Psychoanalysis or bickering

xynesthesia2, under a different topic you say:

'I would have wanted my Ts to call me out on my BS and to ask me probing questions and share observations and insights that provide a different perspective and potentially more useful tools to work on my issues. No such luck and it greatly contributed to why I gave up on therapy in the end. Looking more at the different types, I now think that a life coach or occupational therapist that focus on practical solutions and function might have been more useful for me.'

Do you think it likely that she is doing this? My last T was MUCH more mellow! In a comment above I mentioned how she wanted to insist on practical actions like noting landmarks and that this remark of hers actually annoyed me! (If it was that simple I would have been taking landmarks all my damn life.)

So, instead of allowing me to explore the different factors contributing to my dysgeographica she started asserting practical steps I could take to assist. This felt patronising and dismissive to me. Her explanation is that she felt 'frustrated on my behalf.' As a result she wanted to go direct to practical steps i could take to somehow resolve it.

I did wonder whether she was trying to soften the fact that she was frustrated BY me - but I let it go...

Ok, I got it now. She seems to have quit doing psychoanalytic therapy, which is more exploratory in nature, and she doesn't seem to good at what she's doing now.

Odd she completely changed her approach, I'm assuming without having a conversation with you about changing the way you work together. I would not be happy at all and would not be ok with that change without a discussion. I have heard of Ts changing the approach when the client decompensates or regresses too much.

Of course it is possible but, as I said, it is not always easy to know if it is that or just defensiveness. The way I knew about mine was that he was generally very sloppy and dogmatic and the apparent "challenge" was very misaligned with me, what he said just did not strike a chord with me and my issues at all. Irrelevant and it was often clear that he was projecting his stuff (I knew that because he has a ton of info on him on the public web). I don't think anyone on an anonymous forum can tell you with certainty what's going on, I just pointed out what I see as two possibilities to consider. There are people here on PC and elsewhere who apparently engage in months (or even years) of "bickering" with their Ts and get something meaningful out of it. For me, that was just not of interest. Plus, that T was also not very sophisticated intellectually, so there wasn't even the possibility of truly insightful, deeper debates and competition, just not the level I am willing to engage (it may sound condescending but was the truth for me). We were also extremely different in every sense almost, no surprise it ended up full of misunderstandings.

With my second T the intellectual part was a much better match and we never had any conflicts really. What I experienced with the first T was definitely not a meaningful pattern of mine although I do sometimes run into similar with people who have similar personalities to him, I know it is not a compatible pairing and I understand why, so not much usefulness in dissecting further.

I think the best use of comments on this forum is to consider the content if it sounds interesting but, ultimately, go with your own instinct.

Thanks, Xynes! Yes, I do use this forum in the way you suggest. There are some similarities with the dynamic you had - for instance her 'hypothesis' really seems neither here nor there. And while I am fairly retarded in some areas (eg.spatial intelligence), I am fairly gifted in another (verbal) and there might be some mismatch here. Personality wise and regarding values though we resonate quite strongly, so it's less clear-cut than it was with yours!

I would totally understand if you have had enough of this conversation but I am curious about what you found manipulative in her interactions...

The lack of more thoughtful reflection and considering her role in all this, bringing up textbook interpretations quickly ("critical parent"...) to explain your reactions, talking over you. My impression might be because of the way the story was presented though, perhaps in reality it was much more nuanced. But I personally just don't like anyone much who does not openly consider their role in a conflict or just keeps bringing up explanations that only or mostly concern the other person or one possible view, therapist or anyone. Again, lack of open reflection. I think there are always at least two people involved in every interaction and how the approaches, personalities etc of the two interact can sometimes be the most informative and realistic IMO. I know that some people would say that's not how psychoanalysis is supposed to be done and perhaps that is true, but it does not change my opinion it. If anything, I think the therapy is supposed to probe into client's defenses primarily but it's a reaction to something and if the original something is considered only in a one-sided manner, the interpretation and conclusion can be very misleading sometimes. I don't think many Ts are intentionally manipulative for the sake of it, it can more often be the side effect of not being able to think outside of the box and not willing to address own short-sightedness, trying to mold (manipulate) the "reality" (client) into an easier, more established view. All this might just be my own preference though regarding how I like to interact, definitely not something applicable to everyone. I know that I tend to clash in views with a few people on this forum, for example, so there is that. What I see as manipulative may mean something completely different to someone else. But I am usually turned off by recurring, stubborn defensiveness and lack of an open mind to consider alternatives.

Yeah, I I understand what you mean now: It's like them painting the situation in a very particular way and refusing to countenance any objection. That can be fairly manipulative given the power structure of the situation which implicitly allows them to 'define reality'. The T I got on best with did give a feeling of being very authoritative but somehow it never felt like that was being used in a controlling fashion. He would encourage some behaviour and discourage others for obvious reasons. He would also question some of my beliefs and sometimes proffer alternative ways of looking at things. However he never gave these kinds of 'interpretations'. One of the only times he was ever very absolute and insistent was when I suggested my depression might be a character flaw rather than an illness. So, he did it in cases in which I was all too ready to damn myself.

(Actually I think he was quite skeptical of psychoanalysis. Once he described it as 'a bit mythic'. And at another time he said that my idea about something sounded a bit psychoanalytic and he just could not see how such a process would really work!)

I think authoritative is not necessarily a bad thing by itself - most people go to therapy to get some sort of explanation or solution to our issues that we fail to resolve. Or at least to acquire new perspectives, support, whatnot. IMO it is more about what the source of the authority is and how it is practiced. I more than welcome useful expert feedback that helps me go beyond the perspectives I can generate on my own. But not merely based on some anticipated hierarchy and power structure, I personally had never felt my Ts had any authority because they did not provide much I could not have derived by myself or in many other ways - they just did not earn that role with me. In contrast, I knew someone in the past who used to be a T before he retired, I met him in a peer support group. That guy earned my respect pretty quickly and kept it, too. There were very clear reasons why it worked that way, including that he never imposed authority of any kind, he was just leading by example and by the virtue of his own discipline, insightfulness and respectfulness. Never tried to play power games but clearly many people in the group looked up to him and sought him out due to the same reasons I did. There was nothing guru-like about him, he was also quite humble but very firm in his approaches and opinions, yet open-minded. It was very helpful and we developed a very good relationship. That was also my incentive to try formal psychotherapy - I thought if it was so positive and useful to interact with him, perhaps real psychotherapy would be similar for me. No such luck, I could never find a practicing T available to me with similar style (and sadly, that guy died quite suddenly after a short battle with cancer, quite young). I don't think it is too much about actual modality, more the individual and the unique combination of the two people. For example, I know a psychoanalyst via my work who, I think, could potentially be very compatible but I could not see him as a client because we have a work relationship at the same institution.

My approach to these things (and to many other things in life): is it useful in any way? It can be worth taking some time because the usefulness often does not emerge quickly but, if there is no evolution after months or a year, I typically don't see a reason to keep pushing, especially if it costs money, time etc. If the costs outweigh the benefits or perceived benefits I can anticipate. So, for me, I don't mind authority or anything if it is beneficial. If not, what's the point?

'he never imposed authority of any kind, he was just leading by example and by the virtue of his own discipline, insightfulness and respectfulness. Never tried to play power games but clearly many people in the group looked up to him and sought him out due to the same reasons I did. There was nothing guru-like about him, he was also quite humble but very firm in his approaches and opinions, yet open-minded. It was very helpful and we developed a very good relationship.'

I'm wondering whether such a person is more likely to be a man? As women we just seem so steeped in relational violence

I think you have just pointed out an important factor in why I prefer males for pretty much anything, if I have the choice Of course there are also bold exceptions within any gender, if we associate it with gender. My first male T, for example (very insecure, defensive, passive aggressive...). I have definitely found more individuals that fit my description (desire) for collaboration among men. But also personal relationships. I have always related better with males, in part because my own style tends to be akin to them. I am not sure about "violence", I have never experienced anything I would describe as "relational violence" except some peer bullying when I was a young kid (and that involved both boys and girls). But have seen plenty of indirect, passive aggressive emotional manipulation and definitely more in women. In general, I think men (as a group) tend to use more direct aggression and dominance signaling when it comes to that and I handle that much better than complicated, subtle ways. I have also encountered females who fit my earlier description but really not very many, even in a professional field that is super competitive and packed with ambitious individuals. So yeah, definitely what you have pointed out is part of why I have this preference. Not only leadership/authority, I think the same features frequently manifest in perfectly equal constructs as well.

Speaking of gender... that first T's passive-aggressive, defensive, often overly sentimental style kinda reminded me of my mom and why I never had a strong relation with my mom (we were just so different). Of course the T described it as negative transference and I think it was, in part. The interesting part was that he related it to my father, who had absolutely no resemblance to that T and the relationship, much more that description above, of people I usually get along with well. We can definitely call some of that conflict negative maternal transference though. But I had already known my feelings and incompatibility with that style, there wasn't really anything much to discover. I think I have learned how to live with that kind of person when it is necessary (e.g. I must to deal in work) but I don't and will never choose people like that for anything that is important for me. Also, I place myself somewhere on the queer spectrum when it comes to gender so I don't identify with stereotypes of my biological sex. If you have anything like that, it might also contribute to why you run into conflicts with women more than with men. There is also that women are often more attuned and pay attention to relational dynamics - I am interested but have definitive limits in how much I am willing to engage that way. Also meaning that I had no interest to use therapy in that way much - I had quite practical issues to work on, not relational. It is very interesting for me because it happens even when it is not my choice/preference, even with strangers. It can be quite interesting to analyze why this is the case, certainly quite complex for me.

You don't think that engaging in intellectual conversations is a pattern of yours and that your second T was engaging in your usual pattern? You've talked about this a lot here, so I can see why your T saw elements of paternal transference arise in the therapy.

Why do you think that I don't think? Sure, that has never been a question but super clear and obvious. I would not describe it paternal transference necessarily, I think the kind of "twinship" idea proposed by Kohut is much more accurate. I felt that way with my father some but never as much as with other guys in my adult life, friends, colleagues etc. But yes of course. It did not make my therapy super therapeutic though exactly because it was so familiar and I had experienced so many similar relationships before. That's what I usually describe as not enough useful challenge. Merely great intellectual company I have plenty in my life and have always had, they never really helped much to resolve the things that were problematic for me, in part because we often tend to have the same weaknesses as well.

That guy in the past that I mentioned (that I met in a peer group) was very helpful and I gained a lot from our exchanges. Enough similarity to understand each-other well but also enough differences and he had great discipline and plenty of interesting, challenging questions and suggestions that I considered because they clicked with me. He was also very smart but that's not really why it was so helpful to interact with him, that was just a basal matrix for conversation. He was also not the kind of smart who would get stuck in useless analysis paralysis (like me often enough), more street-smart and very practical. He was one I often saw as a more evolved version of my father, not the therapists I paid. I also told him that quite a few times. My dad and he passed away just a few months apart so I was thinking about all that a lot back then.

My gut feeling is that something is happening because of the distance. Anxiety, need... lack of routine unsettling you inside. Then you jump into attack and she jumps into defence. I don't know that - just a possibility to consider. I've had logistical problems with therapists too, and they always led me into conflict. It's more stressful to manage everything!

[QUOTE=Xynesthesia2;6551632]I I am not sure about "violence", I have never experienced anything I would describe as "relational violence" except some peer bullying when I was a young kid (and that involved both boys and girls). But have seen plenty of indirect, passive aggressive emotional manipulation and definitely more in women. In general, I think men (as a group) tend to use more direct aggression and dominance signaling when it comes to that and I handle that much better than complicated, subtle ways.'

I think I meant more or less the same thing. School boys are more likely to gain dominance over other boys with straight physical aggression whereas girls from an early age engage in verbal/psychological/social violence. There is a more relational quality to this kind of injury.

'women are often more attuned and pay attention to relational dynamics - I am interested but have definitive limits in how much I am willing to engage that way. Also meaning that I had no interest to use therapy in that way much - I had quite practical issues to work on, not relational.'

For me, relational difficulties had lead to a complete breakdown and continue to be so difficult that my life is extremely restricted. I had some success with my long term CBT T who worked on just discussing the various situations I found threatening. We could work on my interpretation of these. This allowed me a bit more flexibility though the level of fear did not go down that much. I don't think I 'like' working in a relational way if this means negotiating what feels like power struggles...

(ETA) My mother was and continues to be emotionally abusive which made me unsure about having a female T. There was always some likelihood of transference over there.

I don't think it is attacking to say in a session that you don't think a particular subject is THAT important. I also don't think it's attacking to say you feel criticised or that the T's word choice seems inherently critical...

I sent an email saying I wanted a break from therapy for a week or two. The reply was polite and warm. She said that that was fine but that if the reason for this was my feeling that she is critical or any other issue from the therapy itself that it would be better that I did come. Also that she acknowledges the choice is mine. I'm feeling really stressed.

Seems like saying it's your choice etc is code for "it's really up to me". Most therapists appear to be drunk with power and wanting to play puppet master. But their authority is fantasy-based. And their alleged expertise is non-specific, e.g. expert in life and human nature. I rarely see this examined closely. I guess it's like staring at the sun... it's just something people don't do.

Why? It just seemed like a redundant observation to me.

I agree that none of this is attacking. I've certainly done this with my T. As he would say, it's my session--if I don't think something is important or what I want to focus on right then--whether it's something I brought up or he did--then I should say so. And I've learned it's best to tell him if I feel he's being critical. He might say it's not what he intended or that I heard him wrong, but it helps to talk about it. From your earlier comment, I agree that your T's comment about clock-watching sounded critical. I'm also sort of a clock-watcher, but it's to make sure I don't wait too long to bring up a topic I want to discuss. Or, if I know there's only 10 minutes left, to consider holding off on something that would likely take longer to discuss. (Of course, I still end up bringing things up too close to the end--sometimes I don't realize they're a big or sensitive topic till I mention them or until T responds--but he wouldn't say I did that on purpose, I don't think.)

ETA: I hesitated to comment on this thread before because I haven't done psychoanalysis, but this sounds to me more like a conflict with your T than a technique.

It's a given that it's your choice to come in or not, so her stating that seems like a subtle power play, like she has to be the final arbiter. I could be wrong.

Plus, from what you said sounds like she already set the conditions under which you should come in (if wanting a break is due to issues from therapy).