psychological analysis

Try going to www.google.com and entering Sigmund Freud into the search box, you will be overwhelmed with information.

Or, can you find a biography of him in a library?

Also, numerous psychology texts will outline his theories.

Psychoanalysis (which is the correct term) is STILL popular in the US, though not necessarily in a strictly Freudian form.

Going to Google and entering "psychoanalysis" will get you many, many sites to learn about psychoanalysis from.

0 Replies

Which opera?

0 Replies

dlowan- I disagree about psychoanalysis still being popular in the US. I think that lying on a couch three days a week for umpteen years has gone the way of high button shoes and buggy whips.

I also think that Freud is not held in as high esteem now, as in years past. The general consensus is that he was a man of his time, and that many of his conclusions were borne out as a result of him living in a specific cultural milleau.

In the US, IMO, people undergoing "talking therapy" would more likely become involved in a short term "here and now" program, rather than going through the process of inspecting all aspects of one's psyche. It is too costly, too time consuming, and not necessarily that efficient.

Another thing. For good or ill, Americans love the "quick fix". Therefore many Americans who would benefit from talking therapy prefer to opt for swallowing a pill, rather that getting to the bottom of their difficulties.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

dlowan- I disagree about psychoanalysis still being popular in the US. I think that lying on a couch three days a week for umpteen years has gone the way of high button shoes and buggy whips.

I also think that Freud is not held in as high esteem now, as in years past. The general consensus is that he was a man of his time, and that many of his conclusions were borne out as a result of him living in a specific cultural milleau.

In the US, IMO, people undergoing "talking therapy" would more likely become involved in a short term "here and now" program, rather than going through the process of inspecting all aspects of one's psyche. It is too costly, too time consuming, and not necessarily that efficient.

Another thing. For good or ill, Americans love the "quick fix". Therefore many Americans who would benefit from talking therapy prefer to opt for swallowing a pill, rather that getting to the bottom of their difficulties.

There's a lot of analysts still around, believe me! And lots of training in it.

As to whether Freud is still held in high regard, he still is in the analytic community, though there are other theorists competing, and different folk will favour different theorists.

0 Replies

dlowan- I know that there are still plenty of analysts around. I think though, in the scheme of things, Freud and psychoanalysis no longer holds the preeminent place in therapy as it did, decades ago.

0 Replies

Here's some evidence.

Eg: They're still fighting!!!!!:

M.D.'s Make Room for Others In Ranks of Psychoanalysts
Print Single-Page Save

By ROBERT PEAR,
Published: August 19, 1992
Following in the footsteps of Freud's daughter, scores of nonphysicians are training to become psychoanalysts under the settlement of a lawsuit that promises to transform this most intensive form of psychotherapy.

Since the early years of the 20th century, physicians, specifically, psychiatrists, have dominated the practice of psychoanalysis in the United States. For decades, the accredited training institutes of the American Psychoanalytic Association insisted that applicants have an M.D. degree before they could start training, and the institutes made only a few exceptions for academic researchers.

But in March 1985, four psychologists filed a class-action lawsuit against the association and some of its institutes, charging that they had conspired to establish a monopoly on psychoanalysis and to stifle competition in violation of Federal antitrust law. A result of the conspiracy, they said, was to raise the prices charged to patients, insurance companies and others who pay for psychoanalysis.

Analysts denied the charges. But the lawsuit was settled in November 1988, with the institutes promising not to discriminate against psychologists or other "nonmedical candidates." No specific quotas were set for such candidates.

Most of the psychoanalytic training institutes have now admitted substantial numbers of nonphysicians, and the reaction from both psychiatrists and psychologists is positive. Psychoanalysts seem not to remember why they fought so hard to exclude psychologists from their ranks, or they are unwilling to express their reservations publicly.

The new trend could benefit consumers by increasing the number of psychoanalysts, increasing competition, slowing the increase in fees and making services more affordable. A Question of Cost

Dr. Kenneth T. Calder of Manhattan, who served as president of the American Psychoanalytic Association in 1977-78, said, "Many of the non-M.D.'s do good work and charge a lesser fee."

But Dr. Arnold Goldberg, director of the Chicago Institute for Psychoanalysis, expressed concern that "some insurance companies balk at reimbursing non-M.D.'s." Many insurers are cutting back the coverage of mental illness in general, even when the treatment is given by a physician. However, some states require insurance companies to accept claims from both psychiatrists and psychologists.

Psychoanalysis, known as the talking cure, is the most intensive form of psychotherapy. Typically, it involves four or five sessions a week for several years. In the traditional form, the patient lies on a couch and has no eye contact with the analyst, whose chair is at the head of the couch.

Analysts encourage patients to say whatever comes into their minds, with the hope that the patients can understand and overcome the unconscious inhibitions that limit their ability to love, work and create.

Dr. Marvin Margolis, chairman of the board on professional standards of the American Psychoanalytic Association, said: "Many of us were already working for a more open admissions process, but the lawsuit accelerated that development. Nonmedical candidates are doing well in training. In five years, I predict, psychologists, social workers and other nonphysicians will account for 50 percent of all candidates."

Even as psychologists show new interest in psychoanalysis, the number of American medical school graduates choosing to specialize in psychiatry has declined. That number has dropped 29 percent, to 526 this year from 745 in 1988, a trend the psychiatrists are trying to reverse. Arduous Training

The training of an analyst has traditionally been long and arduous. After graduation from college, prospective analysts faced four years of medical school, four years of psychiatric training in a residency program, and four to eight years of analytic training at an institute.

Many doctors who go into psychiatry favor forms of therapy other than psychoanalysis. And many are attracted by neuroscience, the effort to explain the workings of the brain and mental illness in terms of biochemistry and cellular biology.......[/]

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9E0CE1DC1230F93AA2575BC0A964958260

Members of one psychoanalytic association in NYC:

http://www.med.nyu.edu/pany/members/alpha.html

http://www.med.nyu.edu/pany/members/geographic.html

It remains quite popular in some other countries as well, there is quite a lot practised in Oz (though less in some states than others, Victoria, for example, trains quite a few, South Australia, my state, many less. So it goes.) It expands to embrace other knowledge, too...eg advances in neuroscience.

Of course, lots of therapists despise Freud.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

dlowan- I know that there are still plenty of analysts around. I think though, in the scheme of things, Freud and psychoanalysis no longer holds the preeminent place in therapy as it did, decades ago.

No, though I think analytic, though not strictly Freudian, thought is making something of a comeback...especially as attachment research, for instance, supports some of its key concepts.

0 Replies

Quote:

But Dr. Arnold Goldberg, director of the Chicago Institute for Psychoanalysis, expressed concern that "some insurance companies balk at reimbursing non-M.D.'s." Many insurers are cutting back the coverage of mental illness in general, even when the treatment is given by a physician. However, some states require insurance companies to accept claims from both psychiatrists and psychologists.

Not even considering the efficacy of psychoanalysis, I think that that paragraph sums up the issue. The health insurers are much more likely to pay for a psychotropic medication, than spring for a long course of analysis. So, I would suspect that a goodly percentage of folks who go in for analysis, are bored and wealthy.

Maybe I am looking at this from a prejudiced point of view. I have been always been leery of those therapists, of any discipline, including analysis, that "keep the patients on the payroll" for a long period of time.

There seems to be a co-dependency between patient and therapist, that I don't think, of itself, is healthy. For the therapist, it is comforting to know that he has a steady income coming in from clients who remain dependent. For the patient, I have known too many who, after many years of therapy, are unable to function, or make decisions, without the input of the therapist. That to me, in itself, is a good reason to stay away from any long term therapy modalities.

I myself favor the directive, cognitive approach of a therapy such as REBT.

0 Replies

Couch marking. <smile>

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

Quote:
But Dr. Arnold Goldberg, director of the Chicago Institute for Psychoanalysis, expressed concern that "some insurance companies balk at reimbursing non-M.D.'s." Many insurers are cutting back the coverage of mental illness in general, even when the treatment is given by a physician. However, some states require insurance companies to accept claims from both psychiatrists and psychologists.

Not even considering the efficacy of psychoanalysis, I think that that paragraph sums up the issue. The health insurers are much more likely to pay for a psychotropic medication, than spring for a long course of analysis. So, I would suspect that a goodly percentage of folks who go in for analysis, are bored and wealthy.

Maybe I am looking at this from a prejudiced point of view. I have been always been leery of those therapists, of any discipline, including analysis, that "keep the patients on the payroll" for a long period of time.

There seems to be a co-dependency between patient and therapist, that I don't think, of itself, is healthy. For the therapist, it is comforting to know that he has a steady income coming in from clients who remain dependent. For the patient, I have known too many who, after many years of therapy, are unable to function, or make decisions, without the input of the therapist. That to me, in itself, is a good reason to stay away from any long term therapy modalities.

I myself favor the directive, cognitive approach of a therapy such as REBT.

While I am becoming more respectful of some analytic concepts and analysis' efficacy with certain problems, or for anyone, if they can afford it. I do not think that, practiced properly, it promotes "dependency" for longer than is therapeutically necessary...of course, as with any skill and art, there are many who practice not so well.

That said, I practice briefer therapies, generally, but am increasingly informed by analytic theories, as some of them make more sense in the light of research...a fascinating thing to see!

However, for some very deep and global trauma, do think that several years of therapy are necessary...and research bears this out...eg with the kind of kids I see at the hardest end, less than a minimum of two years therapy seems to have little effect, though we are working with techniques that seem to speed things up.

I think managed care is inimical to good practice in many areas, not just therapy...and for therapy of truly traumatised people I think it will be disastrous.

Here, medicare still provides for analysis by therapists who are also psychiatrists.... but for how long?

As with all methodologies, different things suit different people. Frankly cognitive stuff is a part of any good therapy, I think.....but not enough in some cases.

0 Replies

It's a scrap in my text book.

0 Replies

psychological analysis

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know