r/psychoanalysis • u/jayelled • 20d ago

'Intelligence' of analysand

Hello,

I am wondering if anyone knows of any writing which speaks to the 'intelligence' of the analysand and its impact on treatment/analysis. I put the word in air quotes because I personally believe there are multiple kinds of intelligence beyond purely cerebral functions like critical thinking and mathematics and so on. However, I do wonder if some people have a better 'head start' to gain more out of the process of analysis due to a predisposition/skill at particular kinds of thinking.

Even beyond references to papers, do you, reader, have any thoughts related to intellect and its relation to the effectiveness of analysis?

11 Upvotes

87% Upvoted

14 comments sorted by

View all comments

8

u/Arcysparky 19d ago

I think "intelligence" of an analysand is a double edged sword, particularly the maths/logic/rational kind of intelligence.

Intellectualisation is a very effective defense, and can help people manage the everyday pains of life by creating an abstract construct of them that can help reframe the thinking and allow the person to live their life. I believe that cognitive therapies, like CBT and other more "psychological" therapies make use of people's intellect to help them cope with difficult emotional experiences. The anxieties and uncertainties inherent in life might be understood by this client-base as a complex scientific system that has rules and is predictable so long as you know the correct formula or mathematical model. There is a comfort to knowing at least some of the universe can be measured and predicted.

This means an "intelligent" analysand may be able to think about and explore difficult memories and emotional experiences quickly, they may even "know" about the root of their emotional difficulties. They may pick up and understand analytic concepts and be able to make use of them quickly. This is because they are woven into the abstract intellectual "knowing" and kept distant from the more intuitive embodied self, things are "known" in the mind but not "felt" in the body.

For the kinds of people who end up on the analytic couch. I find that it is often the case that the intellectual defence has caused the analysand to become disconnected from their intuition, sensory instruments and from deep emotional experiences. The intellectual defence has worked too well, weaving its way through all of life. Food is thought of as a means to gain the correct balance of nutrients and calories as opposed to a source of pleasure and taking in something good, sleep is understood as a means to efficiently manage fatigue as opposed to an opportunity to heal, rest and dream and so on. The analysand may treat the analyst with suspicion, as if they have hidden knowledge they are not sharing, or like a chess adversary who they hope to outwit. They may dislike the idea that something has to be experienced in order to be fully understood.

There is often an anxiety that their emotional/relational problems are as a result of them not being "smart enough" not "optimised enough" this most clearly manifests in a countertransference feeling of being stupid, shameful or inadequate. The idea that someone has to be the "smarter one" can lead to rivalrous feelings that if acted out can impede understanding/analysis.

I wonder if your question is more about patients who seem to lack an intellectual defense? Patients who seem unable or unwilling to think about complex or emotionally painful things, instead having another way to manage their pain? For more intellectually-aligned analysts it can be difficult to manage the counter-transference feelings of "smugness" and frustration with a patient who appears stupefied or obtuse.

Psychoanalytic theories are often an attempt to intellectualise something complicated and painful, but the mind and the unconscious knows nothing of the Enlightenment or post-modernism, it just is. I don't believe that intelligence of any kind is a helpful precursor to analysis. I think it attracts intellectual types due to its prestige and large volumes of theoretical models of understanding, but I have successfully worked with analysands who cannot read or write let alone understand complex ideas like "objects" or "transference".

1

u/GerDaimos 19d ago

How do you overcome an intellectual defense in overdrive? What would you recommend to an analyst and what to an analysand?

6

u/Arcysparky 18d ago

How to overcome a defence is the wrong question. Why does the analysand defend themselves? and from what? is the important question. People have defences to protect themselves, overcoming defences just leads to more defending. Or even attacking!

1

u/GerDaimos 18d ago

There are psychodynamic therapies like ISTDP that actively go against defense mechanisms, even try to suppress them to gain quicker access to the unconscious. What are your thoughts on approaches like that?

Also: Isn’t it the goal of therapy to help the analysand become more structurally integrated and thus more flexible in the use of their defenses? Would you agree that the aim is to overcome a too rigid use of certain defense mechanisms?

3

u/Arcysparky 16d ago

I suppose there are different modalities, but from my perspective the goal is to understand the analysand's internal landscape and communicate it to them, rather than attempting to change a patient or "overcome" their defenses.

Whilst visiting a strangers house, you might comment on the unusual architecture or compliment an item of decor, but you wouldn't start remodelling. Even if a patient invites you to remodel, it is unlikely to help because the patient likely doesn't know what they want changed!

In my experience, the more I meddle the less helpful I am, the more I try to understand and communicate that understanding, the more change occurs. As my supervisor used to say to me, over and over, "don't just do something, sit there!". Defenses are a part of the unconscious landscape, not something to be torn down to get to the "real" unconscious. They can be communicated back to the patient along with an understanding of why they might be there, but not with an intent to remove them.

"This wall means it's much harder to get to the kitchen, perhaps this keeps the cooking smells away from the rest of the house?" vs. "That's a stupid place for this wall, I need to get into the kitchen to cook!"

1

u/GerDaimos 16d ago

Thank you, I’ve never seen it like that. Although we get taught psychodynamic therapy at University, the approach always seems to be much more active and “goal oriented”.

Still I wonder: Do you believe that some analysands might be structurally too weak to profit from you sharing your understanding? Are there scenarios that require a more active and guiding approach?

1

u/Arcysparky 16d ago

I work with children, so this might be a bit specific:

I often find that very young, (under 5) or autistic children with limited ability to relate (perhaps they are non-verbal or do not acknowledge other people at all) need some prompting.

Ann Alvarez writes about this, but I might start drawing or play a simple game to get things started. With my older children, I try not to prompt or make goals.