62 replies to this topic

[proftournesol]

I've always liked David Cronenberg's films: complex, dialog driven, creepy in a psychologically sophisticated sort of way. His latest one explores a little known triangular relationship between Jung, Freud and Jung's first analysand (psychoanalytic patient). I won't go into the storyline in too much detail as you've either read about it or it'll be spoilers. It certainly isn't disappointing although I think it might help to have some understanding of psychoanalysis, its history or at least the idea of what's involved in psychotherapy. If anyone has seen it and is interested, there's a fantastic book (small) on Freud called Freud's Vienna by Bruno Bettleheim that puts his life and idea in a social context with life in Vienna and the Austr-Hungarian Empire at the time. It's an easy read if you can find it. Interesting film.

[LogicprObe]

Yes, I thought this would be interesting.

[Dismord]

Is their experimentation with cocaine mentioned?

[LogicprObe]

Is their experimentation with cocaine mentioned?

LOL!
You mean addiction, don't you?

[Dismord]

LOL!
You mean addiction, don't you?

They thought of it as an experiment. But is it mentioned?

[proftournesol]

Is their experimentation with cocaine mentioned?

Not directly. It's little known that Freud did the original research on cocaine. However it does include Otto Gross as none of the characters, an original student of Freud who became a cocaine addict and a rake. I thought that Kiera Knightley was very good as the unfortunate Sabina Spielrein, the world's first child psychoanalyst and founder of psychoanalysis in the Soviet Union, who despite some impressive early theoretical contributions became virtually unknown until about 20 years ago when her important contributions have been rediscovered. The rivalry between Freud and Jung is examined in an insightful way: both wanted to be alpha males, Freud was middle class, Jung had married into money, Freud was Jewish and quite aware of how that compounded the risks of his theories being dismissed, Jung was a Swiss protestant who wanted to extend analysis into paranormal and mysticism, and in particular Freud disapproved of Jung's seduction of his patient Spielrein.

[Dismord]

Not directly. It's little known that Freud did the original research on cocaine. However it does include Otto Gross as none of the characters, an original student of Freud who became a cocaine addict and a rake. I thought that Kiera Knightley was very good as the unfortunate Sabina Spielrein, the world's first child psychoanalyst and founder of psychoanalysis in the Soviet Union, who despite some impressive early theoretical contributions became virtually unknown until about 20 years ago when her important contributions have been rediscovered. The rivalry between Freud and Jung is examined in an insightful way: both wanted to be alpha males, Freud was middle class, Jung had married into money, Freud was Jewish and quite aware of how that compounded the risks of his theories being dismissed, Jung was a Swiss protestant who wanted to extend analysis into paranormal and mysticism, and in particular Freud disapproved of Jung's seduction of his patient Spielrein.

I think there's more to this than was ever discussed across anyone's couch. I suspect Freud and Jung were initially sexually attracted to each other. Given Freud's theory that neurotics are homosexuals who have suppressed their homosexuality he probably managed to put himself between the devil and a hard place. Many of today's Freudians still believe Freud achieved a fundamental insights into homosexuality, I suggest he had no idea what it was all about, least of all that portion inside himself.
Any film concerning, even only in part, the relationship between Freud and Jung also side-stepping the issue of cocaine addiction goes beyond fictionalisation and becomes almost fantasy. Jung's theories from my perspective became a nonsense with the possible exception his two superb tomes on alchemy which sadly are no longer read.

[proftournesol]

I'm no great fan of Jung myself although I haven't read him more than superficially. He's certainly got a second wind with the New Agers. Freud was an excellent writer, in fact he said that his proudest achievement was winning the Goethe Prize (can't remember for which book) and has some interesting ideas, however his ideas about drives are somewhat unfashionable outside psychoanalytic circles now. In fact his books are much like the bible, if you look carefully you can find almost anything as his thoughts evolved over 40 years and much of his later writing is very different from his earlier writing. Unless you have been swept up in the most unsatisfactory but very fashionable craze for cognitive behavioural therapy, most therapists are more influenced by Object Relations thinking, Bion's ideas around mind or self psychology. Freud is still a very important figure though.

[Dismord]

I'm no great fan of Jung myself although I haven't read him more than superficially. He's certainly got a second wind with the New Agers. Freud was an excellent writer, in fact he said that his proudest achievement was winning the Goethe Prize (can't remember for which book) and has some interesting ideas, however his ideas about drives are somewhat unfashionable outside psychoanalytic circles now. In fact his books are much like the bible, if you look carefully you can find almost anything as his thoughts evolved over 40 years and much of his later writing is very different from his earlier writing. Unless you have been swept up in the most unsatisfactory but very fashionable craze for cognitive behavioural therapy, most therapists are more influenced by Object Relations thinking, Bion's ideas around mind or self psychology. Freud is still a very important figure though.

I haven't read all of Freud, his is a large oeuvre to digest. His investigations into religious thought I find his best work. A close friend, a practicing fruedian psychiatrist and I have long arguments (well, it's lasted 40 or so years now) about the validity of Freud's therapeutic method which I see as essentially unscientific despite claimed advances by Melanie Klein et al.
I have to confess here that my perspective is warped by attendance at a symposium as far back as 1958 at the New York University Institute.The proceedings published in 1959 by NY U Press edited by Sidney Hook titled "Psychoanalysis, Scientific Method and Philosophy' and also by having personally experienced several forms of psychotherapy, including freudian, behavioural etc.
Granted Freud's thought has had a permanent effect upon Western Culture with many of his terms becoming part of our day to day language even for those who have no understanding or their true significance. However, there's no proof that when freudian methods are applied to mental illness the recovery rate is any higher than it would be spontaneously or by other methods. This of course leeds to the question of how we'd define 'recovery' in a discipline subject to it's own subconscious bias. Sorry to wander far off the topic of 'A Dangerous Method' but from my perspective, Freud's method is.

Edited by Dismord, 15 April 2012 - 11:18 PM.

[LogicprObe]

I'll just say that prof's use of a small font size is very annoying.
Either I have to don glasses or hit the magnifier!

[Dismord]

I'll just say that prof's use of a small font size is very annoying.
Either I have to don glasses or hit the magnifier!

Who is 'Prof' ? ? ?

[LogicprObe]

Who is 'Prof' ? ? ?

Sssshhhh.........

http://www.stereo.ne...-proftournesol/

[proftournesol]

I'll just say that prof's use of a small font size is very annoying.
Either I have to don glasses or hit the magnifier!

The new forum software gives unpredictable results with Safari. I'm not choosing this font size, it becomes smaller when posted, but I'll make it bigger for you:)

[proftournesol]

I haven't read all of Freud, his is a large oeuvre to digest. His investigations into religious thought I find his best work. A close friend, a practicing fruedian psychiatrist and I have long arguments (well, it's lasted 40 or so years now) about the validity of Freud's therapeutic method which I see as essentially unscientific despite claimed advances by Melanie Klein et al.
I have to confess here that my perspective is warped by attendance at a symposium as far back as 1958 at the New York University Institute.The proceedings published in 1959 by NY U Press edited by Sidney Hook titled "Psychoanalysis, Scientific Method and Philosophy' and also by having personally experienced several forms of psychotherapy, including freudian, behavioural etc.
Granted Freud's thought has had a permanent effect upon Western Culture with many of his terms becoming part of our day to day language even for those who have no understanding or their true significance. However, there's no proof that when freudian methods are applied to mental illness the recovery rate is any higher than it would be spontaneously or by other methods. This of course leeds to the question of how we'd define 'recovery' in a discipline subject to it's own subconscious bias. Sorry to wander far off the topic of 'A Dangerous Method' but from my perspective, Freud's method is.

I agree, and to be fair to Freud he never claimed that he could cure mental illness, only to help people understand it. His contribution to psychological thought has been very important but it's only 1 of many useful contributions by many.

[Dismord]

The new forum software gives unpredictable results with Safari. I'm not choosing this font size, it becomes smaller when posted, but I'll make it bigger for you:)

I'm running Version 5.1.2 of Safari and have no problems reading that font. Maybe it manifests differently on some screens?
There is a way of zooming in on web pages on Macs go to 'view' and click on 'Zoom Text'

[proftournesol]

there is probably an issue with some of my extensions although it don't seem to help too much when I turned them off.

[Dr.Sigmend.Fraud]

there is probably an issue with some of my extensions although it don't seem to help too much when I turned them off.

ah...another of diz Freudian Slips....it seems you are trying to control seez basic libido Profezzor, thus yours frustration with turning off zee "extensions"
pleaze come and lie in my mauseleom and we can look into zis
in zee meanwhile pleaze do not let zee "extensions" come between you and your patience or conzumers as you sezz

[Nada]

I've always liked David Cronenberg's films: complex, dialog driven, creepy in a psychologically sophisticated sort of way. His latest one explores a little known triangular relationship between Jung, Freud and Jung's first analysand (psychoanalytic patient). I won't go into the storyline in too much detail as you've either read about it or it'll be spoilers. It certainly isn't disappointing although I think it might help to have some understanding of psychoanalysis, its history or at least the idea of what's involved in psychotherapy. If anyone has seen it and is interested, there's a fantastic book (small) on Freud called Freud's Vienna by Bruno Bettleheim that puts his life and idea in a social context with life in Vienna and the Austr-Hungarian Empire at the time. It's an easy read if you can find it. Interesting film.

Thanks Prof for the heads up on the film and book. You've certainly piqued my interest and I will try and get better educated.

My knowledge of Freud is rudimentary. I might well be mistaken but I see him as an early explorer, who from a current ethical and scientific perspective, failed to test if his theories and practice produced benefit or harm.

Im intrigued by the rigour of the mentalising development of Professor's Bateman and Fonagy. Mentalising theory is more grounded in attachment data and neurophysology findings and they are upfront about what they haven't proved and bear in mind the iatrogenic harms possible with psychobabble.

I found the book at a good price so to save anyone else interested: http://www.bookdepos...m/9780679731887

Edited by Nada, 16 April 2012 - 12:00 PM.

[Orpheus]

I enjoy the way that Jung writes, and I am interested in his ideas.

Neither Freud nor Jung are necessarily particularly useful if you imagine that they could be some sort of handbook for analysis, but they are both important for their particular theorising and thinking about the unconscious, and how it effects our conscious thought, and both our conscious and unconscious actions.

[Orpheus]

ah...another of diz Freudian Slips....it seems you are trying to control seez basic libido Profezzor, thus yours frustration with turning off zee "extensions"
pleaze come and lie in my mauseleom and we can look into zis
in zee meanwhile pleaze do not let zee "extensions" come between you and your patience or conzumers as you sezz

Right on the money here, I think Siggers, but he is clearly having some success with these extensions, as evidenced by the small size of his font.

[Nada]

I enjoy the way that Jung writes, and I am interested in his ideas.

Neither Freud nor Jung are necessarily particularly useful if you imagine that they could be some sort of handbook for analysis, but they are both important for their particular theorising and thinking about the unconscious, and how it effects our conscious thought, and both our conscious and unconscious actions.

but if they could conciously think about what is unconscious deosnt that mean it wasn't bona fide unconsciousness, or is that just they were particularly addicted to head waaaaankkkkkkkking......

[LogicprObe]

The new forum software gives unpredictable results with Safari. I'm not choosing this font size, it becomes smaller when posted, but I'll make it bigger for you:)

Thanks mate...........but I bet you say that to all the girls!

[Dismord]

Thanks Prof for the heads up on the film and book. You've certainly piqued my interest and I will try and get better educated.

My knowledge of Freud is rudimentary. I might well be mistaken but I see him as an early explorer, who from a current ethical and scientific perspective, failed to test if his theories and practice produced benefit or harm.

Im intrigued by the rigour of the mentalising development of Professor's Bateman and Fonagy. Mentalising theory is more grounded in attachment data and neurophysology findings and they are upfront about what they haven't proved and bear in mind the iatrogenic harms possible with psychobabble.

I found the book at a good price so to save anyone else interested: http://www.bookdepos...m/9780679731887

Yes, Freud was a pioneer. To criticise his approach could be seen as blaming the Wright brothers for not inventing the jumbo jet. However, the sad fact is a large number of practicing freudian psychiatrists take just about everything he wrote as gospel and apply it. As you say. "iatrogenic harms possible with psychobabble" hits the nail right on the head.

[Dismord]

I enjoy the way that Jung writes, and I am interested in his ideas.

Neither Freud nor Jung are necessarily particularly useful if you imagine that they could be some sort of handbook for analysis, but they are both important for their particular theorising and thinking about the unconscious, and how it effects our conscious thought, and both our conscious and unconscious actions.

A handbook for analysis? I'd like to see that. As to 'the unconscious' this particular foundation of Freudian theory have never been proven empirically - that's not to say we won't eventually have proof of the reality of a sub-conscious of the type claimed by freudians.

[Nada]

....to criticise his approach could be seen as blaming the Wright brothers for not inventing the jumbo jet

thats an interesting point, what do you think of working that analogy in another direction.......like the Wright brothers offering test flights to members of public to do the beta testing followed by a rapid alpha release into commercial production without bothering to check on the crash record (kind of like Airbus).... would Hippocrates have groaned? Maybe not. The idea that a mere "talking cure" could have the power to make a patient much worse seems rather far fetched on the face of it.

Edited by Nada, 16 April 2012 - 05:55 PM.

[Nada]

.... As to 'the unconscious' this particular foundation of Freudian theory have never been proven empirically - that's not to say we won't eventually have proof of the reality of a sub-conscious of the type claimed by freudians.

[Dismord]

thats an interesting point, what do you think of working that analogy in another direction.......like the Wright brothers offering test flights to members of public to do the beta testing followed by a rapid alpha release into commercial production without bothering to check on the crash record (kind of like Airbus).... would Hippocrates have groaned? Maybe not. The idea that a mere "talking cure" could have the power to make a patient much worse seems rather far fetched on the face of it.

Far fetched if you take the word 'mere' at it's face value. Having experienced freudian psychiatry first hand, and it's effects upon others, I don't.

[proftournesol]

Well by definition how can you 'prove' that of which you are unaware? 'Proving' it makes it conscious.

Think of Freud's ideas and subsequent ideas as models rather than literal truth. We are not in a position to prove or disprove psychological models of how the mind works rather than the literal truth. We are not in a position to understand the truth in this area. We are pattern seeking creatures by design (evolution) and so look to understand ourselves and our place in the world. Often the foundations of that understanding occurs in childhood, and we can often benefit from a re-examination. All our memories are modulated by emotional experience and in particular, in childhood we are not able to fully appreciate this. Freud and early therapists focused on individual therapy, that is the therapist with his or her patient, much later work has expanded our ideas to look at the relationship of the individual to their family and other groups that we live in.

Psychotherapy using any model is a particularly powerful experience, akin to reprogramming your software and rewiring the hardware. It also has the potential to do harm. Unfortunately in all Australian states anyone can call themselves and practice as a psychotherapist with no supervision or oversight unless you are a member of a professional body.

[Dismord]

Well by definition how can you 'prove' that of which you are unaware? 'Proving' it makes it conscious.

Epistemologically confused and simplistic to say the least.
To put it simply all claims, given your logic, made about any force, drive, appetite etc that's supposedly subconscious cannot therefore be disproved either.

Think of Freud's ideas and subsequent ideas as models rather than literal truth.

I'm happy to do so however many freudians aren't

Psychotherapy using any model is a particularly powerful experience, akin to reprogramming your software and rewiring the hardware.

Or inadvertently paying someone to insert a virus (suggestion)?

It also has the potential to do harm. Unfortunately in all Australian states anyone can call themselves and practice as a psychotherapist with no supervision or oversight unless you are a member of a professional body.

Yes, and I'd make the same claim about practitioners of organised religion but in these days of political correctness we're forbidden to say that.

Edited by Dismord, 16 April 2012 - 11:13 PM.

[proftournesol]

Dismord, psychotherapy is a powerful tool, but like anything that works it can be dangerous if used inappropriately. Freudian psychoanalysis is very helpful for some, other therapies will give greater benefit for others. Some people are better avoiding any more than the most gentle supportive therapy. The therapy must fit the situation.

[LogicprObe]

Dismord, psychotherapy is a powerful tool, but like anything that works it can be dangerous if used inappropriately. Freudian psychoanalysis is very helpful for some, other therapies will give greater benefit for others. Some people are better avoiding any more than the most gentle supportive therapy. The therapy must fit the situation.

Ha! Your font has gone small again.
Could be my Opera browser but your's seems to be the only one that does it.
Come to think of it...............when I posted my first observation, I was using IE.

[Dismord]

Dismord, psychotherapy is a powerful tool, but like anything that works it can be dangerous if used inappropriately. Freudian psychoanalysis is very helpful for some, other therapies will give greater benefit for others. Some people are better avoiding any more than the most gentle supportive therapy. The therapy must fit the situation.

And yes, psychotherapy is a powerful tool, I wouldn't still be here without it. However, some may appear to benefit from Freudian psychoanalysis but is it the placebo effect of all that attention and the simple opportunity to talk about yourself that's effective or the specific nature of the Freudian approach in and of itself? I don't think we have an answer to that yet. One thing I'm sure of though is that the Freudian approach of seldom accepting 'a cigar as just a cigar' can tangle patients is a miasma of doubt and confusion often exacerbating an existing 'neurosis'.
And yes, ideally the therapy should fit the situation but how can a Freudain therapist ( if we accept their modus operandi ) know what that situation actually is until they've indulged in the long term process of un-earthing a patient's unconscious traumas and repression?

[proftournesol]

Dismord, it's very hard to design a study that demonstrates exactly which factors make psychoanalysis effective because each therapy is so personal, traditional studies that use standardised approaches aren't meaningful here, you can't do any insight oriented therapy from a manual. CBT is much more suited to a manualised approach and so there are many more published studies. Those studies that do study the effectiveness of insight oriented therapies confirm their effectiveness. It's suggested that common features to all effective therapies include:

a good therapeutic relationship

hope for the future

a framework that results in understanding and meaning

It is certainly true that in the course of any therapy there are periods of time when people will feel worse as they tackle difficult issues and they need support to get through this.

[Whatmore]

So would it be fair to say that the psychoanalytic world is divided along similar lines to the audiophile world? In one camp are the "insight-orientists" who say "You can't measure this, just trust your feelings" And then there are the CBT advocates who say "You can't prove it is effective unless there is a proper study"

Edited by Whatmore, 17 April 2012 - 06:11 PM.

[proftournesol]

Most psychotherapists accept the limitations of prospective double blind controlled trials with psychotherapy research: it can't be blind and the technique doesn't lend itself to standardised treatment with most forms of psychotherapy. Those that have been studied show at least as good effectiveness as medication for all but the most serious depression, even some evidence of lessened symptom severity with schizophrenia. Those who are opposed to psychotherapy use the lack of standardised double blind prospective studies as a sign that psychotherapy isn't effective. The reality is that unless you just collect medication from a vending machine, psychotherapy of some sort is a part of every appointment session anyway.

[Nathanas]

Not sure if anyone has mentioned it here but I thought knightley's performance was woeful. Her attempt at
insanity was completely over done and I actually felt embarrassed for her. I quite enjoyed it other than that.

[Dismord]

Not sure if anyone has mentioned it here but I thought knightley's performance was woeful. Her attempt at
insanity was completely over done and I actually felt embarrassed for her. I quite enjoyed it other than that.

Unless you've seen someone producing an hysterical episode and witnessed the 'acting out' it's hard to criticise Knightley's performance. I've now seen the film and can understand why her portrayal could be seen as artificially theatrical. Having witnessed first hand a number of hysterical episodes I've found some of them in reality did actually give an impression of overdone acting even though I'm sure those suffering the condition weren't consciously putting on an act. Hope that makes sense.

[proftournesol]

I thought that she was very good! It's interesting how culture changes psychiatric illness (well it is to me anyway). The sort of diagnoses like hysteria that she portrays in this film just aren't seen anymore.

[Orpheus]

I thought that she was very good! It's interesting how culture changes psychiatric illness (well it is to me anyway). The sort of diagnoses like hysteria that she portrays in this film just aren't seen anymore.

Perhaps what is significant in Freud and Jung is simply their recognition of the importance of symbolism, themes (or "archetypes"), and synecdoches in thought and behaviour.

They were both prescriptive and reductive in their treatment of this knowledge, however, it is possible to understand the rich symbolism of dreams, to draw out connections, analogies, etc, etc, in people's thought patterns which can enrich their "thought life", and experience of life generally, and Freud and Jung were amongst those who explored and popularised this way of thinking.

[Dismord]

Most psychotherapists accept the limitations of prospective double blind controlled trials with psychotherapy research: it can't be blind and the technique doesn't lend itself to standardised treatment with most forms of psychotherapy. Those that have been studied show at least as good effectiveness as medication for all but the most serious depression, even some evidence of lessened symptom severity with schizophrenia. Those who are opposed to psychotherapy use the lack of standardised double blind prospective studies as a sign that psychotherapy isn't effective. The reality is that unless you just collect medication from a vending machine, psychotherapy of some sort is a part of every appointment session anyway.

I've yet to encounter any evidence in peer reviewed literature of psychotherapy being effective in reducing symptoms of schizophrenia but I'm open to the possibility and would very much like to read more on the subject.
Being opposed to ALL psychotherapy could be seen in and of itself as a form of madness. My primary doubts are about the Freudian variety. Having known a number of practitioners who'm I'd diagnose as significantly mad themselves adds to my concerns about the method itself and the questionable underlying theory. Granted psychotherapy of the Freudian variety is not the only branch of medicine where statistics of "cures" and "failures' are unreliable. In tabulations of cases treated by psychoanalytic methods the number of cited cases is small, and there are so many variant factors entering into the treatment of each one that the crude statistics have little investigative force. At most, they may suggest problems for more detailed and circumstantial investigation. There is, I suggest, a gap between the theory and the therapeutic results of its application to the treatment of mental illness. However, its status as a scientific theory is not necessarily invalidated by this discrepancy. To Freud himself the practice of psychoanalysis was largely a means; from my limited reading, he was not inclined to be unduly optimistic about the future of psychotherapy as a mode of treatment and appears to have been mainly interested in it as a means of investigation. His goal appears to have been better knowledge of the structure and mechanisms of the human mind.
My more serious objection is to the gap between theory and therapeutic results in that the method is inherently unscientific because of the way it must be used. How in the private, even secret relationship between analyst and patient can the subjective element possibly be eliminated? Statements of patients themselves cannot always be taken at face value - Freud discovered early on that many "memories" disclosed were false, that in some instances patients were unable to distinguish their fantasies from what had actually occurred . More significant and of greater concern ate the effects of the transference which develops in the analytic situation. When the analyst makes interpretations, the patient's unconscious may all too willingly comply by furnishing associations in the form of fantasies, dreams, and selected memories which serve either as submissive corroboration with the analyst's interpretations or defiantly to corroborate the interpretation because it is wrong. Also under the influence of countertransference the analyst him or herself may be seduced into accepting the patient's own subtly and indirectly offered interpretations, or they may project their own unconscious conflicts on to the patient and end up treating the wrong person.
How I wonder is it possible for an orthodox Freudian therapist to escape this quagmire?

[Dismord]

I thought that she was very good! It's interesting how culture changes psychiatric illness (well it is to me anyway). The sort of diagnoses like hysteria that she portrays in this film just aren't seen anymore.

Indeed. How long since any of us have witnessed a damsel having 'an attack of the vapours'?

[proftournesol]

Indeed. How long since any of us have witnessed a damsel having 'an attack of the vapours'?

Or neurasthenia?

[Nathanas]

Unless you've seen someone producing an hysterical episode and witnessed the 'acting out' it's hard to criticise Knightley's performance. I've now seen the film and can understand why her portrayal could be seen as artificially theatrical. Having witnessed first hand a number of hysterical episodes I've found some of them in reality did actually give an impression of overdone acting even though I'm sure those suffering the condition weren't consciously putting on an act. Hope that makes sense.

That's a valid point. In my defence, I've studied theatre and my knowledge in this field allowed me to make an educated estimation of her performance.

[proftournesol]

I've yet to encounter any evidence in peer reviewed literature of psychotherapy being effective in reducing symptoms of schizophrenia but I'm open to the possibility and would very much like to read more on the subject.

I'll pM you the link if you want as this isn't really a psychotherapy forum. As you point out, the skill of the therapist is important no matter which type of therapy is practiced. For those wondering what transference is, Freud used the term to describe characteristics of the therapy relationship that seemed to be transferred from other significant relationships onto his patient's relationship with him. He distinguished this as a sub-concious process, one where the patient was not aware of the reasons why, and differentiated it from conscious impressions such as whether the person liked him.

Many of the words and concepts we use in everyday language come from Freud: conscious, sub-concious, ego etc. Jung invented the word 'personality'.

[Whatmore]

This may not be a psychotherapy forum but this thread is absolutely fascinating. I don't have much to contribute but I'm learning a great deal. Thanks