to deny that the ideas of repression, denial, projection, the unconscious etc are valid --

I should hope not. Most great drama's are based on these very notions.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I recall my psych prof in university telling us that a study of patients who'd been through psychoanalysis showed that 1/3 improved, 1/3 stayed the same, and 1/3 got worse.

 

[fela fan]

How about think about the possibility that even though you haven't read Freud, you might have a working knowledge of some of his ideas due to collateral reading, or just due to its prevalence in our society.

Perhaps if you were to read my posts you would have seen that that's exactly what i've already done. Hence my confused question to you.

 

[fela fan]

Yes, I'm full aware that my arrogance is sometimes a defence against my own insecurity at not knowing all the things I would like to. Thanks for the insight though. Now apply it to yourself.

Okay will do. And... look here, i've just found out i'm not arrogant, not insecure, and i know all the things i want to know.

Hurry along now mate, you've a lot of catching up to do.

 

[fela fan]

Of course he does. What is annoying me here is fela fan claiming ideas that are in common parlance as his own.

You're still hamstrung by your own opinions about what i'm saying as what i'm actually doing. Your take on what i say is converted into what you think i do.

You're wrong.

I'm not 'claiming' anything to start with. And i'm certainly not claiming others' ideas as being mine. If i've not read somebody how can i claim his ideas????

I'm not annoying you. You are allowing yourself to get annoyed in reacting to my words. Not me, my words.

 

[fela fan]

You do make me laugh

Aha, some light relief for you then mate. You normally seem to get fed up with me, or annoyed by me. Glad to create a pocket of happiness for you. We strive to please.

 

[Blagsta]

I recall my psych prof in university telling us that a study of patients who'd been through psychoanalysis showed that 1/3 improved, 1/3 stayed the same, and 1/3 got worse.

Ahhhh, must be true then.

 

[Mungy]

just for the record superiority and inferiority complexes are phrases coined by Carl Jung http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Jung

oddly enough wikipedias entry on complexes credits Theodor Ziehen with coining the phrase. that is at odds with everything i have read on jung. perhaps i just read the wrong books

bugger. got to go now. i'll contribute more later. hopefull something entertaining

 

[Blagsta]

Okay will do. And... look here, i've just found out i'm not arrogant, not insecure, and i know all the things i want to know.

Hurry along now mate, you've a lot of catching up to do.

It's quite incredible how un-self aware you are.

 

[Jonti]

I recall my psych prof in university telling us that a study of patients who'd been through psychoanalysis showed that 1/3 improved, 1/3 stayed the same, and 1/3 got worse.

... but they *all* spent a lot of time and money

Although it's not a knock-out objection philosophically (it being possible that correct conclusions can be arrived at by random, so to speak) the fact is that Freud thought the accounts of childhood sexual abuse he was hearing were fantasy. Specifically Freudian, or psychoanalysis as such, was derived on that basis. These days, that seems something of a shaky foundation.

One could go so far as to say that Freud colluded in sexual abuse, and his theories ("psychoanalysis") enabled it to continue.

 

[Jonti]

Here's some links to peruse

http://www.thecasselhospital.org/publications.htm
http://www.tavi-port.org/research.html
http://www.psychol.ucl.ac.uk/psychoanalysis/peter_publications.htm
http://www.psych.org/pnews/01-02-02/moredata.html
http://www.pep-web.org/document.php?id=apa.039.0871a

However the whole notion of "evidence based practice" is very much in dispute when it comes to "measurements" of people's subjective experience. How do we quantify and objectify people's subjective experiences? Is it even appropriate to objectify our subjective experience? Can you put a measurement on your happiness? Is that measurement equal to mine? If you were 8 on a 1 - 10 scale and I was 8 on 1 - 10 scale of happiness, could we say that our amount of happiness was objectively the same? If I was on an 8 when I filled in the test, would that mean I was an 8 half an hour later? Emotions and subjective experience are by their very nature dynamic. Is it possible to take a snapshot of something that is inherently in flux and say it means anything? I've ignored the question of who gets to decide what counts as evidence btw...

I asked for comparative studies that support the claim that psychoanalysis is a better choice than other therapies.

You seem to be arguing that
a) somewhere in the links I'll find such evidence
b) such evidence cannot be adduced for systemic reasons

 

[Jonti]

All good stuff. Denial is doubtless the shock absorber of the soul. But how can one deceive oneself? To be able to do so implies one is not one at all, but several -- and that one of one's selves is pulling the wool over the eyes of the others. Who am I, if there is another another "me" that can systematically fool this me?

It seems the notion of denial forces us to accept that we are not psychologically unitary things at all. Like the stroke patients that Ramachandran writes about (very summarised, here), we each have many sets of beliefs, and each belief set may contradict the others. Yet we move smoothly between these belief spaces, feeling we are always the same "I". It's as we all suffer from a mild multiple personality disorder

And how does the purely physiological, neurological, denial (as described by Ramachandran and summarised at the link I've given above) mesh with the psychological "repressive" denial that you've described?]

Not several selves, just two. The ego, and the real self. The ego is not actually ourself, even though we identify with it as the real us. The ego is a very cunning slippery fellow. To lie comes simply if there is to be a gain, or an avoidance of a bad thing. The ego can convince itself of anything. And if the ego is in charge, ie the person carrying it associates him/herself with their ego as being the real them, then the bit that we may call the soul is suppressed.

To avoid getting into denial, one must be tuned into the real self, and one must be able to control one's ego, not be controlled by it.

But consider the problem of Dissociative Identity Disorder (also known as Multiple Personality Disorder).

Bodies who suffer from this disorder seem to host a multiplicity of characters (on average, 13 ) each of which can take charge of consciousness, and yet be unaware of the deeds and memories of the other fragments of the self.

 

[Blagsta]

the fact is that Freud thought the accounts of childhood sexual abuse he was hearing were fantasy. Specifically Freudian, or psychoanalysis as such, was derived on that basis. These days, that seems something of a shaky foundation.

One could go so far as to say that Freud colluded in sexual abuse, and his theories ("psychoanalysis") enabled it to continue.

Where did you get that from? Afaik, Freud was one of the first people to recognise that adult psychological problems can be the result of childhood sexual abuse.

 

[Blagsta]

I asked for comparative studies that support the claim that psychoanalysis is a better choice than other therapies.

You seem to be arguing that
a) somewhere in the links I'll find such evidence

Did you look at any of the links at all?

b) such evidence cannot be adduced for systemic reasons

I was trying to open up the discussion as to whether it is possible to objectively measure people's subjective experiences.

 

[Jonti]

I gave a direct quote from a cited source to back up my assertion (that Freudian psychoanalysis is not a particularly effective therapy). To post a reading list in response is hardly an adequate rebuttal.

No, I don't think it is impossible to measure the efficacy of different therapies. Consider the treatment of alcohol dependancy for example -- the obvious, and objective, metric is how well patients stay off the sauce.

 

[Jonti]

Where did you get that from? Afaik, Freud was one of the first people to recognise that adult psychological problems can be the result of childhood sexual abuse.

It seems he initially believed his patients. But then he bottled out ...
This from the Encyclopedia of Psychology, here

The early work of psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud suggested that, for many of his patients, repressed memories of childhood incest lay at the root of neuroses. However, many of Freud's colleagues argued that the early sexual encounters described by patients in psychoanalysis were actually memories of childhood sexual fantasies. Freud himself later adopted this position, although his colleague, Sandor Ferenczi, confirmed the involvement of childhood sexual abuse in many psychological disorders. As a result of Freud's influence, reports of sexual abuse often were discounted as the products of a child's imagination. When the evidence of abuse was undeniable, the child was viewed as having allowed or encouraged the abuse. To some extent, these attitudes survive today.

 

[Blagsta]

I gave a direct quote from a cited source to back up my assertion (that Freudian psychoanalysis is not a particularly effective therapy). To post a reading list in response is hardly an adequate rebuttal.

It was late at night. However I posted a load of resources for you. Have a look if you're interested.

No, I don't think it is impossible to measure the efficacy of different therapies. Consider the treatment of alcohol dependancy for example -- the obvious, and objective, metric is how well patients stay off the sauce.

Well yes, of course you can measure an objective outcome. However, that was not my point.

 

[Blagsta]

It seems he initially believed his patients. But then he bottled out ...
This from the Encyclopedia of Psychology, here

You have to look at Freud's work in its historical context. He was one of the first people to acknowledge childhood sexual abuse and its impact on adult neuroses. However, child abuse was not widely acknowledged at the time, so he backed down. To call it "bottling out" is rather silly tbh.

 

[Jonti]

Yes. It was a case of craven moral cowardice in the face of testimony from the survivors.

Apologies for being kind to the cnut.

 

[Blagsta]

I see. You're not actually interested in a discussion about it.

Bye then.

 

[Jonti]

His colleague, Sandor Ferenczi, confirmed the involvement of childhood sexual abuse in many psychological disorders. His patients told him themselves. He had thought so himself but "child abuse was not widely acknowledged at the time, so he backed down".

What's to discuss?

 

[Blagsta]