On 4 March 2006 Scott Lilienfeld wrote: > I do sometimes worry that the traditional antipathy of > psychoanalysts to data, as exemplified in the Adam Phillip's > NY Times column, may sometimes make us react > reflexively against any implication that psychodynamic > treatment could be efficacious.
I agree with Scott -- but one has still to raise the point already mentioned on this thread (by Scott himself, I think). To what extent does an improvement beyond placebo have anything to do with the *specific* psychodynamic notions the therapist introduces (directly or indirectly) into the sessions, rather than elements common to regular empathetic conversations with a disinterested professional? Have there been any recent studies which include patients being 'treated' by a counsellor who allows the patient to talk about or discuss anything he or she wants, possibly makes the occasional suggestion, but is not constantly on the lookout for unconscious motivations to supposedly explain the patients behaviour or symptoms? As far as I'm aware, when it comes to full scale psychoanalysis there does not seem to be any difference in the therapeutic outcome claims regardless of the school of psychoanalysis to which the analyst adheres, even when the theoretical assumptions (and therefore supposed unconscious processes) are incompatible between the schools. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.esterson.org/ http://www.human-nature.com/esterson/index.html http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=10 http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=57 http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=58 http://www.srmhp.org/0202/review-01.html --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
