![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]Shown: posts 161 to 185 of 283. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on May 30, 2005, at 16:17:50
In reply to can I join the reading party?., posted by happyflower on May 30, 2005, at 13:46:35
Posted by pegasus on May 30, 2005, at 17:29:50
In reply to Re: Chapter 3.The Therapist's Power Daisy and » pegasus, posted by Dinah on May 30, 2005, at 10:09:48
> I always tell my therapist he needs to read someplace like this board to find out what's really happening in therapy, to a fair size number of clients. He's very naive sometimes.Or, he could read this book! I think every therapist should read this book.
pegasus
Posted by messadivoce on May 30, 2005, at 17:58:51
In reply to Re: Chapter 3.The Therapist's Power Daisy and » pegasus, posted by Dinah on May 30, 2005, at 10:09:48
I've been reading along but haven't posted yet because I didn't really have anything to add to the discussion that hasn't already been said.
But in chapter 3, Ms. Lott talks about questioning your T about their therapetic approaches, and quotes two T's who have psychodymanic and CBT approaches on how they would explain their orientation to a client.
I think this is SO important to find out. I first was in therapy when I was 16, and my T was a woman in her fifties who now I can identify as a CBT therapist. She told me that we were going to "reframe" my view of the world. I ended up making lots of lists about things that sucked, and then re-writing them to make them better. She told me I was finished about 4 months into the game, and although I felt better short-term, it really didn't work well. I had no tools to work with after therapy. I think that she was probably not the greatest CBT therapist, because I know there are people who swear by CBT therapy.
My second T was the man I write about so much. He didn't explain the process until we were deep into therapy, and I didn't think to ask him. He did a lot of listening in the first 8 or so sessions, and then started challenging the destructive things I was saying about myself. So that is kind of a CBT thing, but he did tell me after about 2 months that "the kind of therapy I do, works with the relationship between the therapist and client."
I wish I would have had a clue what I was in for--attachment, dependency, pain, longing, lust, love, anger, fear, attraction. Psychodynamic therapy should be thoroughly explained before it begins. It's just so risky to develop a relationship with a client and use that therapeutically without discussing the potential ramifications and consequences first. I think that practitioners view it FAR too clinically. For us it feels and hurts and seems like it's real (back to the approximate relationship thing again). If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck.......
I just wish I had known what I was in for, potentially.
Posted by alexandra_k on May 30, 2005, at 18:36:50
In reply to Re: Approximate relationships » alexandra_k, posted by gardenergirl on May 30, 2005, at 0:58:55
> I think we can get the wrong messages from therapy if we don't finish it or don't talk about our feelings (or lack of them) about the relationship.
Yeah. But how many people 'finish'? And how many people get 'stuck'? I mean stuck in the golden fantasy stuff with the t meeting (sort of sort of) those desires and... well... just kind of staying there.
> When therapy is done right, the person learns that they wish the T to fulfill this fantasy, but the T does not and can not. In fact, no one can. No one but ourselves to ourselves.
Sure. But the t focus solely on the clients stuff for the time they are together. The t isn't supposed to talk about or act from their needs or desires - it is supposed to be all about the client. Isn't that something along the lines of golden fantasy fulfillment right there?
I don't know...
I have been thinking about this a lot...I'm not sure.
Posted by Daisym on May 30, 2005, at 19:55:09
In reply to Chapter 3.The Therapist's Power, posted by messadivoce on May 30, 2005, at 17:58:51
Me too, Voce. I had no idea that I'd feel this way. But I suspect that even if my therapist had told me potentially it could happen, I'd be arrogant enough to think "not to me."
And I didn't ask questions about his orientation either. There were times when I'd say this or that, and he'd say, "that's not how I work." Now he'll say to me, "you know how it works in here..." especially when I'm censoring. He will engage in debates about theories, however, especially self-psychology and attachment theories. He always wants to know what I'm reading on the internet and he gets frustrated by the amount of misinformation and therapy bashing that goes on out here. He often warns me away from "trauma" sites.
I've read and studied enough over the last two years to probably test out of most of the psychology undergraduate classes. But I still don't exactly understand "how" it works. So how on earth do you know what to ask at the beginning?
Posted by Dinah on May 30, 2005, at 20:20:18
In reply to Re: Chapter 3.The Therapist's Power Daisy and » Dinah, posted by pegasus on May 30, 2005, at 17:29:50
I've told him. Even brought it and showed him.
But he won't. I don't think he respects my opinions all that much.
Posted by messadivoce on May 30, 2005, at 21:08:34
In reply to Re: Chapter 3.The Therapist's Power Daisy and » pegasus, posted by Dinah on May 30, 2005, at 20:20:18
> I've told him. Even brought it and showed him. But he won't. I don't think he respects my opinions all that much.>
That's too bad!! Every T should read this book. I read it about 3 months into my therapy, and I was just bursting with wanting to tell him and discuss it. I mentioned that I was reading this good book, and he gave me this withering look that totally said, "Oh I'm sure it's a book written by someone with no clue as to the highly intellectual things I do", and what he said was, "Oh really? From the client's point of view or the therapists'?" as though it would be really dumb to read a book from the client's point of view. I dropped the subject, and when we terminated, he replied to an e-mail I sent and asked me "what the title and author of the book you were reading was, because if it reasonated with you then I figure it must be worth reading." I told him, and then when I called him about a month later, he asked me if I remembered what he had said earlier. I lied and said no, and he told me that he had engaged in "professional snobbery, and that he hopes to not do that too often in his career." He really liked it, a lot, and reccomended it to collegues, so he said. But I wonder if all that talk of boundaries that she does made him pull back from me later.... :-(
Posted by littleone on May 30, 2005, at 21:52:06
In reply to Re: The Introduction (In Session), posted by gardenergirl on May 17, 2005, at 22:01:58
Sorry I'm so far behind :( but there were a couple of things I wanted to talk about.
> My T said something similar when I was very sad and also angry at him (irrationally) because I could never work with him as a professional due to our therapy relationship. He said it was a sacrifice on both sides, which was very touching, and one of the only times he has allowed his personal feelings into the therapy space.
Oh, this is a very touching statement gg. It made me smile.
> It did remind of when my T and I were discussing increasing to twice a week, and how that had a big potential for more intense feelings on my part. I felt like all the cautions he was presenting were an attempt to warn me off of increasing. He admitted that he might be coming across that way because T's can be frightened about deepening with a client just like a client can, but it's up to the T to manage that fear in order to do the work.
This has just flabbergastered me. I could understand that they may not want to attach to someone who has a big chance of bolting, but I can't understand this in regards to a steady client. I kind of thought T's don't have attachment issues. They've either grown up healthy or have had them all sorted out in their own therapy. I don't understand why they would be scared to deepen the relationship.
Posted by littleone on May 30, 2005, at 22:04:48
In reply to Re: The Introduction (In Session) » gardenergirl, posted by daisym on May 17, 2005, at 22:52:54
> I think we should debate what she wrote about therapists' authenticity. She offers that much of her group worried that their therapist was different outside the consulting room. And later, she goes on to say that "good therapists are able to bring the essence of their real selves into the therapy room without having their needs compete with the client's. They are able to be authentic while maintaining clear boundaries." I agree that they should keep their needs out of the room. But, does it matter if they act differently outside of the consulting room if they are consistent with us? If so, why? Aren't we different outside the therapy room than we are in it? Don't we put on our "therapy patient" hat, just like they put on their "therapist" hat? Don't you think we all, to some degree, play roles in certain settings? And, do you think men are better at this than women?
This is a big one for me and I get so confused over it and over what I think I actually want.
I had been seeing my previous T for a while and he was very consistent with me. Then he asked me to bring my husband along to a session. My husband and I are very different people and when my T started interacting with us both, he was a completely different person. I can understand that it was because he probably had to be more careful when dealing with me, or more aware of everything he said/conveyed, or maybe he was trying for the old blank slate with me. But either way, I was very very hurt at the change in him and in the fact that he wasn't authentic with me.
With my current T, I feel he is a lot more authentic, but I am really scared off bringing anyone else into my session because of my previous experience.
Also, I notice that with my current T that he'll sometimes chat with the client as they are paying and whatnot and on several occasions he has acted in a very different way than what he has with me. I think he matches his language to the client's and also there is some matching of relating if that makes sense. Like more extroverted chatting with extroverted clients. More reserved with other quieter clients. There were other differences too that I can't put my finger on.
I guess what I'm saying is that even if they are consistent in session with you, I still think they need to be authentic because it's going to come out otherwise.
> Universally it is believed that men can go to work and leave their personal lives at home, unlike women. Do you think this applies to therapists as well?
My T has admitted to me that he hides behind his T role (in regards to self disclosure). But I think this also helps them to compartmentalise their lives. I just think that if they self disclose more, it is harder for them to separate work/other life.
Posted by littleone on May 30, 2005, at 22:18:36
In reply to Re: The Introduction (In Session) » daisym, posted by littleone on May 30, 2005, at 22:04:48
The other thing I thought about when reading the intro was re how we attach so much importance to everything said/done etc by our T's.
And it got me wondering, I know most of us spend huge amounts of time thinking about our therapy between sessions, but do you think you spend more time:
- thinking over the exact things said/done,
- thinking over your T in general,
- thinking over the topics discussed, or
- furthering your progess on the topics raised?Obviously I think it would be all 4 for most people, but I just wonder where your thoughts are focused the most.
Posted by daisym on May 30, 2005, at 23:00:13
In reply to Re: The Introduction (In Session), posted by littleone on May 30, 2005, at 22:18:36
I think I spend most of my time thinking over the therapy itself. I wonder what the he** I'm doing to myself, I wonder how long I'll take, I argue with myself constantly about pulling back, cutting down and handling my own dependency. I think about topics a great deal too -- and I chase myself in a circle thinking, "this is important" "this isn't important" "I've said this already" and so on.
I do the "he said, I said" when I write about it. but that isn't how i think about it. does that make sense?
Posted by Tamar on May 31, 2005, at 3:06:12
In reply to Re: The Introduction (In Session) » daisym, posted by littleone on May 30, 2005, at 22:04:48
> I had been seeing my previous T for a while and he was very consistent with me. Then he asked me to bring my husband along to a session. My husband and I are very different people and when my T started interacting with us both, he was a completely different person. I can understand that it was because he probably had to be more careful when dealing with me, or more aware of everything he said/conveyed, or maybe he was trying for the old blank slate with me. But either way, I was very very hurt at the change in him and in the fact that he wasn't authentic with me.I thought about this and I realised I am different with different people in everyday life. It's not that I'm being inauthentic; it's just that different people bring out different aspects of my personality. Mabye that's what happened with your T when you brought your husband to therapy. What do you think?
Posted by gardenergirl on May 31, 2005, at 3:21:38
In reply to Re: Approximate relationships » gardenergirl, posted by alexandra_k on May 30, 2005, at 18:36:50
Hi alex,
>
> Yeah. But how many people 'finish'? And how many people get 'stuck'? I mean stuck in the golden fantasy stuff with the t meeting (sort of sort of) those desires and... well... just kind of staying there.Good question. I suppose "finish" is not the best word to use, at least because I view myself as a work in progress. But at any rate, I do think there is a significant proportion of those who terminate before getting to fully work through a transference. This might be for a variety of reasons, indcluding funding, logistics, premature termination, giving up, the therapist leaving, etc.
>
>
> Sure. But the t focus solely on the clients stuff for the time they are together. The t isn't supposed to talk about or act from their needs or desires - it is supposed to be all about the client. Isn't that something along the lines of golden fantasy fulfillment right there?Well, yes my T focuses soley on my issues in sessions. But he does not fulfill all my needs. In fact, as time has gone on, he leaves me hanging more and more. I hate that! But I see why he does. I'm starting to answer my own questions, and I'm learning not to count on him to rescue me when I get stuck. So this feels more realistic than the golden fantasy. Hmmm, I think I just tripped myself up. My head hurts now. :)
>
>
> I don't know...
> I have been thinking about this a lot...
>
> I'm not sure.You're not alone in being not sure. :)
gg
Posted by gardenergirl on May 31, 2005, at 3:30:57
In reply to Re: The Introduction (In Session) » gardenergirl, posted by littleone on May 30, 2005, at 21:52:06
>
> Oh, this is a very touching statement gg. It made me smile.Me too...just thinking about it again. :)
>
> > He admitted that he might be coming across that way because T's can be frightened about deepening with a client just like a client can, but it's up to the T to manage that fear in order to do the work.
>
> This has just flabbergastered me. I could understand that they may not want to attach to someone who has a big chance of bolting, but I can't understand this in regards to a steady client. I kind of thought T's don't have attachment issues. They've either grown up healthy or have had them all sorted out in their own therapy. I don't understand why they would be scared to deepen the relationship.Well, I don't know if T's have everything all sorted out. I think it's important that they recongnize what's theirs and what's the clients. And if their stuff is leaking in, they need to plug that leak ASAP. I think maybe "scared" is too strong of a word. And maybe that's not even the word my T used. He might have said "anxious." It didn't surprise me too much when he said it. It seemed like a very human and authentic reaction on his part to my saying it felt like he was warning me off.
Now, what might he be anxious about? I'm not sure. Perhaps he is anxious about how it might go if I were to develp erotic feelings about him. That's a tricky area. Even if T's have their own issues dealt with, sex is a very personal thing. And there are reactions we can have that are more physiological than psychological. Maybe he's worried about that? Or maybe he wonders if he's up to the task of deepening. I know it takes more out of me, and I know that emotional sessions with my clients can be draining for me, too. Maybe he is anxious about what "dark secrets" I might have. Yes, T's are supposed to be able to hear anything and still provide unconditional postive regard. But I can tell you from experience, some things I hear can resonate with me viscerally. And that kind of stuff has stayed with me longer than other stuff. I feel confident that my reaction made it safe for the client to go on, but it was such a dark, gut-wrenching story, you couldn't help but be affected by it. So maybe he's anxious about that? Golly, I could go on and on. Insomnia at play here.
I should print this out and bring it in to my next session.
Thanks for making me think!
gg
Posted by alexandra_k on May 31, 2005, at 3:46:37
In reply to Re: Approximate relationships » alexandra_k, posted by gardenergirl on May 31, 2005, at 3:21:38
> Well, yes my T focuses soley on my issues in sessions. But he does not fulfill all my needs.
Hmm...
I didn't mean *all*..>In fact, as time has gone on, he leaves me hanging more and more. I hate that! But I see why he does. I'm starting to answer my own questions, and I'm learning not to count on him to rescue me when I get stuck. So this feels more realistic than the golden fantasy.
Ah. Yes, that makes sense :-)
Thanks.
Posted by pegasus on May 31, 2005, at 9:17:55
In reply to Re: The Introduction (In Session) » daisym, posted by littleone on May 30, 2005, at 22:04:48
> I had been seeing my previous T for a while and he was very consistent with me. Then he asked me to bring my husband along to a session. My husband and I are very different people and when my T started interacting with us both, he was a completely different person. I can understand that it was because he probably had to be more careful when dealing with me, or more aware of everything he said/conveyed, or maybe he was trying for the old blank slate with me. But either way, I was very very hurt at the change in him and in the fact that he wasn't authentic with me.
>Now, this is really interesting to me, because I had an almost opposite experience. I had been seeing my T for maybe 6 months when my husband came with me to a session. *I* was upset because my T talked to my DH exactly the same way he talked to me. I think it was upsetting because I felt like his interactions with me alone had something to do with us having developed a unique relationship. And then when he acted so much the same with my husband, I felt like that was just the way he talked to everyone. And so what I thought was special was just nothing to him. I guess there's no way to satisfy all of the clients all of the time!
pegasus
Posted by pegasus on May 31, 2005, at 9:19:45
In reply to Re: The Introduction (In Session), posted by littleone on May 30, 2005, at 22:18:36
I almost didn't answer this post, because I can't figure out what the answer is. But then I figured that maybe you'd want to know that. I think I ruminate over all four of those things a lot. Maybe different ones dominate at different times, but I really can't pull out one as being much more frequent than the others.
pegasus
Posted by Daisym on May 31, 2005, at 12:59:53
In reply to Re: The Introduction (In Session) » littleone, posted by pegasus on May 31, 2005, at 9:17:55
I kind of smiled when I read your post about therapists not being able to satisfy all clients, etc.
In a discussion a few months ago about perceived power, I said I was a little afraid that my absolute terror of abandonment makes me vulnerable to inappropriate requests. I said I wasn't sure I could say "no" if it meant losing my therapist. (This was all hypothetical, of course.) He jumped in and said, "never going to happen. You are perfectly safe with me."
I told him that I knew that and it was reassuring to hear it but still...my ego hurt a little from how quickly he said, "never gonna happen." I mean I'm not COMPLETELY unattractive. He replied that this was one of those no win conversations so he would just shut up now. He looked so distressed I just had to smile.
Posted by Tamar on May 31, 2005, at 16:08:31
In reply to Therapists can't win » pegasus, posted by Daisym on May 31, 2005, at 12:59:53
> I told him that I knew that and it was reassuring to hear it but still...my ego hurt a little from how quickly he said, "never gonna happen." I mean I'm not COMPLETELY unattractive. He replied that this was one of those no win conversations so he would just shut up now. He looked so distressed I just had to smile.I love your therapist. Sigh.
(Could it be transference?)
Posted by 10derHeart on May 31, 2005, at 18:09:48
In reply to Re: Therapists can't win » Daisym, posted by Tamar on May 31, 2005, at 16:08:31
> I love your therapist. Sigh.
> (Could it be transference?)
1. Don't we all?!
2. Probably is transference...but who cares....feels like real love....Daisy's T. is the one reason I could imagine changing my moral stance against cloning.... :-)
Posted by cricket on June 1, 2005, at 11:49:45
In reply to Re: Approximate relationships » alexandra_k, posted by gardenergirl on May 31, 2005, at 3:21:38
In my session yesterday, my T was trying to explain the therapy relationship to me. I think what he said differed greatly from Lott's idea. I will try to paraphrase as best I can since I don't remember his exact words.
He said:
In real life, relationships are usually reponsible for producing something or at least doing something - certainly work relationships, but also family relationships and even friendships. In therapy, one of the rules is that we do nothing so it winds up being solely about the relationship. We have no other purpose than to be as honest with each other as possible and to understand each other as much as human beings can and no matter what happens, whatever feelings come up, no matter how destructive, we never stop talking or close down lines of communication. It is like nothing else in the world and nowhere else in the world can two human beings try to understand each other like in long-term open-ended therapy.
So I guess my therapist would say that all other relationships try to approximate the therapy one rather than the other way around.
I'd be interested in what you all think.
Posted by messadivoce on June 1, 2005, at 14:06:14
In reply to Re: Approximate relationships, posted by cricket on June 1, 2005, at 11:49:45
That is so amazing. Wow. Really makes me appreciate my T, because I think at times we reached that kind of connection. He did know what he was doing, after all.
Posted by alexandra_k on June 2, 2005, at 3:35:28
In reply to Re: Approximate relationships, posted by cricket on June 1, 2005, at 11:49:45
> We have no other purpose than to be as honest with each other as possible and to understand each other as much as human beings can and no matter what happens, whatever feelings come up, no matter how destructive, we never stop talking or close down lines of communication. It is like nothing else in the world and nowhere else in the world can two human beings try to understand each other like in long-term open-ended therapy.
Except that it isn't about understanding 'each other' its about understanding the client...
> So I guess my therapist would say that all other relationships try to approximate the therapy one rather than the other way around.I guess....
I'd say that RL relationships came first. Long before there was therapy people had relationships with one another...And some people found that they had problems in their relationships...
And so then the therapy relationship was invented.
I don't know...
I'm starting to think...
Not having a therapist is a double edged sword as well...
I'd been thinking of the cons
But I think there are a fair few pros tooBut then thats probably because I only got 8 months of proper therapy with someone who didn't just judge me or insist on trying to change me all the time.
I'm sorry
I'm in a horrible mood
Posted by Susan47 on June 2, 2005, at 8:58:21
In reply to Re: Approximate relationships, posted by alexandra_k on June 2, 2005, at 3:35:28
You're definitely allowed to be in a horrible mood. You've earned it.
Damn my ex-t. Damn him for leaving me holding a bag of sh*t.
Posted by cricket on June 2, 2005, at 9:29:33
In reply to Re: Approximate relationships, posted by alexandra_k on June 2, 2005, at 3:35:28
Alexandra,
You're right, it is supposed to be about 'understanding the client' and I'm sure that my therapist would agree and operates that way with most of his clients.
However, I think that there are cases, (probably those coming from situations of extreme abuse and neglect) where the client's main issue is allowing another human being to get anywhere close to them. The issue becomes not so much 'understanding the client' as giving the client the ability to relate to the therapist as another human being. That's where the damage is, that's where the healing lies.
Yes, real relationships are probably better except in my case I am just too damaged to have one of those and if I allow myself (and right now that's a big if) to get close to my therapist it will be a major life accomplishment.
And please don't be sorry. I like when people respond back with differing view points it helps me think things through.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Psychology | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.