Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Psychology's opinion of hypnotherapy and regression?
Options
-
22-12-2010 12:19am#1
Comments
-
-
Thanks for that. I did a search of the forum, and there is quite a bit about hypnotherapy but not about regression so I figured I'd ask.
It's the false memories that concerned me as well, I'd be interested to know whether or not people who do regression explain to people that we're very susceptible to "remembering" things that never happened to us. Like, if you tell a child a story, and come back a week later and ask them about the story, they'll probably tell you what happened in the story happened to them.
But anyway, thanks for the reply
0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
WesternNight wrote: »The other. You said that evidence based research may not be the way to look at it, so I just assumed that you had other suggestions for evaluating the validity of it is all
I'm a psychoanalyst, but I'm guessing that some of the same diffficulties would arise, then again maybe not. As I said some of the lads here have studied it so give it a bit of time and they may have some thoughts on the matter.0 -
-
-
-
The problem is Evidence based research may not be the way to look at it, in the same way it is not a suitable tool to validate psychoanalysis.
I think you'll find that many psychoanalysts have given up on that old chestnut and are now actually engaging in research. After all, if you cannot prove that what you're doing has any positive impact beyond anecdotal evidence, you're asking people to take on treatment as a matter of faith (just as many of the so-called alternative therapists do.) The ONLY rigorous method we have of evaluating data is the Scientific Method.Firstly, hypnosis and its therapeutic applications are the subject of serious research in psychology...................
But the whole question of what constitutes a distinct modality in psychotherapy is a question of semantics and politics. Hypnosis is clearly a technique, hypnotherapy is doing something therapeutic with hypnosis. .......
95+% of hypnotherapists in this part of the world don't have training in any health science but they still offer "therapy" for various issues. And they can help. Does that make them therapists offering a distinct therapy? I think so. The question then is how is it used and how effective is it.
I quite agree, and this is why I said hypnosis is a technique. Whether hyponotherapy has a comprehensive theory I don't know; I suspect not.
As for the second part, do you think that they are like "barefoot doctors"? Or like midwives as opposed to obstetricians?As far as training goes in Ireland there are many who train it, all of which are private organisations / individuals whose awards are not validated by third level institutions or state accrediting bodies. There are no FETAC accredited courses. .....
tee hee, I'm surprised at that, seeing some of the FETAC accredited courses that are out there!
If you choose to train in it you will training with people who are into angels, past life regression, spiritual readings, lots of energy healers and just about every other form of pseudoscientific "therapy" and beliefs you can imagine. And that's honestly where hypnotherapy is mostly situated in this country. Your average hypnotherapist's web site is packed with utter nonsense. So there may be an issue there for you as someone who is coming from a scientific background.
Just to balance that view, I am firmly of the evidence based practice persuasion, and on the cynical side of skeptic, .....
Actually, I did have a module on hypnosis and used it a couple of times, many years ago, and have no problem with it being incorporated into CBT. Anecdotally, it did lead to the fastest cure for agoraphobia I've ever seen within a CBT framework.
Ditto for the evidence!0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I had read half of that paper twice before but only now read it fully. Odysseus, only a psychoanalyst could offer that paper as an example of research in psychoanalysis. It is entirely a theoretical paper.
I've read and enjoyed some of Verhaeghe's writing in the past, have had exposure to the Lacanian view of actual neurosis via Rik Lewis, have been studying modern attachment theory and research recently, and am also interested in the treatment of PTSD so I thought it was an interesting paper in many respects.
The question of non-symbolised anxiety is an interesting one. I recall that years ago I had introjected the psychoanalytic view that a panic attack was the experience of unsymbolised anxiety. But given the emergence and acceptance of Clark's cognitive therapy formulation of panic (which is incompatible which such a view) and the efficacy of the treatment using the model it now seems untenable to me that panic is unsymbolised anxiety.
But I am still sympathetic to the view of somatisation of emotional difficulties and the absence of their being integrated with higher functioning and awareness in consciousness through language as being partly determined by childhood experiences of the Other in respect of mirroring.
The thing about their paper that strikes me the most is how superfluous it is to anyone other than those who wish to strive desperately to keep Freud relevant. Making the link between what we already know about the phenomenology of PTSD and Freud's little work related to actual neurosis is only relevant to people with a restricted scope who need to have Freud relevant. Others who don't feel the need to have Freud relevant might instead be looking at the likes of interpersonal neurobiology and the work of Dan Siegel. The irony being that I think if Freud were working today I think that this is what he would be doing.
They claim early on in the paper of their hypotheses that "The relevance of our two hypotheses is mainly therapeutic." But by the end merely point out that psychoanalysis is therefore not helpful and suggest what is already accepted strategies in the varieties of therapies which are effective with PTSD.
Does anybody seriously doubt that the probability of developing PTSD after a trauma is somewhat contingent upon existing "psychic structure"? Or that such a psychic structure is somewhat contingent upon childhood development?
We know that there is a problem of integration of experience in PTSD, that implicit memory has not been converted into explicit memory, and that the most effective treatment involves ameliorating that deficit through processing of the event such as in cognitive processing therapy.
But even within this they write:
"This approach, however, does not sufficiently emphasize the transference relationship as the operative factor. It is precisely the success or failure of installing an effective relationship with a mediating Other that decides the outcome. In this way, the treatment becomes the reestablishment of an original relationship between subject and Other in which this Other must take a supporting and a mirroring position."
Where is the evidence supporting this statement by them? They have just made a bold claim about effectiveness and outcome of therapy with PTSD clients. I think it is fair in this context of you providing this paper as an example of research in psychoanalysis for me to highlight this statement by them which is explicitly a question of efficacy that they don't provide a shred of research evidence for. In fact I think I could make a very good argument using empirically supported treatments for PTSD that such transferential mirroring is not at all necessary for the effective treatment of PTSD.
Now such mirroring may possibly help to inoculate them against experiencing such things in the future (requires research), but that is a very different matter from treating the existing issue.
Now I should say that I understand that this paper was published in Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy and therefore it is relevant to its target audience. They are letting psychoanalysts know that their classical techniques will not be effective with "actual neurosis" clients. But that this advice is entirely based on theorising is exactly why many people have limited respect for the opinions of the field. It is actually a great paper in highlighting the deficiency of psychoanalysis in respect of reliance on research and evidence.
I hope this doesn't come across as overly harsh. If so I wish to blame it on a somatisation disorder involving my fingers. I think I'll call it "actual narkiness". Another one for our nosological lexicon 0 -
I had read half of that paper twice before but only now read it fully. Odysseus, only a psychoanalyst could offer that paper as an example of research in psychoanalysis. It is entirely a theoretical paper.
I've read and enjoyed some of Verhaeghe's writing in the past, have had exposure to the Lacanian view of actual neurosis via Rik Lewis, have been studying modern attachment theory and research recently, and am also interested in the treatment of PTSD so I thought it was an interesting paper in many respects.
The question of non-symbolised anxiety is an interesting one. I recall that years ago I had introjected the psychoanalytic view that a panic attack was the experience of unsymbolised anxiety. But given the emergence and acceptance of Clark's cognitive therapy formulation of panic (which is incompatible which such a view) and the efficacy of the treatment using the model it now seems untenable to me that panic is unsymbolised anxiety.
But I am still sympathetic to the view of somatisation of emotional difficulties and the absence of their being integrated with higher functioning and awareness in consciousness through language as being partly determined by childhood experiences of the Other in respect of mirroring.
The thing about their paper that strikes me the most is how superfluous it is to anyone other than those who wish to strive desperately to keep Freud relevant. Making the link between what we already know about the phenomenology of PTSD and Freud's little work related to actual neurosis is only relevant to people with a restricted scope who need to have Freud relevant. Others who don't feel the need to have Freud relevant might instead be looking at the likes of interpersonal neurobiology and the work of Dan Siegel. The irony being that I think if Freud were working today I think that this is what he would be doing.
They claim early on in the paper of their hypotheses that "The relevance of our two hypotheses is mainly therapeutic." But by the end merely point out that psychoanalysis is therefore not helpful and suggest what is already accepted strategies in the varieties of therapies which are effective with PTSD.
Does anybody seriously doubt that the probability of developing PTSD after a trauma is somewhat contingent upon existing "psychic structure"? Or that such a psychic structure is somewhat contingent upon childhood development?
We know that there is a problem of integration of experience in PTSD, that implicit memory has not been converted into explicit memory, and that the most effective treatment involves ameliorating that deficit through processing of the event such as in cognitive processing therapy.
But even within this they write:
"This approach, however, does not sufficiently emphasize the transference relationship as the operative factor. It is precisely the success or failure of installing an effective relationship with a mediating Other that decides the outcome. In this way, the treatment becomes the reestablishment of an original relationship between subject and Other in which this Other must take a supporting and a mirroring position."
Where is the evidence supporting this statement by them? They have just made a bold claim about effectiveness and outcome of therapy with PTSD clients. I think it is fair in this context of you providing this paper as an example of research in psychoanalysis for me to highlight this statement by them which is explicitly a question of efficacy that they don't provide a shred of research evidence for. In fact I think I could make a very good argument using empirically supported treatments for PTSD that such transferential mirroring is not at all necessary for the effective treatment of PTSD.
Now such mirroring may possibly help to inoculate them against experiencing such things in the future (requires research), but that is a very different matter from treating the existing issue.
Now I should say that I understand that this paper was published in Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy and therefore it is relevant to its target audience. They are letting psychoanalysts know that their classical techniques will not be effective with "actual neurosis" clients. But that this advice is entirely based on theorising is exactly why many people have limited respect for the opinions of the field. It is actually a great paper in highlighting the deficiency of psychoanalysis in respect of reliance on research and evidence.
I hope this doesn't come across as overly harsh. If so I wish to blame it on a somatisation disorder involving my fingers. I think I'll call it "actual narkiness". Another one for our nosological lexicon
You not coming across narky mate, it would come under the heading of theoretical research within psychoamalysis, so as you said only a psychoanalyst would see it as that. You raised some interesting points and I get back to you on them as I'm too tired for it now. However, thanks for your usual insightful post:)0 -
-
Advertisement
Advertisement