Have you looked at some of the responses to that?
Yeah this is where it pays to actually have your finger on the pulse in respect of how people react to academic studies rather than just reading them. Check out the pretty good psychotherapybrownbag posts on this study:
Also, since this was originally about a film, I went to A Dangerous Method tonight - the film about Jung and Freud. Was utterly bored. And if I found it boring as someone who has read their books and biographies etc. then I can't imagine your average cinema goer finding it entertaining.
Thanks for the links - I hadn't seen the response to the article in AP. Highlights some of the dangers with meta-analysis.
What was it like historically, any reference to the cocaine episode? Also I presume your are aware of Gross's addiction and his treatment by both Jung and Freud any reference to that?
Just from the bit I have read about it, it seems to be anti-psychoanalysis, would I be correct?
I know we are a bit OT, but as you said it was originally about a flim.
There was a number of historically accurate things in it, and often little things such as Freud and Jung's having talked for 13 hours straight during their first meeting, on of Freud's fainting episodes, telling Jung on their ship to America when they were talking about their dreams that we didn't want to "Risk his authority" etc.
The only time cocaine comes into it is Gross taking it. The Gross thing had a big part to play in the film, in respect Jung's treatment. Mostly because he encouraged his having a relationship with Spielrein (which unfortunately is the main focus of the film for some reason).
I didn't see anything in it which might be regarded as antipsychoanalysis.
I see Gerard Miller's film Meet Lacan is available now with English subtitles:
I knew A Dangerous Method would get a mention in this forum. That psychotherapybrownbag site looks handy, though how can it put up stuff that's ordinarily probably behind a subscription wall? I found McKay's response listed here and then got it via my college login.
On to the autism documentary. Firstly, the yellow subtitles - gah. Secondly, I do think there was perhaps a bit of clever editing going on here since some of the clips ended right at the moment someone had finished a sentence, slightly wary of that. Its thesis is pretty clear from the outside since it states how much psychiatry in France is dominated by psychoanalysis, so I'd agree with Odysseus about the doc having an agenda. A lot of it seemed mostly abstract stuff with the theories/approaches of psychoanalysis and it was only the final 10 minutes or so that appeared to address how each psych worked with autistic kids, not an optimistic picture there, at all. I would have liked the documentary maker to have come right out and said 'what if you're wrong?' to some of these people, most of whom were of a particular vintage. The whole incest business, bearing in mind I know little about psychoanalysis (so apply my ignorance to each point above), was...rather 'did they really just say that?' - "in all cases?, mais oui" and you could hear some of their resistance to more contemporary approaches.
Good luck to the family featured, they've had to fight a few battles.
Update on film 'Le Mur' (The Wall) for those interested
The video is now private. Hmm.
I suppose since this thread has veered onto Keira Knightley, I can veer it back to something about autism.
I was in an online discussion recently. It was in a general chat area of a large website, where there's a kind of community of regular users. There are two people with autism who are regulars on the site - they can communicate clearly with other users but off the internet they're not that high functioning. Their social life is largely on the internet, as their autism isn't as much of a problem, when they're typing text back and forth to other people - instead of say trying to have a face to face conversation.
So there was a discussion the other night. Myself, the two autistics, a mother whose two children are on the severe end of the scale, and a bunch of other people who do not have autism.
There are popular misconceptions of what autism is - or how an autistic person will seem to a non-autistic person. Like people believing an engineer who doesn't talk like someone working in sales and marketing is somewhere on the spectrum etc. It's like the popular misconception of dyslexia - people believe dyslexics literally see words written back to front.
I was trying to explain to a woman, who wasn't autistic, but who actually works in sales, marketing and recruitment, what the actual experience for her would be like, if she met the two autistics who are regulars on the site. It's not something they could explain themselves - as that is part of their problem.
One of the autistics is funny, and is always posting jokes - he has a sophisticated sense of humour. I said that if she met him face to face, and he tried to tell a joke, she wouldn't find it funny, instead, she might find the experience distressing. He would be sending out all the wrong signals and cues, and not see hers - it could be a distressing experience for both of them.
Here is where I get to my point. Autistics who are on the mid-level of the spectrum - in that they have a reasonable level of function - they can cope with people who know their condition. A common problem they would have, would be causing distress in people who are not autistic - strangers they may meet. Even hostility. One of the autistics, who uses the site, dresses up in an elaborate costume when she leaves the house - high visibility jacket, hard hat, clipboard - it's to make her look like she's on some kind of official business - so no one bothers her (people shut up when they see a uniform) - if they get on a bus without the costume, there could be a bunch of young arseholes who notice there's something not quite right about her - and they'll harass her.
It's amazing how much communication - or miscommunication is just taken for granted by people who are not autistic. Like getting on a bus. The autistic who wears the high vis suit, asked, how does everyone know how to sit where they do. It seems like a simple question, but it isn't.
In the whole discussion something struck me. The distress many "normal" people feel, when confronted by "weirdness" - kind of mirrors the distress autistics feel when they're in a social situation they've lost the run of.
People who are distressed by the strange and unusual - but who are considered "normal". Is this some kind of function/dysfunction similar to autism?
I thought before, I had an understanding of why people can be hostile to the "weird". But I realise now, I don't understand. I don't even know what "weird" is.
I was mailed an interesting response about all of this by one of our psychoanalystic orgs. I will ask for permission to post it here; it offera different side to the story.
I'd be curious to hear another angle.
A mate emailed me this today http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/16/autism-psychoanalysis-lacanian?cat=commentisfree&type=article
While we're on the theme of autism treatment, check this one out.
Follow the cease-therapy.com link in the article for more
(mods. if this is more suited to an existing thread, please move)