![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 3 to 27 of 37. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on December 31, 2004, at 16:50:43
In reply to Idealization, posted by Toph on December 31, 2004, at 14:23:01
I wouldn't know. My therapist's flaws were abundantly obvious at the very beginning. His virtues became obvious over time. I never got to idealize. :(
Now Dr. Bob is obviously very close to perfect. Wise, witty, all knowing... ;)
Posted by badhaircut on December 31, 2004, at 17:21:42
In reply to Idealization, posted by Toph on December 31, 2004, at 14:23:01
I think idealization is a really interesting topic; thanks for bringing it up. I also think, with due respect to the Kleinians, that the occurrence of idealized objects can itself be idealized. It's easy to see someone as good or bad (or reliable or unbalanced or whatever); and if that way, *extremely* that way, and if not, *certainly* not. It's easy to do that, and we do think that way, but not as much (in my opinion) as object relations theory requires. I think we are naturally far more fickle, flippant, and flexible than O.R. expects. Even as infants.
As to therapists, do people really idealize Ts as a rule? For comparison, do we idealize dentists? I get frustrated when a dentist makes a mistake with me; I may have unrealistic dental expectations. But how deep do those expectations go? (Put another way, How persistent are they?) With either dentists or therapists, I think, our idealizing is pretty shallow. It's on its way out as soon as we realize we're doing it. UNLESS, of course, its presence is explicitly encouraged by the therapist under the theory that the idealization itself is useful, at least in the therapy relationship.
To the extent that people idealize therapists especially, I suspect that may have more to do with the expectations that the therapists themselves create (or allow to flourish) with such undefined, undefinable, vague, subjective goals of therapy that are supposed to be, at least by implication, extremely positive, good, healthy, and humane. I'm not saying (here) that such undefined goals are "bad", just that they lend themselves to unrealistic expectations — which, in turn, look like a confirmation of object-relations theories about idealization of the therapist.
My 3¢ worth.
Posted by Toph on January 1, 2005, at 15:07:59
In reply to Idealizing idealization » Toph, posted by badhaircut on December 31, 2004, at 17:21:42
Some pretty thoughtful responses here. The PBP board has always impressed me with it's level of serious dialogue. Maybe I'm confusing idealization with trust and dependency. I have fairly unwavering trust of my psychiatrist to manage my lithium (though we tussle over therapeutic level at times). I was impressed that he admitted not being that familiar with Lamictal and told me that he sought consultation before prescribing it, a disclosure that might have shaken my confidence but ironically only increased my faith in his professionalism. As far as dependency goes, he told me a while back that with the closure of the two local in-patient psych units, he no longer had priviledges at any hospitals. He said that his practice involved a diminishing number of patients with chronic mental illness with psychotic features, like my BP I. Between sessions I developed such neurotic symptoms as sleep disturbances and agitation. During the next session he reassured me that he did not mean to suggest that he was preparing to terminate my therapy. Abrubtly symptoms subsided. So, if you don't mind my asking, what's the difference beween trust, dependence and idealization?
-Toph
Posted by alexandra_k on January 1, 2005, at 15:21:25
In reply to Re: Idealizing, posted by Toph on January 1, 2005, at 15:07:59
>what's the difference beween trust, dependence and idealization?
Hmm. My guess would be that trust is about trusting that their intentions are good, that they are competant etc. Trust is something that can be rightly placed, or misplaced.
Dependence is about needing or relying on something. Dependence can be helpful or unhelpful.
Idealisation is about setting the object up so that the flaws are completely ignored or severely minimised.
The trouble with idealisation (or at least my experience of it) is that it tends to be followed by devaluation. Once the idealised object falls short of your expectations (as it invariably will seeing as nothing is perfect) then you devalue the object and minimise or disregard anything of value while overemphasising the negative aspects.
And thus a love / hate cycle is born :-)
Posted by Toph on January 1, 2005, at 16:19:15
In reply to Re: Idealizing » Toph, posted by alexandra_k on January 1, 2005, at 15:21:25
Posted by alexandra_k on January 1, 2005, at 17:12:08
In reply to Re: Cycling, the story of my life :-( (nm) » alexandra_k, posted by Toph on January 1, 2005, at 16:19:15
Of course seeing that you are doing it
and stopping your doing it
are two very different things indeed...
:-)
Posted by Shortelise on January 1, 2005, at 18:02:12
In reply to Idealization, posted by Toph on December 31, 2004, at 14:23:01
I don't know much theory. But maybe experience and thought count?
Maybe seeing our therapist in these ways is part of moving through a parent / child relationship. Some of us need to re-enact that relationship and have it come out better the second time around than it did the first time.
My T has been kind to me with few exceptions. I have acted out all sorts of bad feelings and he has not wavered in his "affection" for me. My parents did waver. When I did not meet their expectations, I was rejected. My T doesn't do that.
So, yes, maybe for some it is helpful to go through a time of seeing the T as omnipotent.
For what it's worth.
ShortE
Posted by alexandra_k on January 1, 2005, at 18:08:13
In reply to Re: Idealization, posted by Shortelise on January 1, 2005, at 18:02:12
Yeah Shortelise, I agree. Even with the cycle, this is something that happens in real world relationships too. It is more intense with a t, but then that is the place to try to figure out what is happening so it doesn't happen anymore I suppose...
Posted by Dinah on January 1, 2005, at 20:01:27
In reply to Re: Idealizing, posted by Toph on January 1, 2005, at 15:07:59
Trust, to me, is knowing that someone will work out problems with you, won't hurt you on purpose, and is the same more or less from one day to the next. It doesn't mean they have to be perfect, but it helps if I'm aware of how they're not perfect so that I know in what way they'll let me down.
Idealization is thinking they'll never let you down. :) Well, maybe not, but it's being surprised and hurt when they let you down.
Attachment is an entirely different kettle of fish. I was attached to my therapist long before I had reason to trust him. Attachment is just a longing to be close to someone in some way. There are some pretty sick attachments in the world. (But I loooooove him...)
There's also insecure and secure attachments, and a few different sorts of insecure attachments, if I remember correctly. I'll have to look it up.
Here's a good link:
http://www.trauma-pages.com/steele-2001.htm
Posted by alexandra_k on January 1, 2005, at 21:31:35
In reply to Re: Idealizing » Toph, posted by Dinah on January 1, 2005, at 20:01:27
Thanks for the link Dinah, it is a good article.
I think I am best to just leave the psych board alone.
Posted by Dinah on January 1, 2005, at 21:37:39
In reply to Re: Idealizing » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on January 1, 2005, at 21:31:35
Why would you say that, Alexandra? I think this is where I first met you, isn't it?
Posted by alexandra_k on January 1, 2005, at 23:27:45
In reply to Re: Idealizing » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on January 1, 2005, at 21:37:39
> Why would you say that, Alexandra? I think this is where I first met you, isn't it?
Yeah, it is. I remember you and gg in particular from when I joined up when I was in Australia.
Because it is too hard for me. To be reading and thinking about what it is that I am missing out on. Because I think IT IS NOT FAIR and then the way is paved for rage. Because it isn't anybodys fault, and it is especially not the fault of anybody here. But my rage doesn't care so much where it is aimed. Because I need to just forget about therapy. To move on. To decide what the hell I am going to do. I could spin out try to kill myself and maybe end up back in hospital. I could just get through this somehow without bugging anyone from the service. I would prefer the latter. In a calm moment. But then the panic starts up and I don't care anymore. Easier to deal if I just avoid. I am sorry. It is my weakness.
Posted by Dinah on January 1, 2005, at 23:47:05
In reply to Re: Idealizing » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on January 1, 2005, at 23:27:45
Awww sweetie.
Don't give up. You keep advocating for yourself. You hear about the inpatient program next month?
I'm so sorry you don't have access to adequate mental health care. That just plain stinks. Everyone should be able to get that. It's a shame that they tend to all share the same orientation where you are.
Arrrghhhh.
(((((Alexandra))))
Posted by 10derheart on January 2, 2005, at 0:55:23
In reply to Re: Idealizing » Toph, posted by Dinah on January 1, 2005, at 20:01:27
Yes, thanks for that link. It's packed with intense, thought-provoking stuff. I learned just from skimming it, and have saved it to read more later.
It got me thinking. I have never suffered what most would consider trauma, well, not in childhood, anyway. Nor as an adult either, or so I thought. But then again, who can say what precisely is traumatic for each of us? My new T and I were talking about transition, separation, grief and so forth. I wish I could recall exactly what I said, but it made him lean forward and say intently, as if he knew (and mind you we do not *know* each other yet)I'd need convincing, "Transitions can be crushing. Absolutely and totally crushing to a person's spirit." He didn't mean events from childhood, but only my earlier adulthood. I know I must be rambling here, but I did relate this to some of what I read about trauma and what can happen at some unexpected point later. Maybe it's emerging for me even from things that probably most adults would have just *taken in stride.*
Didn't mean to sidetrack this thread, which was really a great one, I thought. It's just when my brain dives into this stuff, it goes into overdrive connecting ideas, trying to understand all of your perspectives better, and I guess to find my place in all of it.
Any theory I have is at the Psych 101 level at best, plus what I've self-taught by voracious reading for three years. Plus Babble, my therapy experiences (fairly short and not as deep as I've needed - yet)and my intuition.
So maybe I'm clueless. Clueless but seeking.
Posted by Toph on January 2, 2005, at 7:07:03
In reply to Re: Idealizing » Toph, posted by Dinah on January 1, 2005, at 20:01:27
It would be a mistake to dwell too much here on purely theoretical concepts and not respond to the real difficulties that are mentioned, but the notion of dependency as pathological puzzled me when I read about it decades ago. These guys (and Melanie, Margaret, Anna and others) must mean that to be overly dependent on our parents (or surrogates) as adults is pathological not the functional dependency an infant has on it's protective and nurturing parents, right?
Posted by mair on January 2, 2005, at 9:20:29
In reply to Re: Idealizing » Toph, posted by alexandra_k on January 1, 2005, at 15:21:25
" Idealisation is about setting the object up so that the flaws are completely ignored or severely minimised.
>
> The trouble with idealisation (or at least my experience of it) is that it tends to be followed by devaluation. Once the idealised object falls short of your expectations (as it invariably will seeing as nothing is perfect) then you devalue the object and minimise or disregard anything of value while overemphasising the negative aspects."
>
Stick around here long enough and you'll see the process you describe play out with Bob over and over again. I think there are scads of ex-posters who left because their expectations of Bob were probably too high and unrealistic in the first place. In my very humble and probably misguided opinion, the ones who have stayed through some pretty awful upheavals either did so because they never idealized him or allowed themselves to care about whether he cared about them in the first place, were able to stick out the difficult process of lowering expectations without the devaluation you describe, or simply limited their participation in ways which didn't allow them to get caught up in feeling the unfairness of how he can deal with certain issues (eg: they stay off the admin board).Mair
>
Posted by Dinah on January 2, 2005, at 9:34:56
In reply to Re: Idealizing » alexandra_k, posted by mair on January 2, 2005, at 9:20:29
It seems as if my entire life consists of lowering expectations - often over and over again. :) Which approach did you take?
Posted by badhaircut on January 2, 2005, at 10:21:11
In reply to Re: Idealizing, posted by Toph on January 2, 2005, at 7:07:03
> the notion of dependency as pathological puzzled me
Yeah. I think the overall tone of Klein & those folks makes it sound like "normal" babies are inherently pathological. It's like everything that goes on in a baby's mind is on the edge of psychosis. That's the way it reads: every baby is beside itself with overwhelming hatred of the goodness in the mother's breast and so on.
But they also thought that dependence continues throughout life even in "healthy" people — it's just that the adult depends more on the *internalized* good parent. My understanding is that object relations people try to get the client to see that the nurturing, protective surrogate is already *inside* her: she doesn't need to cling so desperately to other people.
So it's not that dependence should be stopped or go away so much as that it should be redirected inward. At least, that's my understanding.
-bhc
(Toph: I get Melanie Klein, Anna Freud; ... who is Margaret? Thanks!)
Posted by mair on January 2, 2005, at 10:39:55
In reply to Re: Idealizing » mair, posted by Dinah on January 2, 2005, at 9:34:56
Probably mostly the first which may say more about my own psychological profile than it does about Bob. People who idealize others tend to get hurt, and I think I have all kinds of armor for protecting myself from that kind of hurt.
But there are elements of the second and third also. On occasion, Bob has definitely disappointed me, which 1)justifies the use of the armor; and 2) has forced me to separate Bob from Babble - I've never reached the point where I felt that the harm of Babble (as maybe perpetrated by Bob) has outweighed the value of Babble. I mean this in an empirical way. I know this is not true in every individual instance, and certainly not true at all times maybe for any of us.
And while not always successful by any means, I do try to distance myself from those vicious admin wars. My observation is that many, if not most, of the people who leave Babble in anger, do so as a reaction to discussions which have occurred on that Board.
Mair
Posted by Toph on January 2, 2005, at 11:10:16
In reply to dependence » Toph, posted by badhaircut on January 2, 2005, at 10:21:11
Posted by badhaircut on January 2, 2005, at 11:25:35
In reply to Wasn't there a Margaret Mahler? (nm) » badhaircut, posted by Toph on January 2, 2005, at 11:10:16
In my "Psychoanalytic Terms and Concepts" book, there's references all through it to "Mahler" and "Mahler, M". I never knew who it was. Thanks!
Posted by gardenergirl on January 2, 2005, at 11:39:39
In reply to Re: Idealizing » alexandra_k, posted by mair on January 2, 2005, at 9:20:29
Wow, what an awesome insight about idealization and Bob. I've seen that too, now that you mention it. And actually, I think I went through it once, and fortunately came out on the other side okay. Now I think I'm one of those survivors.
Glad to see you stick around, too.
gg
Posted by alexandra_k on January 2, 2005, at 19:23:45
In reply to Re: Idealizing » alexandra_k, posted by mair on January 2, 2005, at 9:20:29
Maybe there are more ways too. For example, one could think about why the issue that you think he is letting you down on is so very important to you. When have you felt similarly in the past? That happened with me and when I thought about it I realised that the issue wasn't really with Dr B. Don't know if it will work every time. But I figure there is at least one other way.
Posted by Toph on January 3, 2005, at 9:07:36
In reply to Re: Idealizing » Dinah, posted by mair on January 2, 2005, at 10:39:55
>
> But there are elements of the second and third also. On occasion, Bob has definitely disappointed me, which 1)justifies the use of the armor; and 2) has forced me to separate Bob from Babble - I've never reached the point where I felt that the harm of Babble (as maybe perpetrated by Bob) has outweighed the value of Babble. I mean this in an empirical way. I know this is not true in every individual instance, and certainly not true at all times maybe for any of us.
>
> And while not always successful by any means, I do try to distance myself from those vicious admin wars. My observation is that many, if not most, of the people who leave Babble in anger, do so as a reaction to discussions which have occurred on that Board.
>
> MairWhen I was new here, I felt (right or wrong) that most of the boards were clicky. So I gravitated to Admin where it was easy to join one side of a fight and feel appreciated by members of that side. Needless to say I crashed and burned quickly. I almost left PB. Then I took a risk and jumped on a few threads elsewhere, and surprisingly no one told me to get lost. Heck, I even start my own threads now! What is interesting to me is I have had a few therapists and invariably the beginning sessions are fights over rules before I take a risk of sharing some part of myself. Only one therapist told me, in her own way, to get lost.
As for Bob, idealizing him, seems to be in part because he hides behind a veil. I suppose he has to. But here we are talking about him and the dynamics of his website and he just watches. That sort of bursts the idealization bubble for me.
-Toph
Posted by mair on January 3, 2005, at 15:32:01
In reply to Re: Idealizing » mair, posted by alexandra_k on January 2, 2005, at 19:23:45
Are you suggesting kind of a transference reaction, or just a way of realizing that it (whatever it is) doesn't have to be such a big deal?
Mair
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.