Psych-types

First, lists are discursive; second, they are social constructions, and the process of studying them can provide, with the right list, the chance of doing a reflexive investigation of the construction of a project in the process of construction by its participants, etc. That is, we would be able to elucidate the processes of joint action more clearly as something is constructed that one is a participant in yet has no control over a bluebrint, plan or whatever, such that whatever 'object' (list) that emerges is an unintended consequence of the process of social interaction - as, in our view, are most social institutions. i hope this conveys the gist and 'intentionality' aspect of the notion


So while I appreciate the Vygotskian efforts many are making to construct this discussion on a higher plane (I mean this, just in a hurry!), I'll like to offer a rather primitive metaphor (let's not devalue primary process either; there's a fine line between sublimation and intellectualization - sorry for all the archaic terms
As I have frantically sorted and sifted through every conceivable explanation *I'm* most familiar with (mostly psychodynamic stuff: projective identification, Klienian stuff, classical and Object relational understanding of defenses and the primitive anxieties defended against; also the group stuff I'm most familiar with: Bion, Agazarian) -- well, all of this seems to get me no where except feeling like it's all a big mess.
The psycologist on this list talk to each using one or two word phrases to describe complex ideas without missing a beat which leaves me with a considerable amount of work to do if I want to find out what they're trying to say, and quite often I'll just skip it. Now you guys are doing it in code! (p.i.)
My guess is that you know too much about individual psychology and that it clouds your perceptions of group psychology. I mean that in the kindest way.
I'll let you in on a little secret which you probably are aware of (at least unconsciously). I'm near enough to my Ph.D. and have enough friends and colleagues (including some on this list -- Harriet, Bunny) to know that those of us who are clinically trained (i.e., went through a doctoral program requireing alot of focus on clinical theory, training and supervisoin) consider ourselves to be better equipped for this kind of work than those with a medical background (psychiatry).
therapy is less so. bores the shit out of me. and here is the crux: without people like me, you will bore the shit out of eachother.
(prehaps i should use that clinical "looking through the one-way mirror", that you said could not work here, to offer a tenitive diagnosis of substance abuse? he he he)
I suggest all psychologists go back and take an introductory sociology course before waxing sophomoric on topics their humanistic education ought to have provided them with some basic definitions of
Interesting, isn't it, how we treat our own experience as if it were meaningless.
Why not just keep going if we can continue to find things to discuss? Or did my announcement that I'm going to start taking a look at what has been going on send as wave of anxiety through the group and make everyone self conscious?
Anyway, insufferable shrink is a step closer to reality than 'miracle worker' or 'keeper of the sacred scrolls'... :-)
I have to leap from Bion to Klein, (would prefer Jung!) to fold in views of 'mature' psychology
"The unexamined life may not be worth living, but the examined life is impossible to live for more than a few minutes at a time. To fully accept the idea of unconscious motivation is to cease to be human. The greatest analyst in the world can live his life only like an ordinary blind and driven human being. Like his patients , he receives occasional glimpses of the peculiar activities going on behind the curtain of consciousness; and, like his patients, he is always running a little behind." [In the Freud Archives, Janet Malcolm, Vintage, 1985, Page 25]
I joined this list after reading a blurb in the Chronicle of Higher Ed that sounded promising; after nearly a month's lurking, I find myself tiring of psychobabble.
I speak with some expertise with what I am about to say, as I am a psychotherapist and specialist in abuse. I am a co-author of the book "The Violence of Men" and research and treat emotionally and physically violent men. Fred, you owe individuals on this list an apology
As we have attracted a bunch who are generally interested in psychoanalytic theory, touchy feely stroke stroke is almost inevitable, although we are going to be rather self-conscious about it.
(Have I shifted from psycho-babble to techno-babble? Sorry, gang.)
Let me acquaint myself to those of you who do not know me. I am a transpersonal psychotherapist specializing in long term personality development. My philosophy and practice of therapy is that of a mutual journey wherein I emotionally and intellectually accompany those with whom I work. My life work involves establishing an ongoing forum to dialogue with people all over the world for the purpose of understanding Adult Giftedness.
I'm one of the people on this is list who are not in anyway involved in psych/soc rather I'm a businessman. This list is very turned towards those who are professionals in psych/soc -- or wannabes. I find the idea of a Tavistock experience less that attractive since it would appear to be just an extension of our fairly psycho-babble-esque experience so far.
a person who having completed medical school, done a residency in psychiatry, completed pychoanalytic training and remains an ass tends to excite compassion much more than contempt. So no fun, just try not to hurt them.
your intro suddenly made me realize I've been a psychobabbler too, even though I didn't think I was.
As far as I am concerned, every single human being on this planet is a mental health professional,
let me up the ante by noting that there are psychologists and psychologists. Although therapy types often feel we researchers exist as hand maidens to the couch, the research types generally think the clinicial types have no ideas of what they are doing. Thus, we use much of the same language in radically different ways, meaning wildly different things, and often not understanding each other at all! This is just as true of psych lists as in any other realm.
I perceive Harriet's one person struggle against many who simply don't understand that she, like myself, and frankly like most good psychoanalysts who are worth their weight are CURIOUS about...well, first of all about ourselves, and secondly about others and most of all curious about how we all interact...interpersonally, intraperson-ally, in groups, alone, insane, creatively, restrictively, healthily, unhealthily, ....Now, I have stopped telling people at "social functions" like parties, standing in line at the market, meetings with my kids teachers, etc. I DON"T TELL them what I like to do, and what I do, because I come up against instantaneous fear, suspicion, derision (masked fear, really), minimizing, amateur analyzing...RARELY, do I find someone who is simply CURIOUS.
Again please remember I'm not a guy in a diner, i.e., I'm speaking as a clinician and a group dynamics consultant and as a participant in this list.
You're right, I did sound like I was crying for help. That was not in my awareness when I wrote it, I don't think. (Piss on you guys who think all behaviors are intentional at some level. (grin))
it's interesting that most people are wary of psychological labeling yet jump at the first chance to label themselves
One guy's acting out is another's getting to the heart of the matter, eh?
I'm going to jump in here. I'm not in the "psych field", but I'm sure I'm as psycho as the next person.

Return to Index