Пікірлер

• 
  @IamL5421 күн бұрын

  It saved my life. After 3rd year I started to trust my therapist. Now it is much easier to be open and to learn faster about myself.

• 
  @massimilianodibacco793326 күн бұрын

  Psychoanalysis changes so many lifes... I think that access to treatment AND training should be democratized.

• 
  @accordionSWEАй бұрын

  As a layman and as an emotionally cut off member from a dysfunctional family (especially contact with siblings) I have spent time reading texts and watching videos on the subject psychology and psychoanalysis since my double binded (damned if I do damned I do not) breach with my family in the year of 2018. Melanie Kleins texts I first discovered in the beginning of this year and it was like finding the key needed to understand much of the material I have been reading over the past years and put my own life situation and my family life situation into a context. The important aspect is to find ones own shame and guilt and also understand how shame and guilt lock up relationships emotionally. Why did I leave? Back in 2018 I felt something was wrong inside the family and the views on life present in the family was not very practical nor realistic. I was stuck and the reasons for it seemed to have become more vague than before. After reading texts on Kleins work I understand what was driving the decades long and tedious family issues with no end in sight was the deep deep inability in the family to acknowledge and self-regulate guilt and shame. The problems were to obvious and the lies to push it away had just become to absurd in contrast with reality outside the family. I recommend everyone to discover Melanie Kleins theories.

• 
  @MultiMagnumforceАй бұрын

  Psychoanalysis is Science 😊

• 
  @joserafaelzepeda-garza9971Ай бұрын

  Yes Psychoanalysis is Science because Dr. Sigmund Freud was a Physician a Neurologist after many years of Neurological experience with Patients He discovered the Unconscious. Psychoanalysis is for Physicians, Psychiatrists to study at Psychoanalytic Institutes. Not for psychologists because psychology is Not a Science is a Discipline.

• 
  @zainulabedin32262 ай бұрын

  Excellent debate...

• 
  @jimjam89492 ай бұрын

  It's just my own observation here but you don't get psychoanalysts being afraid or on the defensive. That's because they're braver than other therapists. Once you've had the courage to do Analytic work yourself you learn that we are all the same messy humans. And that gives you your own council. I had about 4yrs of 1 x wk Analysis and yes I could have had a better house by now if I'd kept the money! Psychoanalysis helped me come to terms with my parents failings and strengths as well as my siblings and my own. But most importantly that life and relationships are a series of uncertainties - for everyone!! And that is ok. Other therapies always strike me as having such a strong certain view of Psychoanalysis and what it is without having done It?! You dont get psychoanalysts doing that with the other therapies?! Stop bashing Psychoanalysis!!!

• 
  @gbrinch2 ай бұрын

  I will happily accept that people with sufficient interest and empathy can help others and will thereby be able to learn something of value for their own life...but this! As soon as this is "Professional", the therapist is in a strange dependency on the patient for their lively-hood and yet needs to be in a position of power in order for their authority to be accepted. - This is theorising over immaturity! Please wake up, learn to think, and think before you act or speak! Practice empathy, and you will strengthen a sense of self that does not need psycho analysing - yes the constant search for self-validation is pursued at the cost of others and eventually one’s own development. Natural science, which by definition has to exclude matters of the spirit, has been the thin part of the wedge that has led to dead thinking and ultimately dumbing down and lack of discernment. It is like tying the legs of a dog and then theorising over why it is so bad at running.

• 
  @ron22602 ай бұрын

  Exceptionally well done.

• 
  @TheColorField2 ай бұрын

  This video is a great example of various forms of 'mansplaining", and more ironically, revealing the tremendous deficiencies in psychoanalysis.

• 
  @lauracollier89312 ай бұрын

  An indulgence to listen to someone for more than 1 hour a week? This is why we have a mental health crisis.

• 
  @hanxi8302 ай бұрын

  Thank you for sharing such a great video. May I have your permission to repost it on social media platforms in China?❤

• 
  @darrelvela71052 ай бұрын

  Hello Seattle. This is Dr. Fraiser Crane. I'm listening.

• 
  @neillbartlett62982 ай бұрын

  I find it difficult hearing so many assumptions being made by analysts about peoples' motives and the meaning of their behaviour. The example given of a finger being cut - instead of a carrot - is a good example of how psychoanalysis makes a judgement about what is the most real thing in the room, as it were, what should we focus on. There is very little appreciation of the contingent nature of events such as an accidental cut. In fact, Winnicott assumes this contingency in reference to the 'spontaneous gesture', the as yet undefinable nature of an act which is made meaningful in a relationship. Gregorio Kohon seems to appreciate this, but actually wants to interpret the event and to match it to theory rather than to consider its meaning.

• 
  @timtim80112 ай бұрын

  What's wrong with irrationality?

• 
  @Deantrey2 ай бұрын

  By itself, nothing. But we unfortunately need to give some order and understanding and value to life. We need to be able to make choices in it about what we affirm and what we wish to avoid or condemn. And when we turn that inward, to ourselves, the consequence is that we wish to bring to an irrational self some semblance of rationality (that is, of choice, value, freedom). So again just to be clear, there's nothing wrong with irrationality. When we say that we are largely, at our core, irrational, that isn't to say we are bad or wrong for being that way. We are that way. Nonetheless, sometimes we look inside ourselves and don't like what we find. In that case what we are doing is making a rationally ordered self out of what is otherwise irrational. It isn't the irrationality that is a problem and it isn't the irrationality that is solved by doing this, since it never actually goes away. It's just a consequence of what it means to acquire knowledge about ourselves and to make decisions about who we are or will become. That is, to do the latter is to deal with the irrationality that is otherwise a fundamental part of our nature, to bring order to what is disordered, give meaning to what is meaningless.

• 
  @AsphodeliaD2 ай бұрын

  So many good points made by the analysts here - thank you. Something tells me Annabel Lord unfortunately caught 'woke' - obsessions with Power/ Experts/ Evidence Base/ Oppressor/ Oppressed - so tedious. You can hear "the NHS" speaking all the way through her and it seems to stir her envy around a practitioner actually having the time and space to work with a patient. It's her choice how she thinks, but I find it destructive and a shame. The NHS can be such an envious institution, so destructive, and so obsessed with its own virtuousness. A lot of the questioners are not actually talking about pysychoanalysis - they are talking about "social justice" and their own need to feel they are doing 'good'. I wonder about this obsession with whether psychoanalysis is 'accessible' - lots of things in life are not so 'accessible' - why should psychoanalysis be any different?

• 
  @neillbartlett62982 ай бұрын

  No; she's saying that psychoanalysis is like that one person in a group of friends who has a wallet stuffed with notes and just wants to keep getting the drinks in when other people have to go home. It must be great if you can get by without thinking about the things you deride, but most people can't.

• 
  @AsphodeliaD2 ай бұрын

  @@neillbartlett6298They are free to go home; no one is making them stay for more drinks. Your analogy makes no sense to me and I don't understand your secon point. What she seems to be saying seems more is it is like being envious of someone with a Rolls Royce because you can't have one, and instead of feeling your envy and knowing about it (which might make you do something constructive to change your situation), you decide that no one must have a Rolls Royce because some people can't afford them. And the loss to the world is a fine motor car, fine engineering, fine design etc... Kind of socialism/ communism in action really.

• 
  @Deantrey2 ай бұрын

  I just hope you aren't a psychoanalyst since this kind of interpretation, which clearly fits your world view but isn't drawn from any real knowledge of these people or institutions, is just the kind of thing that gives psychoanalysis a bad name (and which I hope is simply mistaken rather than a real problem for it).

• 
  @AsphodeliaD2 ай бұрын

  @@Deantreyif I was a psychoanalyst I would suggest you are the one projecting. Because how would you know if I had 'no real knowledge of these people or institutions' - you assume I haven't any just because my viewpoint does not accord with yours. So what you are accusing me of is in fact exactly what you are doing.

• 
  @joserafaelzepeda-garza9971Ай бұрын

  Woke and DEI Stupidity in Medical Science is Disastrous.

• 
  @davidjoseph34032 ай бұрын

  Love the editing. The "favoring" socioeconomic lens, really intrigued me. What a political trainwreck! It just didn't seem to me that the classical analysis didn't comprehend that it's potentially gonna sink them. Kind of a depressing conversation.

• 
  @michaelboguski47432 ай бұрын

  The result of not doing daily psychodynamic psychoanalysis for everyone is Totalitarianism.... One remains enslaved by one's earliest onset lack of integration and is therefore susceptible to authoritarian command throughout life.

• 
  @farrider33392 ай бұрын

  Working on an individual when the entire collective is mislead and dealing with phoney premises about their lives, obviously seems to be an attempt in futility. Aside some minor victories. Rather one should focus on abolishing and undermining the root causes for peoples dissatisfaction with their own imperfections. Attack the dysfunctional ideolgies, not those who are hypnotized and brainwashed into these !

• 
  @sahilsasidharan46343 ай бұрын

  Not an analyst or analysand (yet) but I can confidently say psychoanalysis has changed my life.

• 
  @Philibuster923 ай бұрын

  Jungian analytical psychology is better than Freudian psychoanalysis because it’s more true.

• 
  @CJ-cd5cd2 ай бұрын

  Agreed

• 
  @enatp64483 ай бұрын

  Ok. So I'd kick the dude with glasses out of the group. Too bossy...

• 
  @Deutsch-ohne-Schmerz3 ай бұрын

  thank you

• 
  @abrahamhempel92603 ай бұрын

  Just read and see if these theories can be applied to your life. The idea that you are going to find the perfect analyst and work through all your problems is fantasy.

• 
  @princesshamburglar96593 ай бұрын

  Guess where can you elaborate your fantasies!

• 
  @abrahamhempel92602 ай бұрын

  @@princesshamburglar9659 on Fantasy Island

• 
  @ThomasshhhАй бұрын

  I did find recently my analyst… and I can tell you I found my perfect analyst. You are wrong.

• 
  @abrahamhempel92603 ай бұрын

  5x a week! Who the hell is paying for that? Seriously. This is just a Western outdated mode of solving problems. Only elitist people can take this serious.

• 
  @dannyVulture4 ай бұрын

  Different approaches for the vastnes of the clients we work with. I am an art therapist, and a humanistic one at that. I can't possibly think of a single client of mine benefiting from my expert input, or a "scientific" break down of their problems. I honestly believe that people have the strength they need to pull through and work towards their desired life, and instead are better supported on their journey over being taught or guided. I do appreciate analysis however, as our world has been positively impacted by it wether we are fully on board with it's theory

• 
  @ejenkins47114 ай бұрын

  As the world is now on the brink, Jung 1959 the world is on the edge of a collective change. America stolen by Edward Byrnes

• 
  @user-nq7yu5sl5t4 ай бұрын

  Psychoanalysis helped me when no other therapy could. Very grateful.

• 
  @WrongQuope4 ай бұрын

  I know why you're here and clicky clicked.

• 
  @stephenstephen15054 ай бұрын

  Their response to the homosexual question by the Cbt therapist was poor. They failed to address how theory has been and is being used to support fear, anxiety and prejudice on the part of analysts and their institutions Oh by the way Ernest Jones detested Lgbt people. He also failed to keep his hands off young female patients

• 
  @stephenstephen15054 ай бұрын

  Referring to the relationship needing over 2 years to build trust and for offenders to go through 10 years at the Portman is mind boggling And, by the way, the statement that the theory is not complex is absurd- have you read Lacan...?

• 
  @abrahamhempel92603 ай бұрын

  Nobody read Lacan they just read about him. Isn't it funny we never hear from clients of Freud? From what I understand he never helped anyone. There are a few case studies thats all with ridiculous titles like wofboy or something. Its interesting material to read as history.

• 
  @stephenstephen15054 ай бұрын

  Very interesting but it is an archaic model that is failing to adapt to modern life, cultural issues and difference. The oedipus complex, for example, is nonsense- Freud's way of intellectualising his parental experience. It has been used and is used to describe Lgbt people as immature and incapable of consideration for trainings

• 
  @eniggma93535 ай бұрын

  Having done it and studied it, I think it's total nonsense. Science is the only thing we need and not this nonsense.

• 
  @aaron.umbarger5 ай бұрын

  You aren't saying why it's nonsense.

• 
  @undivertimentoserio25214 ай бұрын

  “Is the only thing we need” That’s sounds like a belief almost like faith. Good luck with that

• 
  @user-be9op9qt3u3 ай бұрын

  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Truly, my best to you non breather.

• 
  @RJ-cs9gz2 ай бұрын

  That's literally scientism and clearly shows a misunderstanding of science

• 
  @jjharvathh2 ай бұрын

  You are still an egg, not yet hatched.

• 
  @markshaw1535 ай бұрын

  Great to see Nick Temple strong and clear!!!

• 
  @stephenstephen15055 ай бұрын

  Such wisdom

• 
  @stephenstephen15055 ай бұрын

  Fascinating

• 
  @reversalyt28235 ай бұрын

  Cool.

• 
  @esahm3736 ай бұрын

  Let's face it: Psychoanalysts are akin to a cult. They cling on to a irrational belief system despite having the cognitive faculties to realise that it's all built on delusional, pseudoscientific nonsense clad in a mystic terminology that pretends intellectualism. It seems that the one younger lady in the meeting actually realised this, but her attempts to invite her fellow analysts to take a self-critical view are swiftly wiped away by this guru-type male analyst, who seeks to dominate and lead the debate at the expense of not allowing a genuinely critical discussion at all.

• 
  @kirstinstrand62926 ай бұрын

  If folks write down their dreams, everyone would understand that they will not heal until they understand their unconscious. Our un Consciousnes s runs our lives. It's as simple as this.😢😮 Yet 99% of humanity chases their dreams that are being directed by unconscious desires. Shopping for sex, love, and material compensation for their craziness. 🎉 😂😅

• 
  @kirstinstrand62926 ай бұрын

  Try every love affair that we have 😮😅

• 
  @user-zx7xj5ru6d6 ай бұрын

  Is the evidence for psychoanalytic therapy due to the theoretical and technical specificity which differ from other forms of therapy or due to it's FREQUENCY? The dosage for typical analysis is quite high: 3 to 4 to 5 times a week. If someone went to CBT therapy that much would they also improve just by having that much contact with a therapist?

• 
  @aaron.umbarger5 ай бұрын

  It's interesting that you highlight the relationship with the therapist in both cases rather than the particular type of intervention.

• 
  @DavidWalker16 ай бұрын

  Fascinating insight into the continuing weaknesses of the case for psychoanalyisis. Amazingly, more than a century after Freud came to prominence, we still lack compelling studies showing that psychoanalysis actually works for the analysands. For some reason, psychoanalytic bodies never seem to have felt compelled to gather it. And of course, as Annabel Lord points out, there's no decent database of results for individual analysts. (Yes, over a decade, offenders' offending might drop - but offending generally drops as people age.) On the other hand, the formula laid down by Freud - several sessions a week for several years - has obvious benefits for psychoanalysts.

• 
  @kirstinstrand62926 ай бұрын

  Psychoanalysis thrives everywhere else except in the USA. Something is wrong with IPA who dominates over APA. 🤔

• 
  @esahm3736 ай бұрын

  ​@@kirstinstrand6292Psychoanalysis is pretty unpopular in Germany compared to evidence-based Clinical Psychology and the latters treatment approaches such as CBT.

• 
  @danielmeixner71254 ай бұрын

  All of these criticisms can be levelled just as fairly at any of the talking therapies. In his book "House of Cards", Robyn Dawes recounts the results of comprehensive meta analysis of talking psychotherapy: that it is not dependent on modality, that therapists do not become more effective with experience, and that often it is not effective at all unless their is some subjective social compatibility between therapist and client.

• 
  @mentalitydesignvideo2 ай бұрын

  it's been studied (after them avoiding such scrutiny for a century). There are recent studies that show success rate comparable to CBT, but once you look closer, it's a mascarade: each modality turns out to be formally under umbrella of "psychodynamic therapy" but you read the descriptions and it's all 8-16 week CBT specifically barred from "transference analysis". But they use these studies as a battle flag. Frauds.

• 
  @DavidWalker16 ай бұрын

  Obvious point: Kohon's opening joke has the first person saying to a second: "if one of us dies ..." - but Kohon then revealingly assumes, without obvious reason (!), that he thinks the first person was considering _murdering_ the second. If I was his partner, I'd be worried about this freudian slip revealing Kohon's own murderous impulses - unless, of course, I had watched psychiatry's full-scale retreat from psychoanalysis of the past 40 years, as people have slowly realised that psychoanalysis is unproven and all this talk of revealing slips is baseless. (Extra points for responding that I'm repressing something.)

• 
  @svetoslavatmadzhov13285 ай бұрын

  He's saying it because as it seems like there is a fantasy in the one partner to go ti Paris and the only thing standing in their way is the other partner and they in their mind fantasise a life in Paris without the other. Methaphorically killing them off.

• 
  @enatp64483 ай бұрын

  The psychoanalyst that I get most out of, intellectually, emotionally, and professionally, is Nancy McWilliams. She's got a very down to earth, compassionate, and human way of describing difficult experiences

• 
  @CJ-cd5cd2 ай бұрын

  A full retreat into medication management with medications that have very questionable results.

• 
  @Deantrey2 ай бұрын

  I initially had this impression but after hearing the follow up I'm prepared to interpret it charitably (in what makes those follow up statements coherent with the earlier ones) in the following way: this interpretation is an example, to demonstrate the idea. It isn't the case that say, he has an insight into any given case of this kind. So for instance say that you were to tell him that same story. I don't think he'd interpret it that way. His follow up remarks seem to suggest (to me at least) that it couldn't be interpreted in such an irresponsible way because such an interpretation would have to come from the patient themselves or in collaboration, and would come out of getting to know them (perhaps over many years). And in that sense I think the truth comes out in interpretation itself. I was brought here by recent studies in cognitive science rather than by psychoanalysis which do point to reality of something like Freud's unconscious, though more expansive than his concept of it. But in any case what I take from this is that it wouldn't really matter whether or not there was some "unconscious structure" that the joke was indicative of, if the patient were to see in that joke a meaning that it surfaced for them, if that became a vehicle for self-knowledge. That obviously couldn't work if an analyst was going around interpreting everything they said whatever way they liked or fit their theory. If they are sincere when they say that it isn't an interpretation (in that sense) and that they are actually doing something in those sessions that requires getting to know someone for that length of time, one could only assume that such interpretations would be impossible. Rather, it would seem to be the case that this serves as an example of the kind of thing that could come up in psychoanalysis, rather than being a rubric you could apply to any incident of that kind. Just my two cents.

• 
  @SasoQRaso7 ай бұрын

  Is the unconscious a luxury? To the classical Marxist it certainly is. The historical social agent and the vanguard cannot afford to have an unconscious before the class enemy, and later, neither can the absolute State in the internal enemy. The revolutionary does not have time for an unconscious and the proletarian is as positively naturalized as a tractor and the soil it works. The unconscious is an excess, a remainder and a waste which is and has always been the supreme luxury of the decadent, as the privileged jouissance of Caligula and Nero, or of Louie XVI and de Sade, or of Aztec priests. It is an elitism far beyond Louis Vuitton or Balenciaga: the luxury of moral suicide, of subjective cruelty and the supreme indifference and total devaluation of the desire of the Other, the luxury of every size of death. It is an erotic luxury the socialist anarchist cannot bear, and the terrible hysterical blind spot of Spinozists, structuralist minded Marxists and, indeed, all enlightened materialists. Not just to have the conceit to die, but on the far side of power, the power which is life, to open the door out of every possible world. It is the ultimate privilege, next to Godliness, which, past reincarnation, creative destruction, revaluation, eternal recurrence, unending neo-classicisms or desiring machines, also asks: as often as necessary, is God free to kill itself?

• 
  @seymourtompkins7 ай бұрын

  lol, i don't think she's buying it 4:01 & 4:29 Sorry kid, if you know, you know

• 
  @seymourtompkins7 ай бұрын

  Funny, I thought the joke at 0:58 referred to death anxiety (vs murderous impulses).

• 
  @robertanderson39058 ай бұрын

  DROP THE EDUPUS ZIGgY you will vex the MASONS

• 
  @joelrichards57858 ай бұрын

  7:50 …www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/amp-65-2-98.pdf

• 
  @hermanhale92588 ай бұрын

  Bunch of foolishness.

• 
  @cadaver_on_autopilot8 ай бұрын

  I am eating from the trashcan every day. This is like a breath of fresh air

• 
  @abrahamhempel92603 ай бұрын

  was that sarcasm? P

• 
  @cadaver_on_autopilot3 ай бұрын

  @abrahamhempel9260 I always speak the truth. Not the whole truth, because there's no way, to say it all. Saying it all is literally impossible: words fail.

• 
  @KB-ur4nk22 күн бұрын

  Hail zizek

• 
  @johnbizzlehart26698 ай бұрын

  Don’t trust others…analyze yourself

• 
  @lukepurse90428 ай бұрын

  lel

• 
  @Dr.Danielavercruysse5 ай бұрын

  Self analysis is the reflection of your psychoanalyst!

• 
  @Dr.Danielavercruysse5 ай бұрын

  When it was the first time you haven’t been heard? What is the story behind the trustworthiness ?