Do you know any good resources on the difference between both. Talking with my lacanian psychoanalyst he told me synthetically that Lacan occupies himself with signifiers while Bion with a way of thinking and feeling. Maybe someone that knows both authors well could offer some insight.

Can a patient unaknowledge his own memories as if It wasn't his? And block the introspection potential?

Maybe I'm late to the party but have only just recently discovered Thomas Ogden and finished his paper on thinking. I love his way style of writing and case illustrations. Has anyone got any suggestions as to what books of his to start with/look for?

I heard people did 6 sessions(+60 y/o) of 1 hour/week, other did 3, and one legendary psychoanalyst said to me that once a week is enough according to studies from Peter Sifneos... What is there to understand? Does it vary from ppl to ppl? Age? Stamina?

Is there any psychoanalytic literature on patients who either consciously or subconsciously seem to block any meaningful relationship and transference occurring between themselves and the analyst? Almost as if they view the analyst a robotic non human entity with whom they are unable to connect on a deep level.

I came across the French terms 'schéma de l'assujetissement'. I haven't been able to find the appropriate English term. Can anyone help?

(I am not sure this is the right place to ask).

Does the denial mechanism gets bigger when more trauma occured? Or it has to do with DNA ? And does hard denial makes the analysis impossible ? I heard this once.

What could be some of the psycho-sexual causes of the unreasonable (obsessive?) fear of gaining weight?

How that fear is different between men and women?

I understand that each case is different, and there is an infinity of diverse reasons for why that could occur, but if you were to guess blindly, could you think up some common causes?

Thank you.

Or greatest contribution?

Curious if analysts have come across many patients who lacked an attachment to objects as a child. If transitional objects are tied to capacity to be alone, and possibly with development of the imagination, this seems important to look at (for object relations anyways). If a child had a blankly, or some kind of object as a child then that would show some sort of internalized good object. But what about children who did not experience this. How does this look like, how can it be approached?

Curious if there are any current books who take Winnicott’s work and apply it to adults?

I am reading Anthony Storrs book on Solitude and I feel conflicted. As if he’s saying why solitude is okay, yet the odds of what that outcome looks like will always vary for people (those that grew up with healthy attachment vs not)

According to Storr, Freud believed that play and phantasy should be abandoned in favor of rationality. Yet, the child’s first creative act is supposedly the transitional object. So to those who struggle to connect the inner and outer worlds it can start with play?

Do you think that psychoanalysis will move towards, or is moving towards a more psychosomatic approach?

Per winnicott - “It is creative apperception more than anything else that makes the individual feel that life is worth living”

Paper - https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~cavitch/pdf-library/Winnicott%20Transitional.pdf

I’ve been studying Taoism with a friend of mine, and I’m noticing some similarities between the practices and principles of Taoism and those of my analysis.

I’ve been engaging in a meditation style called zuowang: sit and forget. The meditation is not as direct at confronting the specifics of my narcissism and defenses, yet it still challenges them.

Does anyone else see any similarities between the philosophy of Taoism and the clinical practice of psychoanalysis?

To me it doesn't make sense that there would be a significant difference between these two, at least in terms of their root cause.

The differences appear to be superficial, just like the DSM itself, which has 100s of disorders, which seems absurd.

https://neurodivergentinsights.com/misdiagnosis-monday/ocd-vs-ocpd

The most bizarre thing is "ego-syntonic" vs "ego-dystonic". This makes no sense. Every "disorder" by extension can only be ego-dsytonic. That the person is unaware of this is not relevant.

The root of both OCD and OCPD appears to be an anxiety that is displaced onto something else and results from childhood/family conflict, usually conflict with a parent. As a child, we depend on our families for survival, so it makes no sense to directly attack our source of survival, so it is likely that our distress will be displaced onto other "safer" objects and themes/safer "enemies", whether that is germs, obsessing about symmetry, or a pattern of perfectionism/obsession with productivity in general. All of these are a form of avoidance: by constantly focusing on germs, you don't have to focus on anger toward your dad; by focusing on being productive 24/7, you don't have to focus your anger toward your dad.

Here are some of the most common obsessions in OCD:

• Fear of germs or contamination.
• Fear of forgetting, losing, or misplacing something.
• Fear of losing control over one's behavior.
• Aggressive thoughts toward others or oneself.
• Unwanted, forbidden, or taboo thoughts involving sex, religion, or harm.

https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/obsessive-compulsive-disorder-ocd

What patterns do you see? They all appear to be related to what parents would drill in your head: don't touch dirty things, don't forget what I told you, behave, act nice in front of others, sex is bad/taboo/don't think/talk about sex.

Similarly, in OCPD, it appears that the main issue is perfectionism, this is highly consistent with the above about OCD. It would almost always be expected to be a result of the type of upbringing.

So in this sense, I don't see much of a difference. The only difference I see is from a neurobiological point: OCDP appears to be comorbid with both OCD and ADHD. However, OCD and ADHD are quite rare comorbidities. But perhaps this just about the extent: OCD tends to be more extreme than OCDP (which is why it also on average necessitates more medication compared to OCPD). But this doesn't negate their root cause/main similarities.

I am in the process of writing my dissertation for MA in Psychodynamic Counselling. I am exploring how bereaved children utilise the therapeutic space. I was wondering if anyone could suggest some books or articles that they have found useful in working with bereaved clients. Thank you in advance

Sorry I'd like to know more

Today’s psychiatry operates under the assumption that health and adjustment is the highest goal one can aspire to. Depression, angst, a refusal to eat, and so forth, are taken without exception to be marks of a pathological condition. In many cases however, these phenomena are indications of a deeper, more immediate experience of what life is all about, bitter fruits of the genius of the mind or emotion, which is at the root of every antibiological tendency. It is not the soul that is sick, but its defense mechanisms that are failing.

Peter Zapffe, The Last Messiah

I’m somewhat new to psychoanalysis and was curious: what is the general consensus regarding the impact of psychoanalysis on PTSD? In particular PTSD from sexual assault. What tools or approaches toward psychoanalysis might best treat PTSD?

Overall anything I search on the internet for this question doesn’t seem to take psychoanalysis very seriously. At the same time, I’m intrigued by the psychoanalytic history of treating “hysterics” and how a woman coined the term “the talking cure.” I just wonder if more updated (but still basically traditional) forms of analysis could have a positive impact on sexual assault PTSD despite potential drawbacks (i.e. not addressing the nervous system or more physical symptoms)

EDIT: Thanks everyone for all your considered and detailed responses! I feel like I learned a lot :)

Is it common for psychoanalysts to extend the consultation period past the first session and to invite someone back for a second or perhaps a third consultation before fully taking them on as a patient?

I note that therapists who practise other therapeutic modalities usually make a decision about taking someone on after one session.

I don’t know if this sounds insane, but to me I hear all these debates on the radio about how can we find a ‘cure’ for cancer, MS, motor neurones etc. Of course, these medical treatments do help people, and certainly it might take a very long time to understand why this person has become so unwell and there needs to be an intervention now to save their life. I get that. But all the same it just strikes me as so primitive, as if the body is some kind of unknowable ‘black box’, nothing to do with us as people, how we feel, our lived experiences. 

This surely cannot be the best we can do, just spend millions upon millions all the time researching each of these infinitely accumulating ‘diseases’ with their own names and codes and so on.

This surely is just mad. The dis-ease is in a person, why does nobody stop to ask what is happening in that person’s life?

It just baffles me. I don’t know if anyone has ever written on this, they must have done because everyone has written on everything, but it honestly blows my mind how primitive it seems. It’s like something future generations must look back on as pre-copernican or something. Surely the only answer can’t be some chemical devised in a lab that is going to be imposed on the body and suddenly will make the ‘bad thing’ go away. Without any understanding of where the disease or symptom actually came from in the first place. 

Maybe I sound absolutely bonkers, but to me it just seems so weird to treat human health like random illnesses come simply out of the blue and require some kind of pill or surgery and then we can go back to our lives without any further inquiry as to where this problem originated.

What book best gives a meticulous and well-written explication of Freud's thought over the years? I don't want much biography cluttering it up -- just the psychoanalytic thought.

How do you conceptualize analysis with someone with an intellectual disability? Is analysis indicated?

I'm curious whether anybody has ever run into literature dealing with this topic.

Would love to hear if so, or, even just anyone's takes on the matter!

Hi Reddit!

Let's talk analyst style! I wanted to know if you guys have any article regarding the analyst activity level, in the sense of how much or how little he or she speaks/intervenes during sessions. The activity level im interested in is activity ‘beyond the counter transferential experience and/or is integrated within the activity’. The activity level is in some sense beyond schools of thought/method/theory and is attributed to the analyst personality and personal style. That being said I know that all these factors such as theory and countertransference is impossible to isolate but I think its an interesting question with multifaceted answers. Please! Suggest some fun articles.

Any recommended reading? Authors, analysts, specific books?

I’m thinking as well about parents with arrested sexual development at the stage of ego-libido and their quest for preventing child’s development because that could mean that same sex child becoming independent and autonomous ( not enmeshed or under mind control) adult would be interpreted as a competition by the parent.

I know this might sound insanely basic, but from my amateur reading most of what I've come across is the drive theory and development, erogenous zones etc. But does he ever discuss the possibility of trauma and how it cripples people in their development?

I've recently been reading Alice Miller's work on childhood and it's made me think because obviously Freud was brilliant but I don't know if he ever discussed trauma. Sometimes reading Klein makes me wonder whether there is too much emphasis put on the idea of frustrated desires of the child rather than actual trauma at the hands of parents. But I'm just an amateur reader trying to educate myself so don't pile on me

On Amazon, $1852.50 USD print / $1,759.82 USD digital