![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 91 to 115 of 283. Go back in thread:
Posted by cricket on May 19, 2005, at 11:22:48
In reply to Re: The Introduction (In Session) » cricket, posted by Dinah on May 19, 2005, at 9:16:45
Dinah,
There's definitely something that screams Noooooooo when I think of quitting and I do think about quitting just about every week.
I'm sure that my T would love to refer me on. But he hasn't yet done that. And he's certainly talked about therapy not being right for me but since I just keep coming he's not been talking about that lately either.
And, I have to say that last week, when I said that I wanted to talk to him but that I didn't know how, that I didn't have the words yet, he did lean forward and say with what seemed to be a real look of commitment on his face and in his voice "I can wait. For as long as we're both still alive, I can wait."
Hmm, "The Myth of Sanity". Now that seems like a book I should read. Did your T recommend it? Did it trigger you in any way?
Posted by Dinah on May 19, 2005, at 12:03:09
In reply to Re: The Introduction (In Session) » Dinah, posted by cricket on May 19, 2005, at 11:22:48
No, my therapist didn't recommend it. I probably saw it mentioned here.
I wouldn't say it triggered me, exactly. But I kept falling asleep the first few times I read it. :) Now I can get through it with no problem.
Posted by Tamar on May 19, 2005, at 17:41:53
In reply to The Introduction (In Session), posted by Dinah on May 16, 2005, at 19:29:08
Yippee! My book arrived today. I'll read it tonight and then post.
But having read what you guys have said, I was really struck by the idea of the therapy relationship as having a tragic dimension. The word 'tragic' is very significant to me (I read quite a few Greek tragedies a few years ago).
In classical tragedy there's often a collision between two things that are equally right but nevertheless opposing forces. Like Antigone, whose brother is killed in the process of attacking her city. She has a sisterly duty to bury her brother, but a civic duty to leave his body to the dogs. Both potential courses of action are right, but either will get her into trouble.
I do think the therapy relationship is tragic because one good thing (a real relationship) collides with a contrary good thing (professional boundaries limiting the relationship).
And the other significant thing is that tragic heroes (that's us!) often devote their lives to a search for meaning in suffering. If there were no search for meaning, it wouldn't really be tragic.
And furthermore, tragic heroes suffer because of circumstances entirely beyond their control - usually circumstances arranged by the gods, though not necessarily. Admittedly, tragic heroes are flawed, but who isn't? They are ultimately not fully responsible for what happens to them. I find this a comforting idea when considering mental health, and considering the therapeutic relationship, in which our only control is in how much we tell.
Hmmm... I'll go read the book now...
Posted by pegasus on May 19, 2005, at 18:18:48
In reply to Re: The Introduction (In Session), posted by Tamar on May 19, 2005, at 17:41:53
Posted by Annierose on May 19, 2005, at 18:57:55
In reply to Re: The Introduction (In Session), posted by Tamar on May 19, 2005, at 17:41:53
I am enjoying this discussion very much. I am finishing up my current book before re-reading this one. Everyone's insights are so interesting ... lots of hmmmm and a-ha moments. I will catch up, I promise.
But having read the book last year, I am following along nicely.
Posted by pegasus on May 21, 2005, at 12:34:56
In reply to The Introduction (In Session), posted by Dinah on May 16, 2005, at 19:29:08
One thing in the intro to this book I'd like to hear what y'all think is about the discussion of the therapist-client relationship being "approximate". She calls it approximate because it is both real (actually happening in the room) and symbolic. Both times I read the book, and just now when I skimmed this chapter again, I didn't really understand that idea. It's important because she talks about it all during the rest of the book. Can anyone help me understand why the relationship is "approximate", and exactly what she means by it being symbolic? I kind of understand, but not really. Is this just a new way of talking about transference?
pegasus
Posted by Dinah on May 21, 2005, at 12:48:58
In reply to Approximate relationship, posted by pegasus on May 21, 2005, at 12:34:56
I took it to refer to the boundaries of the relationship. It *feels* as real as any relationship, and in many ways it is. But it can't survive outside the boundaries. It lives in the therapy room only, is supported by the payment of fees. It's unlike any other sort of relationship. Intensely intimate yet limited.
So while it might feel like a friendship or romantic relationship, it's only an approximation? of that??
I think I prefer to think of it as a *different* relationship rather than an approximate one. Because it's every bit as real as other relationships. And all relationships have boundaries. The therapy relationship boundaries are just more clearly defined. But it's because those boundaries are so well defined that the boundaries or rules that apply in other relationships don't apply to the therapeutic relationship.
That was my understanding of it. Perhaps others can sort me out if I'm wrong. :)
Posted by daisym on May 21, 2005, at 18:59:23
In reply to Re: Approximate relationship » pegasus, posted by Dinah on May 21, 2005, at 12:48:58
I think Dinah is right as to how Lott is using this term. It is a concept that is really hard to understand. I think in so many ways we *know* the relationship is real, but it is so unbalanced, and with such formulized boundaries that we have to question "how real is it for THEM?" I think that gets to the heart of it. If anyone asked us, we'd say, "absolutely." I mean, look at how much brain power and time and emotion we invest in thinking about it OUTSIDE the sessions. We aren't thinking so much about ourselves, our past, our inner life, as we are thinking about our sessions, our therapist and our reactions to what happens with them. I don't think couples in marriage counseling (I could be wrong) do this as much because the relationship in the room being worked on is theirs. No so for individual therapy. (Which is a weird name if you think about it because there is nothing individual about it!)
Sorry to ramble. It just struck a nerve with me. I would guess that therapists like the word approximate because it does explain more about how they feel about us.
Posted by messadivoce on May 22, 2005, at 0:55:41
In reply to Re: Approximate relationship » pegasus, posted by Dinah on May 21, 2005, at 12:48:58
When I read the word "approximate" it really didn't resonate with me. I thought, but my relationship with my T is very specific!! I mean, my T was of psychodynamic orientation so our relationship was obviously the focal point of a lot of sessions. I like Dinah's idea of calling it "different". It's like romance at times, and frienship too, but it's not.
My relationship with my 2nd T was more approximate. Maybe because I didn't get to know her as well, and our relationship didn't have the same intensity that my female-to-male relationship did with my first T. I think it depends on the therapy relationship, that is, how "approximate" it is. A lot of it is up to how close the T will get to the client.
Posted by pegasus on May 22, 2005, at 1:06:40
In reply to Re: Approximate relationship, posted by daisym on May 21, 2005, at 18:59:23
Well, ok, but what is the relationship approximating? A relationship IRL? That seems to be what Dinah's saying.
I think that's where I get stuck. It seems genuine and complete to me, even with the boundaries, which are part of what makes it rich. And I never thought of it as being approximately anything else. Thinking of it as approximately a friendship, or approximately a parent-child relationship seems unhelpful.
Oh . . . ok, so I'm figuring something out as I type. Maybe she's talking about how we sometimes see the T-client relationship as symbolic of other relationships (via transference). So, it's approximating those other relationships for us? At least in part.
Well, maybe I'm making it more complicated than it really is. Maybe she's just talking about how the relationship has inherent, important limits.
pegasus
Posted by Dinah on May 22, 2005, at 1:40:44
In reply to Re: Approximate relationship, posted by pegasus on May 22, 2005, at 1:06:40
Posted by pegasus on May 22, 2005, at 9:38:14
In reply to We'll put it on our list of questions? :) (nm) » pegasus, posted by Dinah on May 22, 2005, at 1:40:44
Posted by Dinah on May 22, 2005, at 9:42:01
In reply to Sorry, what list of Qs? (nm) » Dinah, posted by pegasus on May 22, 2005, at 9:38:14
in late July.
We could start a list of questions.
Posted by pegasus on May 22, 2005, at 11:27:25
In reply to For Deborah Lott, when she's guest expert, posted by Dinah on May 22, 2005, at 9:42:01
Oh, Cool! I missed that that was going to happen. I *would* like to ask Ms. Lott about this.
And regarding the approximate relationship thing, I've been thinking, and rereading, and what I now think she's trying to say is that the therapy relationship is *more* than it seems, not *less*. I think "approximate" is probably an unfortunate word for it. I think she's saying that the therapy relationship is real, in the sense that we have actual relationships with our therapists. And in addition to that it's also approximating important relationships from the past that we need to work on. That's the symbolic part. So, I guess I'd rather call it a complex relationship with real and symbolic parts.
Not to beat a dead horse or anything . . .
pegasus
Posted by Dinah on May 22, 2005, at 12:00:05
In reply to Re: For Deborah Lott, when she's guest expert » Dinah, posted by pegasus on May 22, 2005, at 11:27:25
You may have it there.
So the real relationship would be the real relationship between us, but he's also my therapist/mommy.
Posted by gardenergirl on May 22, 2005, at 13:55:39
In reply to Re: For Deborah Lott, when she's guest expert » pegasus, posted by Dinah on May 22, 2005, at 12:00:05
I've been struggling with understanding what she means by "approximate", too. Pegasus, I think your explanation makes a lot of sense.
gg
Posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 9:43:41
In reply to approximate relationships...pegasus, posted by gardenergirl on May 22, 2005, at 13:55:39
I'll start with the "golden fantasy", just because I wrote below that my major delusional transference was thinking my therapeutic relationship was close to perfect.
I don't think I mean it in the rescue sort of way she's talking about. I do need for him to be in tune with me, at least to a certain extent, within session, or he doesn't *feel* like him, and I get a bit frantic. Like his body was there but he wasn't and that's scary. But I know he's not there for me constantly. I know his family comes first. I have a pretty good idea how he feels about me, and the limits of that. He would never hang out with me if I didn't pay him. We have nothing in common. But he is fond of me within the context of the therapeutic relationship, in that way you have when you're really familiar with someone and accept them.
I think I mean it that I know he'll never reject me. He might abandon me by moving (which is a whole different part of this chapter) or retiring or getting sick or dying. But there is nothing I could say or would do that would cause him to reject me. We may and will fight from time to time, and there will be misunderstanding, resentment, annoyance and anger on both our parts. But I know our relationship can withstand it.
I've told him everything that's happened in my life and in the relationship so far, and he's been accepting and has never run off screaming out of the room (one of his favorite, and sometimes annoying, expressions). And we've dicussed enough about things that happen here for me to know there's nothing I *could* say that would make him reject me. If such a thing were to ever happen, I could tell him I loved him romantically, I hated him, I was sexually aroused by him, and he'd be ok with it. Ok enough at least that he wouldn't end the relationship.
I think I mean it's perfect in that he accepts me and feels affection for me and finds me funny often enough to remind me of Daddy.
So that's my idea of a perfect relationship. I dont' know if that qualifies as the golden fantasy she talks about.
Posted by pegasus on May 23, 2005, at 18:13:37
In reply to Chapter 2. Too many buttons to mention., posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 9:43:41
You know, Dinah, that doesn't sound like the golden fantasy to me. It sounds like a very reasonable and realistic therapy relationship. So, maybe your fantasy and reality are the same, lucky you. ;)
For me everything in this chapter strikes true. That's what's so great about this book. It's incredibly validating. In my first major therapy relationship, everything that happened was hugely important, and I had such dependency, and fantasies, etc.
We talked about it later after therapy (via email). He told me that he thought it was so intense relative to my current therapy relationship because it was the first time I'd talked about a lot of secret stuff. So, I'd needed to do a lot of relationship testing before we got into the big secrets. Once I'd done the testing and telling, the relationship was just really important and special.
So, here's a question: why does that happen in one therapy relationship but not in another? The way Ms. Lott describes these intense feelings and fantasies, they're just inevitable because of the therapy scenario. But I've experienced it with some therapists, and not with others. And all the therapists involved seemed warm, empathetic, and skilled. Am I just in a different place wrt my issues with each therapist?
pegasus
Posted by alexandra_k on May 23, 2005, at 18:18:06
In reply to Re: Chapter 2. Too many buttons to mention. » Dinah, posted by pegasus on May 23, 2005, at 18:13:37
I haven't been reading the thread...
But I'll start reading and join in any old day now...
:-)
Posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 19:58:35
In reply to Re: My copy just arrived :-), posted by alexandra_k on May 23, 2005, at 18:18:06
It's actually been sort of quiet.
Posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 20:03:32
In reply to Re: Chapter 2. Too many buttons to mention. » Dinah, posted by pegasus on May 23, 2005, at 18:13:37
> You know, Dinah, that doesn't sound like the golden fantasy to me. It sounds like a very reasonable and realistic therapy relationship. So, maybe your fantasy and reality are the same, lucky you. ;)
That's what I think. But I wonder what my therapist would say. I wonder that a lot. I wonder if he sees our relationship anywhere near how I see it. You know therapist speak.
>
> For me everything in this chapter strikes true. That's what's so great about this book. It's incredibly validating. In my first major therapy relationship, everything that happened was hugely important, and I had such dependency, and fantasies, etc.Yes, this is the chapter that hits on soooo many things.
>
> We talked about it later after therapy (via email). He told me that he thought it was so intense relative to my current therapy relationship because it was the first time I'd talked about a lot of secret stuff. So, I'd needed to do a lot of relationship testing before we got into the big secrets. Once I'd done the testing and telling, the relationship was just really important and special.Also it might have been your first experience with that level of intense intimacy. Or you may be subconsciously guarding yourself now.
>
> So, here's a question: why does that happen in one therapy relationship but not in another? The way Ms. Lott describes these intense feelings and fantasies, they're just inevitable because of the therapy scenario. But I've experienced it with some therapists, and not with others. And all the therapists involved seemed warm, empathetic, and skilled. Am I just in a different place wrt my issues with each therapist?
>
> pegasusI know I've read some books that explore that. They all seemed to have the same style? Because I can clearly see a difference in the mental health providers I've seen, and I can point to the exact qualities that are in this relationship, but not the others. If all other variables are the same, it must have something to do with you...
But maybe they just feel different, or the chemistry is different.
Posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 20:05:08
In reply to Re: Chapter 2. Too many buttons to mention., posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 20:03:32
Posted by annierose on May 23, 2005, at 22:14:08
In reply to Re: Chapter 2. Too many buttons to mention. » Dinah, posted by pegasus on May 23, 2005, at 18:13:37
Pegasus-
I think it's a combination of the T's orientation, and your combined personality styles and general "connection" that foster (or doesn't) those powerful feelings.
My current T is the one I have had the longest relationship with and hence the strongest feelings. I have seen 2 other therapists and never had developed any of these feelings. But all 3 had totally different theraputic orientations. My current T is psychodynamic and fosters those feelings. I see her 3x per week, and feel sad when I go on vacation or when she goes away. With my other T's, I was never fazed by their absence. Hmmm. It's curious. I just feel that this T is with me. So I miss her when she's not physically here too.
Posted by pegasus on May 23, 2005, at 23:05:54
In reply to Re: Chapter 2. Too many buttons to mention. » pegasus, posted by annierose on May 23, 2005, at 22:14:08
Yeah, it's probably because of differences between their styles and some subconscious holding back on my part. All of my therapists have been psychodynamic (except one CBT), so they haven't been much different. But there are always personality differences, etc. I guess my point is that in the book, she doesn't really explore that at all. Which is fine, because it covers a lot of more important ground.
Ch. 2 says so many important things that I haven't seen discussed anywhere else. In explaining why these fantasies, dependencies, sensitivites develop, she makes such a good case for it being reasonable and expected. So, I find it curious that sometimes it doesn't happen, even when all the ingredients she mentions are there.
pegasus
Posted by alexandra_k on May 24, 2005, at 16:56:48
In reply to Re: My copy just arrived :-), posted by alexandra_k on May 23, 2005, at 18:18:06
I haven't read the thread yet because I'm trying to get caught up. I am getting through the first chapter though... Wow... It is really good. Now I'm going to be doing minimal work all week :-)
I like her take on things. She ties it together into a narrative - but: don't be fooled that she is just 'telling the womens stories' without being in the grip of a theory herself... There isn't any such thing as an a-theorietic stance.
What I like about her stance is that it seems common-sense, demystifying, and charitable. I like her thoughts on transference etc.
:-)
I think I like it for fairly much the same reasons I'm into Linehan. A non-judgemental stance.
That was interesting about Anna O. I have read a fair bit about her... At least I thought I had... I didn't know about the phantom pregnancy... Don't know how I managed to miss that...
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.