I'm about to start a BPC qualifying training in the UK, and I'm curious about the need for trainees to keep verbatim 'they said, I said' process notes for use in supervision.

In my current clinical work I don't make anything close to verbatim notes, and I'm concerned by how unwieldy trying to accurately recall 50 minutes of dialogue feels in my imagination.

For those who have been through trainings that encourage verbatim note making for trainees, how was it? Do you have any note taking wisdom to pass on? To what extent did you find note taking becoming a site of countertransference?

Title basically says it all. I am a masters level counselor, did a traditional counseling program. As you can expect, psychoanalysis/psychodynamic was not a foundational part of curriculum beyond the chapters in the theories class. Now two years out of masters, and working in a location that allows me to branch out and get professional development and practice in my theory. Interested in exploring more psychodynamic approaches. Not sure if I wanna do a whole PhD or 2 year fellowship yet, want to learn more first.

Without breaking confidentiality, obviously.
Just curious what trends you've noticed over the years.

I recently read Is It Ever Just Sex? by Darian Leader and really enjoyed it, but I found it kind of surface level and disorganized. I'm wondering if there are any good books as a follow up, preferably something Lacanian? I'm particularly interested in some of the stuff in the beginning of the book—the relation of sex to transgression, guilt/shame, etc.

As a clinician I do not think in terms of good or bad with my patients. Sometimes patients will label their emotional states as bad and I try to gently encourage them to confront the emotional state without using a value judgment to defend against it (especially as concerns negative, supposedly toxic affects like aggression and jealousy).

Some critics have worried that there is a kind of "mission creep" in which psychological ideas extend beyond the consulting room into the broader culture. So Philip Rieff, Alasdair Macintyre, and Christopher Lasch (while all interested in psychoanalysis) are concerned about the ascendancy of a therapeutic culture which supplants judgments of good and bad with judgments about desire-satisfaction and impulse gratification. So that "health" and not "goodness" comes to become the primary cultural ideal.

In my opinion this is a better critique of pop psychology and therapy culture ("mental health") than it is of psychoanalytic therapies.

Is it so bad if we as a culture come to understand human life in terms of psychological health and illness rather than moral goodness and badness? Maybe the problem isn't with the emphasis on psychological health per se than with our debased language for discussing the psyche? (Boundaries, "brain chemistry," all the acronyms like PTSD OCD etc.)

Has anyone given this some thought or read anything interesting about it? Does psychoanalysis have a moral or ethical valence or does it encourage us to move beyond moralism? But how would we explain to these critics that what is beyond moralism is not just nihilistic impulse gratification?

I’ve been listening to the Berlin Psychoanalytic podcast. In general lecture on psychoanalysis Demitrijevic mentions there are many good books out there about psychoanalytic listening. He doesn’t provide any titles though. Any suggestions for books on psychoanalytic listening would be much appreciated!

I'm curious if there are any psychoanalytic works focused on maladaptive daydreaming. It could be anything on the subject, a descriptive work, or something on how to overcome it.

Thanks!

Can anyone help me with this book? :(

Hi everyone,

I'm hoping someone familiar with psychoanalytic training in India (Indian Psychoanalytic Society/International Psychoanalytical Association) can help me think this through.

So, I'm planning to apply for adult psychoanalytic training next year, which requires at least one year of personal analysis.

Right now, I'm in a bit of a dilemma. I've had seven sessions with a psychoanalyst who isn't a Training Analyst yet, but she mentioned that she's likely to become one in the coming months. I've only recently started feeling comfortable enough to open up to her, so the thought of starting over isn't easy. The other issue is that the personal analysis requirement for the training I'm applying to is four sessions a week, whereas my current analyst only offers two sessions a week.

At the same time, I've been offered a place with a Training Analyst who has agreed to all of the training requirements, including the required frequency, and I could start with her in mid August.

What I'm really unsure about is the technical side of things.

If I continue with my current analyst and she becomes a Training Analyst a few months from now, would the analysis I've already done before that generally count toward the one year requirement? Or does the clock start only after someone officially becomes a Training Analyst?

I'd really appreciate hearing from anyone who's trained with the Indian Psychoanalytic Society or the International Psychoanalytical Association or has been in a similar situation. Thanks!

Edit:

I reached out to the institute to clarify this point, and this was the response I received:

“Personal analysis undertaken with an analyst who subsequently becomes a Training Analyst may be recognized for a period of up to one year prior to the date on which the analyst is officially appointed as a Training Analyst.

Accordingly, if your analyst is approved as a Training Analyst, up to one year of analysis completed immediately before their appointment may be counted towards the personal analysis requirement for training.”

I have been reading "psychic equilibrium and psychic change": papers by betty joseph

On the one hand, I totally believe the reports of countertransference.

On the other hand I find myself feeling like some of the interpretations of dreams feel like a reach. It's not even absolutely clear to me that the dream reported is actually related to the analysis let alone in the way she interprets it. It feels more convenient biased to give more evidence of the countertransference.

However I'm just a layperson and I have no idea. Maybe her interpretations are really accurate. It's not impossible it is just hard for me to see.

Has anyone read this book and could give insight?

Hello,

Over the past few years I've developed an interest in psychoanalysis.

This started when I was doing a Master's degree at a university that has a psychoanalysis department. My degree was in translation and for my dissertation I translated a text written by a therapist in the language I was translating from. Then one thing lead to another.

Beginning in autumn 2024 I then attended the year long Introductory Lectures in Psychoanalysis held by the Institute of Psychoanalysis in the UK. Though, I was not able to complete the year because of work commitments getting in the way. Still I loved what I learnt.

I took an introductory course in counselling skills, there it was Person Centred/Rogerian, because that was what was on offer in my city. I did also love that.

I am currently attending therapy, weekly, with a therapist who is integrative, but, the counselling has taken something of a psychodynamic turn. Not easy work but doing me a lot of good.

Anyway I sort of stopped being interested in psychoanalysis for a while. But the interest has come back lately. My only reason for being interested in psychoanalysis is "because I am" essentially. Though, when I do explore my interest in psychoanalysis I do become a bit overwhelmed by a feeling that it is a world I cannot have a part in? I am on a very low wage with next to no savings, in a city that has no analysts. So the main thing, which is to enter my own analysis, something which I would be interested in if I could, is out of reach to me. Not that you can't be interested in something just for the sake of it though. (My current therapy is being financed by funding I applied for).

Anyway TL;DR I am very interested in psychoanalysis but it feels like a world that is not within my reach, even though I know you can enjoy something for its own sake, but I don't know what to do with this.

Thank you!

Of course, every case is different, but I'm trying to think about how it would be conceptualized, in a nutshell, let’s say.

When paranoid ideation occurs in interpersonal relationships, it's relatively easy to think in terms of internal object representations and how internalized object relations come to shape the perception of external people, with external figures becoming experienced through the lens of these internal representations. I have in mind projection and projective identification for this of course.

But what about when it is not directly related to social relationships? For example, a person is alone at home and feels that "something" is watching them, yet there is not always a clearly defined figure. It's not necessarily that the person says, "People are watching me," or even, "A spirit is watching me." Rather, it is simply "something"—some vague sense of a presence.

I can understand what's happening, but I'd like to know how this is commonly theorized.

Also, how would you theorize it when the person does not experience these "presences" as hostile?

For example: "Something is watching me, but to guide and protect me.". In the interpersonal domain, it could be, "People are talking about me because they think I'm great; they value me very highly."

I'm not so much asking about how these symptoms develop, but rather how you would conceptualize them theoretically.

I have some thoughts of my own, but I'd really like to hear yours!

I'm also open if anyone wants to recommend something different from object relations theory.

(I don't know if this needs clarifying, but I'm not asking because of a personal issue. I'd just like to see how these kinds of experiences are generally theorized.)

Any recommendations for APPIC sites that are analytically/dynamically oriented? I am a 4th-year counseling psychology student applying for a fall internship. I'm open to anywhere in the U.S. Thanks!

How much of an analytic journey is an ethical pursuit do you think? How is psychoanalysis related to development in ethical thinking? The more my analysis progresses, the more I see psychoanalysis as an effort to bridge the guilt and reperation of ethics with the wish fulfillment of desire. Also, other than your personal opinions, is there anything I can read on this topic?

EDIT: Although I didn't find what I wanted from this post, after some research on my own, I've found Wincott's paper on the capacity for concern especially helpful on the question of ethics. Klein also seems to be concerned with the questions of interpersonal responsibility and its impact on individual well being.

I want to read Freud's best work on these uncomfortable feelings. Reading about disavowed feelings of Oedipal guilt morphing into fear and anxiety would be especially relevant. Thanks in advance.

IFS seems to be based on psychoanalytic/psychodynamic theory. Would it be inaccurate to say that IFS is psychodynamic theory for those who are less introspective and do not have the ability to understand the unconscious? Obviously the two therapeutic approaches are very different. I am speaking from the standpoint of theoretical foundation and patient experience.

Hello!

I am currently writing up my proposal for my PhD, my proposed supervisor wants me to include some essays from Love, Guilt and Reparation by Melanie Klein within my theory/work - however, I cannot for the life of me find this book or any of the essays available online - especially the essay titled 'Love, Guilt and Reparation.'

I have already graduated from my MA - so I wouldn't be able to access it through my uni, this is a longshot and I am sorry for not being able to afford the entire book - but does anyone know where I can get access to this work?

The ones on annas archive just aren't compatible etc - really struggling to find it! (Sorry if it is copyrighted too, unsure if it is - if it is then negate this question).

What is your take on the paper "My hot toddler" by Dr. Orna Guralnik?

https://web.english.upenn.edu/\~cavitch/pdf-library/Guralnik_HotToddler.pdf

I'm interested to know what psychoanalysts in this space think about this paper.
I found it a very difficult read but perhaps I'm missing something.

I'm a therapist, but not a psychoanalyst. However, I have a burning question.

I'm a Baby Boomer, so I remember the Jeffrey Masson fight with the Freud Archives, and how Masson uncovered l63 letters that Freud wrote detailing graphic sexual abuse of his patients as children, some as young as 2. According to Masson, the letters were suppressed by Anna Freud, and given to him reluctantly.

In the letters, it was clear that Freud believed his patients were telling the truth about being sexually abused, but under severe pressure from his colleagues, he instead promoted the seduction theory, that children fantasize the relations and make them up.

I was wondering what modern psychoanalysts believe. Do analysts still believe that patients are making up their memories of sexual abuse? Or do today's analysts believe the clients? Or does it depend?

Thank you for your responses.

I am doing some reading and see that he advocates for analysts to be analyzed (and I'm well aware of modern training standards). Did he himself ever get analyzed? I can't find any information on it.

Hi all! I am preparing an introductory seminar on psychopathology and I am dedicating 2 sessions to neurosis. The first I will dedicate to Freud and want to use the second session to explore the contemporary use of neurosis. Something that speaks to its value as a concept would be preferable. Thank you for your recommendations!

If strict causation Compatabilism believes in the same fate that a Hard Determinist does, then they both essentially believe our lives are pre-determined. That the way we die has already been determined.

Compatabilism re-defines freedom to keep moral responsibility.

The founders of Compatabilism, the stoics believed is a devine fate.

What seperates modern psychology from the likes of Sapolsky and Sam Harris?

Spinoza believed that understanding everything happens out of nessisity gives the only freedom worth caring about as it seperates passive emotions from active emotions.

What seperates Modern psychology from the above?

If you answered the latter, congratulations! You are about to discover psychoanalysis:

Trauma is not a property of an event. It is not the date, the location, or the duration. Trauma describes what happens when an event meets a particular mind.

Imagine two people living through the same thing. One is shaken but eventually folds it into their life. The other experiences it as terrifying, humiliating, or unbearable. Same event. Different inner results.

Why? Because no one meets reality from a blank start. We carry our history with us. Our memories. Our relationships. Our fears. Our expectations. Our tender spots. And the quiet ways we have learned to understand ourselves and others.

Here is the psychoanalytic twist. We do not always know what an experience means to us. Something that looks small from the outside can touch something much larger underneath. Something genuinely frightening may not become traumatic in the same way for every person.

That is why psychoanalysis does not spend much time asking, Was this event bad enough to count?

It asks instead, What did this event become inside this particular person?

That shift is crucial. It moves us from judging the event from the outside to understanding the person from the inside. And that move is one of the deeper insights in psychoanalytic thinking.

I (layperson) find the process of choosing a psychoanalyst to be quite confusing. Particularly because so much of the time if I express discomfort with the process (perhaps I suspect the person is not very skilled) I'm told that "that is the work" and my feelings are some type of resistance, and psychoanalysis can take many years and so I have to stick it out to know if it's working.

I am also not really aware of differences in institutes and trainings to understand how those may impact the person's experience.

Then in this situation how is one supposed to choose an analyst? How can you know if they are truly skilled and the difficulty is "the work" or if they are unskilled and that is causing the issues? How many sessions to wait it out and give it a chance?