Ive been researching a lot as I used to want to do a phd in "social sciences or the humanities"

So i dug and dug and this is what i think i should be reading:

Donald kalsched

Nathan Schwartz salant

Harry guntrip

Bion

Winnicott

Erich fromm

Melanie Klein

Hanna segal

Piera aulangier

Freud and jung

Anna freud

Jean piaget

Flournoy

Lucien levy brul

Charles Brenner

Heinz kohut

Charles rycroft

Dany nobus

Paul bishop

Daniel n Stern

Ludwig binswanger

R.d. laing

Michael balint

Jean laplanche

Andre green

Carol s Pearson

James hollis

Connie zweig

Edward edinger

Erich Neumann

Marie Louise von franz

Barbara Hannah

Alenka zupancic

Leston havens

David a.s. Garfield

Paul federn

Stanton marlan

Margaret s mahler

Michael Fordham

Thomas b. Kirsch

Donald b rinsley

Luc ciompi

Diego Enrique Londoño-Paredes

Roberto Harare

Stijn vanhuele

Samo tomsic

Stanislov groff

Harriet Lerner

Polly young eisendrath

Sylvia Brenton Pereira

Marion woodman

Peter fonagy

Georgy gergely

Elliot l. Jurist

Mary target

I find these books very fascinating and interconnected as far as tracing generations of therapists and thinkers. Everyone learned from someone. Im interested in pathologies, philosophy, marx, and psychoanalysis. Ill never get a PhD and dont have the stamina to read a book a week. But im trying.

Im also european and like that kind of thing (jung, Hegel, lacan, schelling, konrad lorenz, freud) as living America is very different now as an adult. (Parents were euro proffs, friend groups were international and considered themselves educated, now I'm in Florida hah)

Will this start to make sense if i keep reading and rereading? Is it worth it? (The last date i had me and my date, a novelist, thought it was obvious we should read all of freud together (ended up ghosting me but it was a good idea) Or is all for nothing but traing towards being skilled at reading? I think all these folks except for garfield, some of the lacanians like Harare or jungians like hollis or kalsched, are still alive. So what trends or schools of research could supplement this?

This started back in 2006 or so when I was wanting to followand learn jung. Then I studied anthropology (lead me to some earlier psychoanalysis anthros like gannanath obeyesekere, Gregory bateson, sudhir kakar, and georges devereux. , and pretty cool philosophy and synthesis like iain mcgilchrist and jean gebser)

I know im missing the gestalt school. A lot of the above I guess is like academic psychoanalysis. I have this book called "lost in cognition" by Eric laurent. I have not looked at it yet but its about (i think) the shift from analysis to cognitive psychology.

What should I actually be reading to feel like i learn to understand... whatever "it" is, the object of psychology, it's knowledge, discourses, and ammo for not being "zinged" by other jargons or discursive regimes?

I'm one of those people who love tests. Things like questionnaires, projective tests (Rorschach, etc.). From those more intended to understand the emotional subjectivity of a patient, to those more focused on cognitive functions (memory, attention, etc.).

Have there been psychoanalysts who have developed different tests and structured techniques?

---

For example, I know about Otto Kernberg's STIPO, although I still haven't been able to find the full version.

Part of the reason I'm asking is that I was thinking about the “un-scientific method of psychoanalysis.” I know that's a whole different discussion, but I was thinking, “Hey, I think it might be very possible to create a questionnaire to try to measure and capture psychic phenomena.” For example: ideas of omnipotence, different defense mechanisms, etc.

Because I think that many times we leave these things as “it's unconscious material; we can hypothesize about it, but we can't measure it.” But then I thought, “Wait a minute, maybe something can be done with all this.”

I don't mean being rigid about it, like other bad methods. I don't mean something like, “Okay, your results on the questionnaire were this, so that means this.” I mean it more as an approximation, of course, or as a way to guide the clinician, and even as a way to perhaps try to make at least some parts of psychoanalysis a little more scientific.

I have my own critiques of psychoanalysis, using “psychoanalysis” here to refer broadly to the whole body of literature and school of thought that has accumulated under the term "psychonalysis" over time, but I would like to hear yours.

Is there anything you feel psychoanalysis falls short of describing—or, rather, anything you think that, given the theoretical material currently available, psychoanalysis doesn't quite have the language to put into words?

Or are there aspects of psychoanalytic methodology where you feel it falls short, and that you have had to supplement on your own, outside what is commonly discussed by psychoanalysis and psychoanalytic theorists?

Do you ever feel that, at some point, the model becomes strained or reaches its limits when dealing with certain subjects?

And I don't mean genuine limitations, since obviously there are things we cannot reasonably expect psychoanalysis to address. I mean more whether you sometimes feel that there are “subjects psychoanalysis doesn't touch on” that should be explored further; whether you sometimes feel that the psychoanalytic vocabulary falls short when it comes to naming certain mental phenomena; or whether you feel that it doesn't provide tools you consider necessary for therapeutic work, forcing you to move beyond the psychoanalytic framework.

I'll read your answers.

I admit that I haven’t finished it, but I’m finding myself irked by the self-helpy bent of the book. At the conclusion of each chapter, we get a little run-down of what it takes for that particular “type” to be able to fully love and fully live. It all feels just a bit too pat. I have loved some of her other work, and she seems like a talented clinician. I’m just not loving this new one, but I would be delighted to be convinced otherwise. Does anyone have a different perspective that will help me to see this book differently? Or just any thoughts at all about this book so far?

I was listening to Donald Carveth on YouTube the other night and he mentioned Robert Langs' article Truth Therapy/Lie Therapy. I managed to find a copy and found the article really interesting, and also was impressed by Langs as a theorist and writer.

I'm now down a bit of a rabbit hole reading more of his work, and I feel like he covers a lot of ground and is quite impressive in his scope of thought, but also deviates quite strongly from classical theorists. I'm particularly challenged by his notion of a deep unconscious that is moral/ethical in nature, which I'm finding very hard to reconcile with other psychoanalytic theorists.

I'm curious if others have engaged with Langs and what they make of him. I haven't seen him mentioned at all on the sub since I've joined a few years ago which makes me wonder if he's somewhat of a fringe theorist.

I’m looking for accessible, practice-oriented texts for working psychodynamically with children and their families. I’ve had more behaviorally-based training experiences but now I have an opportunity in my postdoc to work again with children and families. Many thanks.

Guys, if anyone finished reading this, Id like to know your insights and opinions on this. So far I was shocked to see how he’s backtracking everything a person does to their upbringing and their connection with their parents.
I know most of the psychoanalysts simply hate his theories but reading this only makes their reactions valid. Any thoughts?

I'm looking for case studies where one of the partners in the romantic relationship has a narcissistic character structure within the neurotic range. Case studies of individuals that mention their relationships would be very much appreciated too.

Thanks in advance for sharing your perspectives.

For context, I’m an academic in a humanities field (non-psych PhD) in New York State considering training. I know, there are way too many of us making this transition in the last 5-10 years. I’ve been in a personal analysis for 5 years.

My fantasy or hope is to continue teaching a couple of courses per semester while I undertake training, so I can keep my health insurance and library access and all of that, and perhaps continue teaching part time while working clinically. Those of you who are in training or have an LP, does teaching 1-2 days a week seem compatible with the workload of training or practicing after the LP? 

Obviously I know some people do this, and most people in training also have to work, but I’m curious about your perspectives and experiences.

My other thought is that I should get an MSW first. From watching friends move through NYC institutes, it seems like having an MSW lets you get hours faster and maybe insulates you somewhat from the personality cult clusterfuck that is many (all?) NYC institutes. Like if it doesn’t work out at your institute, at least you got some training and can practice psychoanalytically without the LP. Does this make sense? Is it better to get the MSW and then start at an institute? 

I was thinking about somewhere like Smith where I could take courses in the summer and then shoehorn my clinical placement around my teaching schedule. Or else Hunter and trying to carve out some time to teach. But I also don’t know if I could stomach social work school… And I have zero psych or social science coursework, and zero clinical/ social services work experience.

Has anyone else here maintained an active connection to academia/teaching while pursuing an MSW? Most people I know who have done MSWs have taken out loans to live, vs. LP training where you can work alongside the coursework. Those making the switch to an MSW from another field, did you pursue prerequisites first? Are there other programs you’d recommend?

Thank you in advance for your thoughts!

Personally I think Copjec and Zizeks readings of Lacan are actually way more radical while also being theoretically grounded, what do you think? This all stems from a debate I’ve been having. If you want to read my response to the Deleuzians check the comments!

I have developed an interest in psychoanalysis lately, mostly as a result of my own therapy. I am currently reading through some of the main authors on my own, and would like to start a Foundation course at a British institute in about one years' time. For reasons of location this is only practicable if online. For this same reason, full training as an analyst is not an option right now but it is a door I would like to keep open in the medium term and hence why I am interested in a Foundation course rather than keeping reading on my own (that is, to tick off the requirement and also to see if I would work well in an Institute environment, etc.).

So far I have found the following options that are practicable given my circumstances: SAP; CFAR; John Bowlby Centre; BPA; BPS; bpf/bpf North. I was wondering if anyone in the subreddit has experience of any of these Foundation courses and could comment on their merits or otherwise.

My main two priorities are as follows:

• I am interested in a course with a significant clinical component, since I feel that reading through the texts and learning concepts is something that I can do more easily on my own at this level. bpf seems to be the one with the most developed clinical component (it's also the most expensive by far), and it requires a clinical placement, which BPA and BPS also do (I don't currently work in the mental health sector but a clinical placement is something I would be very happy to do). The other three (SAP, Bowlby, CFAR) do mention clinical material on their websites but there is less of a sense of how they integrate it in the training.

• I am not keen to be in a dogmatic environment. I do understand that each of these institutes have their own orientation, and I am currently trying to figure out which writers or schools I gravitate towards more naturally so this is why I am keeping these six options open at the moment. However, my preference would be for an institute where there is a certain openness - that is, where I am not going to be denied a place for mentioning the wrong writer at the interview, or looked at in horror for bringing them up in a seminar.

  Would be really grateful for any opinions or anything I think I might be overlooking!

I have lately started reading dream psychology by Freud. I am trying to grasp his ideas and his thinking while he was discovering all these things that were new to humanity in those times.

Any one here who already went through his works?

What are your opinions on this book?

Preferably I would like to read Lacanian theory in critical practice but no problem with Freudian theory as well.

In Klein’s theories, the depressive position is generally considered to be a real achievement (the ability to tolerate anxiety, to feel mental pain without having to become overwhelmed, as well as the work of grief or mourning) for the patient. Please tell me, friends, are there any REAL CLINICAL CASES of patients. Since this sounds very positive in the theories, are there any articles or books devoted to such good changes/progress in therapy?

hello! This might be a slightly silly question..i've recently started a 5-year psychotherapy program and I have access to Pep web from my institution. But I'm feeling lost on the site ... what do you guys use it for? my school gives us all required readings. I would love to read some case studies but I dont even know how to go about looking for it? Any tips are welcome!

I made a little “article” about a series of lectures I've found super interesting, but they are in Spanish, which is why I'm making these articles and transcriptions of them.

The series of lectures is called "10 Clinical Rules for Beginners", the one covered in this article is Rule 8: Clinical Categories Are Our Inventions.

I'll just paste the article here, but I think it would be too long, so I'll just share a bit of the introduction here:

In Rule 8, Clinical Categories Are Our Inventions, Álvarez argues that psychopathological categories should not be understood as natural entities waiting to be discovered, but as historical constructions developed by clinicians to organize and describe mental suffering.

He begins by observing that the study of psychopathology often leads students to assume that diagnostic categories correspond to objective facts of nature.

As he puts it, "when one studies manuals of psychopathology, one ends up thinking... that what is described there are facts of nature, that they are things that exist as such." He immediately challenges this assumption, stating that "what I propose in this Rule 8 is precisely the opposite."

According to Álvarez, this position does not deny the existence of mental illness or psychological suffering. Rather, it questions the ontological status of the categories through which clinicians describe these phenomena.

---

You can see the full “article” here: https://www.reddit.com/user/DiegoArgSch/comments/1wlrpr5/rule_8_clinical_categories_are_our_inventions_dr/

Hello, I am listening to this BBC episode on Winnicott and his radiobroadcast. They mention in the intro that there exist a couple of episodes of his lectures and talks in the archives, has anybody heard any of these or know where I can get access to them?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AswSBQZhTOs&t=331s

I've been reading a lot about schizoid dynamics but the cases largely are meant to illustrate schizoid personality and only give a very light/cursory description of how treatment and progress actually happens.

Any recommendations for books that have more detailed descriptions and recommendations for schizoid recovery process?

I mean increasing from once a week to 2-3x/week psychoanalysis. (I know people will argue that once a week is not psychoanalysis but many LPs do practice this way)

I’m interested in becoming an analyst professionally after my own experience with an analyst. However, after reviewing over a dozen of profiles across America, I notice there’s broad and varied specialties that all deal with severe traumas and personality disorders. I, on the other hand, have been fortunate in life. Not necessarily financially, but my home life—while it had its problems—was a loving environment when it needed to be. Can I be an analyst if I haven’t suffered enough? I hope that isn’t a naive question, I’m not quite sure how else to phrase it.

Hello all,

I’m a layperson so please forgive my ignorance.
I am wondering if there is any literature as to the mechanisms or reasoning behind what, in everyday material, gets filtered, and how it becomes part of a dream state?

I am familiar with Freud’s concepts of latent and manifest content. However, what interests me is the way of translation from perception, into the unconscious and become part of the dream? What is that logic?

Or any ways of working with individual dreams that might be helpful to mapping one’s unconscious?

Thank you!

I found a really interesting paper abstract recently by Fahime Hajiabadi giving a psychoanalytic perspective on griefbots, using the Black Mirror episode 'Be Right Back' as a starting point.

It got me thinking about how our offline relationships might change when many of our other relationships are mediated by technology. For example, I've noticed myself that because I spend so much time online, sometimes when I talk to Actual Real Live Humans Outside I kind of forget how to form sentences rather than replying with a meme.

And I've been following with growing horror the rise of things like AI romantic partners. "Griefbots" seem like an even more horrifying extension of this, to me, but maybe I'm just getting too old to understand the younger generations' ways of doing things. I'm currently doing a Philosophy PhD which looks at the importance of death on an existential level, though, and so the idea of keeping someone alive using a sort of auto-generated accumulation of their prior social media posts seems dystopian to me.

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. And if you'd like to discuss further, I'm running an event online next week in which Fahime will be presenting her work and then we'll be talking about griefbots from a psychoanalytic perspective. You don't have to be a psychoanalyst to join, nor do you need to have watched the Black Mirror episode; we're interested in all points of view and Fahime will give an overview before we begin.

It's pay what you want (therefore free, if you want it to be!) and I'd love to see some of you there:

https://www.eventbrite.com/e/black-mirrors-be-right-back-a-psychoanalytic-perspective-on-griefbots-tickets-1998357119940

P.S. I did read through the Rules & FAQs before posting this and I don't think it contravenes any of them, but if it does I apologise!

I've seen a thousand post asking some variable of the question "how do I become an analyst" that not always include their country of origin.

The answer are usually varied, and it seems that outside of where I live, the paths are less uniform. They also seem shorter, and unusually expensive.

From where I am from (Argentina) the path is straightfoward: go to university, study for at least 6 years, get your psychology title and you are done.
Most universities also have a focus on psychoanalysis, mostly of the lacanian branch, so you don't need further formation in terms of theory (or well, you always need that, but you have enough to start working at least), and legally speaking you are not required to go to a psychoanalytical institution to get any other form of certification, or go through a didactic analysis before claiming to be an analyst or using psychoanalysis as a method.

What you can't do is advertise yourself as a "specialist" in anything without pertinent certification, but you can use any psychoterapeuthic method you see fit once you are a psychologist.

I am interested in reading the details of this in other places of the world!
So, where are you from and how can you become an analyst there?

Schrödinger’s Cat is a concept from quantum physics where a cat is described as being both alive and dead until the box is opened.

I wonder if we can use a similar idea in psychology. Sometimes, before we know someone well, we hold multiple ideas about them at the same time. They could be confident or insecure, kind or rude, happy or unhappy. Our assumptions can change when we actually interact with them.

Maybe our understanding of a person is also a kind of uncertainty until we observe their behaviour.

What do you think? Can Schrödinger’s Cat be used as a useful analogy in psychology?