![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 20 of 20. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Deneb on July 18, 2006, at 2:15:28
I don't think I'm a very sensitive person. I'm not very touchy feely. I just experience the main emotions...mostly I feel "upset" or I feel "good".
So, a T could ask me about how something felt and I would just say, "good" or "bad". I wouldn't feel like taking apart situations and analyzing them. I would just be like, "I feel upset RIGHT NOW! and I want you to make me feel better. I don't want to use my brain in therapy, it makes me anxious when a T asks me questions that require some thought. I feel like I will say something stupid. I would want a T to do most of the talking and say things to make me feel better. I basically want my T to tell me things I want to hear.
Deneb*
Posted by Jost on July 18, 2006, at 4:21:35
In reply to Why I think therapy won't work for me, posted by Deneb on July 18, 2006, at 2:15:28
I was saying that to my T today-- not in those precise words-- but that idea.
Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way.
But, Deneb, when you say that, are you totally committed to those ideas about yourself, or is there part of you that thinks-- "I know this isn't realistic, and I might be able to get something from T if I could think more clearly about my feelings, and get a better picture of what I need to feel better, and maybe, then, how to work on getting more of it?"
Because there's a method of analysis (psychoanalysis) which isn't Freudian, but is called "interpersonal" and which was established by William Stack Sullivan, that focuses on that. It uses (or is based originally on) a method of "detailed inquiry," rather than "free association." It tries to get you to unpack your experience, to learn more of the texture and specific how and what of your way of living.
Maybe it's not for you-- if only there were a good enough pill for each of us--
Jost
Posted by madeline on July 18, 2006, at 5:39:40
In reply to Why I think therapy won't work for me, posted by Deneb on July 18, 2006, at 2:15:28
If that's how you feel, then you are right, psychotherapy won't work for you.
Maddie
Posted by annierose on July 18, 2006, at 7:08:38
In reply to Why I think therapy won't work for me, posted by Deneb on July 18, 2006, at 2:15:28
Maybe you are scared. It's okay to be scared about some of our feelings. They can be overwhelming even to the most put together person.
It does seem to me, from a complete outsider, knowing you just from your posts, you do have a lot of feelings. You can express them. You tend to swing quickly from one emotion to another. You feel deeply about things. I think you could benefit from talking to someone about your sad feelings, your feelings about Bob and why you feel like harming yourself.
Finding the right therapist isn't easy. Lots of us on the boards have switched to find a good fit. But once you do find a T you feel comfortable with, you can find some peace of mind and relief from the internal conflicts.
Posted by Dinah on July 18, 2006, at 8:17:46
In reply to Why I think therapy won't work for me, posted by Deneb on July 18, 2006, at 2:15:28
When I first went to therapy, and my therapist asked me to keep a feelings mood chart, the chart was full of "upset" and "ok". He couldn't begin to explain to me that those weren't really emotions. Still can't really. But therarpy helped me gain the language of feelings.
You've expressed ambivalence about wanting to change, if I remember correctly? That to some extent you don't want to be rid of the highs and lows? That's not at all unusual either. It certainly wasn't me, but I've read enough to know that plenty of other people feel that way.
And believe it or not, it's a valid therapy topic. Because it's hard to want to take your meds consistently either with conflicted feelings.
Posted by Emily Elizabeth on July 18, 2006, at 8:18:58
In reply to Why I think therapy won't work for me, posted by Deneb on July 18, 2006, at 2:15:28
Good for you for posting this.
I do have to disagree though. A therapist can work with you to identify different emotions. We aren't born knowing how to identify how we are feeling. It is something that little kids need to learn. Some people are deprived of this important developmental experience and so they need to make up for it as an adult. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that DBT has an element of this too).
A good T would meet you where you are at. It might be uncomfortable, but (ideally) it is gentle too.
I strongly brelieve that therapy could make a difference for you!
Best,
EE
Posted by fallsfall on July 18, 2006, at 10:03:28
In reply to Why I think therapy won't work for me, posted by Deneb on July 18, 2006, at 2:15:28
If you want your life to be more stable, then you might have to ask your brain to work a little. Recognizing and naming and talking about emotions is a learned skill. I am MUCH better at it now than I was 10 years ago. You could learn it, too.
If you like your life the way it is, then you don't need therapy. If you don't like your life the way it is, then you will have to work to change it. A therapist won't just change your life for you. Yes, they will ask you questions that will make you think, and will make you anxious. But they will help you figure it out and decide if it really is dangerous or not.
You need to decide if you like your life the way it is or not. If not, it will take some work. For me, it has certainly been worth it.
Posted by ElaineM on July 18, 2006, at 10:14:35
In reply to Why I think therapy won't work for me, posted by Deneb on July 18, 2006, at 2:15:28
Hi Deneb: To me, I think that "sensitive" "touchy feely" and "emotional" are all slightly different things. You don't need to want a hug, or feel like you have to cry at every meeting, to be able to get something out of seeing a T.
And, do you know what? In the beginning, the fact that you can even say you're feeling "good" or "bad" is a good thing. It's one step up from saying "I don't know". Though, to be honest, there will be times too when that's all that comes to mind.
One thing I had to learn is that (and many T's keep reminding me) "There is nothing wrong you can say, or not say, in therapy." It's not like a test or essay at school. It's noraml to not be comfortable with that idea too. That's what you work on.
As far as the "right now" stuff, I'd just echo what others have said, and say that you don't have to analyze the past, if that's not what would benefit you right now. You can talk about what is upsetting you, or what you're wondering about, or what you're even happy about, right at the very moment you walk through a T's door. I think it could be very much like how it is for you when you post on the boards -- just regular, back and forth-type, sharing. Just being supportive.
Do you think that it's the acutal word "Therapist" or "Therapy" that is scaring you? The very first time a ever went, the lady said the word "meds" to me and I just about ran out the door in shame. Like, "People actually do this?!". I sort of thought that only characters on tv, or in the movies went to therapists. But I was at a point where I was so miserable that I figured, I don't have a d@mn thing else to lose. I could always quit whenever I wanted, and try again later.
Do you think that you could think of it as a type of experiment? Promise yourself you'll just test it out, knowing that if you give it a shot and don't like it, that you can stop and leave it alone for awhile.
I think alot of people here would like to see you get some relief. They care about you, and wouldn't want you to write-off something that has helped others, helped them, (helped me) before -- even if it's only in a small way.
I don't mean to pontificate, or pressure you -- just something to think about :-)
Take care, Elaine
Posted by canadagirl on July 18, 2006, at 11:56:54
In reply to Why I think therapy won't work for me, posted by Deneb on July 18, 2006, at 2:15:28
When I first decided to try "therapy" (and mine was done online, so they couldn't call it that) I found this quote which I kept and thought you might like to read it for a unique perspective in deciding whether therapy might or might not "work" for you. It's by James Hollis, a Jungian psychologist.
"Therapy will not heal you, make your problems go away or make your life work out. It will, quite simply, make your life more interesting. You will come to more and more complex riddles wrapped within yourself and your relationships. This claim seems small potatoes to the anxious consumer world, but it is an immense gift, a stupendous contribution. Think of it: your own life might become more interesting to you! Consciousness is the gift, and that is the best it gets."
Posted by Declan on July 18, 2006, at 13:04:46
In reply to Re: Why I think therapy won't work for me, posted by Jost on July 18, 2006, at 4:21:35
Whichever Stack Sullivan it is I read an account of therapy by (I thought) Harry Stack Sullivan ages back. I guess it might have been from as early as the late 30s. I was very impressed. He worked with people described as psychotic and was weirdly empathic. Which is what you want, what I want anyway...a shaman rather than a technocrat, a witchdoctor, a spiritual healer, not some rationalist dude. I can't remember accurately, but by the third (at the latest) session I felt cracked right open (no doubt ready to crack) otherwise I wouldn't have kept at it for so long. We love to feel vulnerable (and cared for). Except ye become as little children?
Declan
Posted by Jost on July 18, 2006, at 20:01:10
In reply to William? Harry? » Jost, posted by Declan on July 18, 2006, at 13:04:46
Duh, I meant Harry-- don't know where I got william-- but it was 4:00 am. I woke up from a drug-induced nightmare and did a couple of really weird things, several of which I don't remember, including writing that message.
So I may have been out of my mind when I wrote that. Sorry.
I don't know what made me think of him-- but it's been forever since his name ( even in corrupted form) came into my head, too.
Funny. Don't have a clue where it came from or why I got onto that.
Hope I didn't write any other strange things on here at that point.
Yikes.
Jost
Posted by Declan on July 18, 2006, at 21:32:26
In reply to Re: William? Harry? » Declan, posted by Jost on July 18, 2006, at 20:01:10
Since these are the names of the royal princes it is clearly no accident. Wish fulfillment is what springs to mind. But what wish? (I'm on record as wanting to marry Prince William, but that was on Politics, and besides I've gone off him.)
I did a basic google of HSS, but saw nothing interesting, beyond the well known thing about him maybe having been crazy enough to undestand his patients. But years ago I read 2 case studies, one by him and one by Frieda Fromm Reichman, and was impressed by both of them, but particularly by his.
Posted by Jost on July 18, 2006, at 22:24:52
In reply to Re: William? Harry?, posted by Declan on July 18, 2006, at 21:32:26
He doesn't seem to be discussed much now, but was a very influential Psychoanalyst, even though not as well known outside the profession. Right now, I can't think of the name of his most-read books.
He's pretty interesting intellectual, and definitely in terms of the history of Psychoa in the US. Aalong with others such as Clara Thompson and Erich Fromm, he founded the William Alanson White Institute and provided its original intellectual framework. WA White is the oldest and most important non-medical Psychoanalytic institute in the US.
For a long time, only MDs, ie psychiatrists, were accepted for study at analytic institutes, which were run in affiliation with the American Psychoanalytic Assn., which was the prime certifying organization for psychoanalysis in the US. Now the New York Psychoanalytic, and most analytic institutes, accept psychologists and some social workers and PsyDs also. But that's an amazingly recent development. But for the longest time, only White was accepting non-MDs.
I haven't read anything by or about Sullivan that I recall, for years. He rejected most of Freud's ideas, such as the unconscious, and drives, and esp. believed that the interpersonal, as opposed to the intrapsychic, was the primary locus, as well as potential source of help, in psychological problems. That's where his ideas about detailed inquiry came from-- you didn't have to get into someone's head-- you needed to know what happened, how, when, with whom.
But American intellectuals--like most intellectuals---had a romance with Freud's ideas, which put Sullivan and his ideas into a shadow--although they're very important for the practice of Psychoa. in the US. esp.
Jost
Posted by Declan on July 19, 2006, at 20:20:41
In reply to Re: William? Harry?, posted by Jost on July 18, 2006, at 22:24:52
Every so often I work at a school tuckshop and the kids come up clutching their money, and what's striking is the faces of the younger ones in particular, they are so specific, so striking. It makes you realise how the experience of life tends to homogenise us, until maybe after middle age and our life's experience is there for all to see. What I am trying to get to is that we all start so specifically, but by the time we are in our 20s have lost all idea about what we want and how we might go about getting it. Often in life we keep going on and on until time or breakdown solves it for us. If we could find and create the kinds of particular associations and relationships we need, things might go better for us.
Dunno if this has anything to do with Sullivan.
Posted by Jost on July 19, 2006, at 22:09:53
In reply to Please excuse any over-generalisation » Jost, posted by Declan on July 19, 2006, at 20:20:41
Interesting perspective. Sullivan certainly would have considered how children experience themselves in dynamic relation to others-- of course primarily parents, but also, I would think, the larger social world. He seemed to have been thinking about how social forces shape personality and produce emotional difficulties and was influenced by developments in the social sciences.
I found an old paperback of his "The Interpersonal Theory of Psychiatry"-- on the back it lists "The Psychiatric Interview" and "Clincal Studies in Psychiatry"-- I know I've read (or looked through) both at some point, and the latter might be the most clinical --says "Based on lectures given at Chestnut Lodge, this book represents Sullivan the clinician, discussing schizophrenia, the obsessional illnesses, and other mental disturbances." That might have been the one you read.
Chestnut Lodge is a famous private hospital in Maryland, where many well-known analysts of his generation worked-- mostly for treatment of schizophrenia, because at that time, it was believed that analysis could cure psychoses--also the distinctions among various mental illnesses were a bit different, and maybe more blurry-- I think Chestnut Lodge still exists, although its character has probably changed.
There was a lot of discussion, at least a while back, of the "interpersonal field" which is an idea he developed. But interest has, to some extent, shift ed to neuroscientific approaches (I think).
What types of psychoanalysis do you have in Australia?
Jost
Posted by Declan on July 20, 2006, at 0:11:51
In reply to Re: Please excuse any over-generalisation » Declan, posted by Jost on July 19, 2006, at 22:09:53
I saw a psychoanalytically oriented therapist who was influenced by Winnicott, Margaret Mahler and the Object Relations school, and Melanie Klein of course, although *thank heavens* my therapy was not like I've read of Klein's. Lots of emphasis on envy, which may have been specific to me. Hell, if I say psychoanalysis is vulgar, what am I to say about today? It's all drugs and 'you are God', entitlement dressed up as spirituality (abundance). I'm completely out of the loop about what's going on, but I fear not much.
Posted by Jost on July 20, 2006, at 13:40:32
In reply to Re: Please excuse any over-generalisation, posted by Declan on July 20, 2006, at 0:11:51
Envy is an idea that Melanie Klein emphasizes a lot. In her original formulation, as I recall, it's envy of the socalled "good breast"-- I think the infant supposedly sees the "breast" as the container or possessor of everything good-- then since the infant has sort of again socalled 'primitive" mental processes, engages in some sort of splitting (or can do so), so that the breast is all good and the infant is either not good, or is bad.
So there's envy of the breast, and then some reparative desire, to undo or reverse the badness of envy.
But this is all taking place internally, in terms of internal objects, rather than only, or primarily, as a form of actual interaction swith literal other people--although other people can become associated with these internal objects.
Does that sound at all like the type of approach? I've always wondered if that doesn't begin to sound blaming-- the analyst being identified with the good breast (not necessarily, but it seemed to be the way it went), and the patient then acting out of the place where s/he was on the narrative of envy and reparation.
Jost
Posted by Declan on July 20, 2006, at 15:33:07
In reply to Re: Melanie Klein/ envy » Declan, posted by Jost on July 20, 2006, at 13:40:32
I read a Melanie Klein account of therapy, the Daddy breast, the mummy penis, or vice versa mutatis mutandis (what do I care? It's all cool with me), however my therapy was not really like that although the good breast sounds familiar. What there was a lot of was where feelings had been put. Since my ego boundaries have always bored the sh*t out of me I found this interesting (almost as good as the Mass, you might say, and much more demanding). But envy is very interesting, and is in the Bible the origin of sin, I think. Certainly Lucifer gets thrown out of Heaven as a result of it.
Declan
Posted by Jost on July 20, 2006, at 17:22:14
In reply to Re: Melanie Klein/ envy, posted by Declan on July 20, 2006, at 15:33:07
I'd be fascinated to hear more about your experience with a Kleinian analysis. Envy is one of those fascinating topics that's underexplored--possibly because it's kind of hard to approach--and the idea of object relations appeals to me-- that one has internalized objects.
I do remember some of what you're saying from reading I did--
Wonder if anyone else has written about Envy.
by the way, are you Australian?
Jost
Posted by Declan on July 20, 2006, at 23:07:10
In reply to Re: Melanie Klein/ envy, posted by Jost on July 20, 2006, at 17:22:14
My therapist had worked with Winnicott (Klein on the bookshelf). But envy was a big subject with us. I had a diagnosis(?) of 'no sense of identity' (Eriksson?), which may be relevant in ways not obvious to me. Anyway today I was thinking about this (in a stressful social situation) and of my earler remarks about putting parts of myself all over the place and being bored with ego boundaries, and what I thought was that if you have no sense of identity (which is?) it's easy to sound profound in a vaguely Buddhist kind of way, and secondly why would you not feel bored within contentless boundaries. Needless to say all this is double dutch to me.
Yes, I'm Australian. I finished my therapy 18 years ago now. I really wanted to believe there were soul doctors, and in a sense perhaps I found one (but maybe I need another).
It's good to have someone to talk to about this.
Declan
This is the end of the 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.