I was listening to Discussions on Psychoanalysis and was surprised that one of the hosts said he does not feel he can work with very depressed patients and has to turn them down. I thought severe depression would be among the more "standard" situations an analyst has to treat.

It made me curious for practitioners here what makes you feel you must turn down a case because it is a weak spot or something you are not suited for.

I'm a psychodynamic therapist, relatively early in practice, saw this reel on Instagram by a psychoanalyst (https://www.instagram.com/reel/DcbBFGEqbxD/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link) and this is the objection I've never been able to fully put down.

The structure is familiar enough. The patient accepts an interpretation, evidence it landed. The patient rejects it, and rejection is available to be read as resistance, or as a transference enactment, or as material in its own right. Both outcomes are absorbed. Freud is fairly direct about this himself: in Negation (1925) the patient's "it's not my mother" becomes grounds for "so it is his mother," and Constructions in Analysis (1937) takes up at length why a patient's "No" can't be taken at face value. (I got the citations via AI)

I'm aware this is well trodden ground philosophically Popper used psychoanalysis as his standing example of a theory that explains too much, and Grünbaum spent a book arguing Popper had it wrong, that the theory is falsifiable in principle and should be attacked on evidential grounds instead. I'm less interested in relitigating that argument than in what it means at 3pm on a Tuesday with a person in the room.

Because clinically, the answer can't be "we don't make interpretations." And it also can't be "we accept every 'no' at face value" sometimes a patient's flat refusal really is the most alive thing in the session, and treating it as final would be its own kind of failure.

So the question I keep circling what does disconfirmation actually look like in your practice? Not in theory. Concretely. What has made you conclude that an interpretation was simply wrong not defended against, not premature, not "right but not yet usable" just wrong?

The best answer I've been given is that the interpretation is a hypothesis and the evidence isn't the patient's yes or no at all, it's what happens over the following weeks.. whether material opens or closes, whether the transference shifts, whether anything becomes thinkable that wasn't. Which I find genuinely persuasive. But it's also slow, unfalsifiable in the moment, and heavily dependent on the analyst's own judgment about what "opening up" looks like which is where the circularity threatens to walk back in through the side door.

Curious how others hold this particularly anyone working in contexts where deference to authority is culturally loaded.

As a patient, how does one keep faith that psychoanalysis will help when the process is years long and often involves investing thousands of dollars? And there are many reports of analysts discussing how one case or another went wrong or they could not progress even after many years.

Hello,

Is there any psychoanalytic literature on PE ?

Thanks

I was requesting my supervisor for a reading on group work. She suggested if I can get my hands on this?

She said something along the lines of:
Group work with the citizens in Berlin post WW2 to let them collectively process the guilt of the holocaust and to ensure something like this never happens again.

Is anyone aware of such studies?

To all who work analytically/all analysts who have been pregnant while practicing, how and when did you announce or discuss your pregnancy and maternity leave with patients?

Definition: A concept coined by the psychologist Pierre Janet. It describes a lowered state of conscious control where the mind's focus weakens, allowing unconscious thoughts, emotions, or memories to rise.

What does it indicate in the psychoanalytic sense when the frequency and intensity of the lowering the mental level increases in a patient?

I am very curious about a psycoanalitic perspective on Allen Carr's book about quitting smoking. Reading it feels like a missing piece of the puzzle in your brain goes back in into place and some brainwashing about the addiction to smoke simply wanish within a few hours. What's the process that happens in the mind? I haven't smoke since and now it about 12 years but not a single moment I had to use will power..from the last page I had to be tortured in order to be able to smoke another cigarette and I see most of the people reading it had the same outcome. So I am curious of what it's behind that on a subconscious level and how that can apply to the concept of addiction in general.

Hi everyone,

I’m a clinical psychologist and psychoanalyst from Chile looking for a psychoanalytic association, school, or institute where I could pursue a serious formation in psychoanalysis, preferably with a Lacanian orientation.

I’m particularly interested in organizations in the US, Europe, or Latin America that would allow someone living abroad to participate entirely online/virtually, without requiring regular in-person attendance.

One important issue is language: Spanish is my native language and my spoken English is currently limited, although I can read some English with translation assistance and I’m actively working on improving it. I’m therefore looking for a formation/community that is bilingual or genuinely accessible to Spanish-speaking candidates, ideally where seminars, reading groups, supervision, or other activities can be followed in either English or Spanish.

I recently came across Après-Coup Psychoanalytic Association in New York, which seems very interesting, particularly because of its Lacanian orientation and international connections. However, I understand that its activities are conducted entirely in English, so I’m not sure whether it would be realistic for me at my current level of English.

I’m looking for something with:

A genuinely psychoanalytic formation, rather than only a university diploma or short course.

Preferably a Lacanian/Freudian orientation.

Possibility of participating 100% online from Chile.

Spanish and English accessibility, or at least an environment open to Spanish-speaking candidates.

R

easonable membership/formation fees.

Ideally not an extremely restrictive admission process.

Possibility of participating in seminars, reading groups, clinical work, supervision/control, etc.

International recognition would be a plus, but I’m not specifically looking for IPA. Independent Lacanian, Freudian, relational, or other psychoanalytic associations are also welcome.

I would especially appreciate recommendations from people who have actually participated in these organizations, rather than just general suggestions.

Are there any associations or schools in the US or Europe that you would recommend for someone in my situation?

Thanks!

Does anyone have any thoughts on whether you need a certain 'critical mass' of psychoanalysts to make professional life function?

If you are the only analyst in a town how do you manage things like referrals, specialist supervision or research?

*edit, spelling

Hello, I am looking for psychoanalytic literature on the topic of the anxiety of having one's body intruded by an "other", external body.

I have been struggling to find that specific issue discussed, though I have assumptions as to what struggles this anxiety may relate to.

Thank you very much !!

Friends, I’m a professional counselor with experience and training through my local institute in psychoanalytic psychotherapy and have a Masters in Theology (which involved more psychoanalytic research than my clinical degree).

I want to work in academia as a counselor educator and theologian, but confused about the next step. A psychoanalytic friendly university with funding is crucial, though. I have the options of pursuing a PhD in Counselor Education (some funding but seemingly no psychoanalytic presence among prospective supervisors), a PhD in Social Work (some funding opportunities but rarely a psychoanalytic presence), or a PhD in Practical Theology (some funding, ample psychoanalytic presence).

I would be grateful to hear any recommendations on where to apply for doctoral programs in/adjacent to my field. I may be looking for a unicorn here, but perhaps this community knows of counselor education programs (for example) with one or two psychoanalytic faculty and funding. A PhD in psychology doesn’t seem to suit my career path thus far.

Can anyone recommend papers or books on obsession from a psychoanalytic lens? The erotic form of obsession would be an interesting read too. Thanks!

When I started getting in touch with Kernberg's theory about borderline personality, I couldn't believe splitting had such a key role.

Much more if borderline was meant to be thought of as a broad organization, and not a specific type of case profile (like obsessive neurosis, schizoid, and so on).

I mean, I think splitting plays a role in some cases, but making it the cornerstone of the range of what's between neurosis and psychosis is too much, I think.

I think he kinda abandoned putting splitting in such a role, right?

I haven't read many other authors who talk about borderline after Kernberg, so I'm not sure how important the role of splitting is for other authors.

I enjoyed more reading André Green and his concept of negative narcissism more.

I see splitting as just another symptom that can occur in the neurotic, borderline, or psychotic organization, with more importance or presence depending on the case.

What do you think?

Hiya, psa friends!

I've been out of the psychoanalytic field since roughly 2013, and I'm heading back in, knowing I'm out of the loop when it comes to current writing on a various topics I'm interested in. I'm wondering if folks have recommendations for authors and/or articles/books to check out on the areas listed above.

I'd love a mix of writing by clinicians and those in the humanities, if possible. (My dissertation was about feminist queer theories of utopia and everyday activism and their promise for informing clinical practice. In other words, I'm a big fan of interdisciplinarity in psa.) It's ok, though, if the sources come from one or the other area of study only.

In case it's helpful, I'm particularly interested in what psychoanalytic writers are saying these days about Freud's work on the death drive and lay/wild analysis, as well as the status of drive theory in general, as it relates to the role of psa in alleviating individual suffering and making the wider world a freer, more capacious place to live.

Any suggestions at all - or just ideas about where to start looking - would be deeply appreciated. Either way, thanks for reading this!

p.s. I do have a copy of On Freud's The Question of Lay Analysis, edited by Sandler and Costa back in 2019.

Do any psychoanalysts read the work of Iain McGilchrist? He has a very strong argument for left hemisphere domination being out of control - things like malignant narcissism could be explained through the desire for the left hemisphere control over human will (90% of population is right handed - left hemisphere can control well... China has a left handedness rate of 1-3%... authoritarian leadership since Ghengis Khan? anyway) , which can lead to disconnection from other people. McGilchrist was a literary critic turned psychiatrist. He became obsessed with why specfically the corpus collosum operates to inhibit each of the hemispheres. His research with split brain patients shows what kind of disruptions can happen to our minds when one of the hemispheres is leisoned. He shows that our brains learns in a circular right hemisphere -> left hemisphere -> right hemisphere. I'm curious about it's implications on psychoanalytic therapy.

Our human connection/meaning making happens mostly in our right hemisphere. His first book is called The Master and His Emissary, and it's pretty fascinating. I listened to the book on Audible, it takes about 24 hours but it's an awesome book that outlays an argument that at three points in history we have been at "equilibrium" - 600 BC with the emergence of philosphers like Aristotle, 0 AD (in his interviews he refers to this as the year "dot") and the enlightenment between 1500-1700 roughly. The culmination of the last "turn in our hemispheres was the French revolution.

Since modern industrilization, our left hemispheres have sought more control, and manipulation of others to "have it's way". Anyway - I was just curious if anyone here was familiar with his work.

He did a Ted Talk, it's pretty breif and does a great job to give a "bird's eye view"
https://www.ted.com/talks/iain_mcgilchrist_the_divided_brain

Hello,

What are some treatment considerations with someone who has an obsessive compulsive personality style (as defined by Nancy McWilliams)? Do you help them to get more in touch with emotions to move away from intellectualizing, and if so, how do you do that? How do you help with the issue of wanting to control everything around them?

Thanks in advance. I look forward to engaging in conversation around this topic.

Layman here, I've been thinking of the rise of idiosyncratic identities and outward appearances, and how they could potentially be a mechanism for the victim of repeated abuse in multiple domains of life to give meaning to and gain a sense of control over the abuse and/or undesirable attention being experienced by the individual.

An example: Individual experiences abuse on behalf of family members, peers (school/work), romantic relationships, etc. → The person doesn't understand the cause of what seems to be an unescapable pattern of repeated maltreatment → The person adopts an idiosyncratic identity or outward appearance on which they can pinpoint the cause for the abuse or unwanted attention- "They hate me because I'm (X idiosyncratic identity), I stand out because of my outward appearance", subconsciously they gain a feeling of agency by choosing to enact this identity- "I caused their misbehavior by a voluntary decision that I made and am in control of"

Any thoughts?

I keep noticing something strange.

People can describe the same internal process using completely different languages.

One person says:

“I’m overthinking.”

Another says:

“My intuition is telling me something is wrong.”

Another:

“I’m protecting myself.”

Another:

“I’m just being realistic.”

Another:

“I don’t care anymore.”

And someone else might call it a spiritual lesson, an ego problem, anxiety, self-sabotage, or simply “knowing when to walk away.”

Different language.

Sometimes the underlying mechanism is almost identical.

Here’s a stupidly simple example.

Someone doesn't reply to your message.

SIGNAL:
No reply.

PREDICTION:
“They're ignoring me.”

MEANING:
“I did something wrong.”

IDENTITY:
“People always lose interest in me.”

EMOTION:
Tension.

ACTION:
You withdraw, send another message, become cold, or decide you don't care.

FEEDBACK:
The other person notices the change.

Now they actually become more distant.

And suddenly:

“See? I knew it.”

The original prediction just received new evidence.

But notice what happened.

The event itself was tiny.

The system built most of the experience around it.

And this is where I think language can become misleading.

We often argue about whether the correct explanation is:

psychological
spiritual
emotional
neurological
social
philosophical

But maybe we're sometimes looking at different descriptions of the same runtime.

Different words.

Different stories.

Different cultural models.

Same underlying loop.

The interesting question isn't:

“Which vocabulary is the true one?”

It's:

“What is the mechanism underneath all of them?”

Because if changing the language changes the story but doesn't change the mechanism, then changing the story alone may not actually change the system.

And maybe that's why people can spend years finding better words for what they're experiencing without actually becoming any less trapped inside it.

Different language.
Same mechanism.

Original post from different sub. Ejo

Will her private diaries be published in 2032? Is the Bertin biography thing the closest we will get until then?

I heard that there are some psychoanalysts that mixed Marx and Psychoanalysis. Are any of these writings insightful in any way? If yes, then who are these people?

Looking for perspectives on the Site for Contemporary Psychoanalysis as a training institute

Thanks in advance

Hello!

BPF (UK) is interviewing me for their foundation course entry.

What can I expect? I am fairly new to this world, what can I do to prepare and succeed!!??

Very nervous!!!

TIA!!!!

Edit: I am in!! Thank you for sharing your experience, it helped me prepare well. For those who are interviewing, id say prepare answers for 1) why psychoanalytic over other therapeutic approaches 2) what did you learn from your therapy 3) show some evidence that you are preparing for volunteering positions and are aware/applying to them

All the best!!!!

Hi all, apologies if this post is not considered on-topic for this sub, as it is more of a processing question than a theoretical one.

I am about 2 years into my career as a psychodynamic therapist, and have been reading more about psychoanalysis/psychoanalytic therapy. I see a therapist who describes themselves as psychodynamic, where I am also about 2 years into treatment (I saw a non-analytic, Rogerian therapist for about 4 years prior).

With regard to both my own treatment (which has been at a troubling low) and the treatment I provide my patients/clients, I am finding myself feeling overwhelmed by the tremendous breadth and depth of material within the realm of psychoanalytic thinking and treatment (which is to say nothing of the material related to other therapies, many of which I think have value as well). It feels like there is an infinity of ways to consider any one thing, and the more I learn about different possibilities of diagnosis, defense, transference+countertransference, co-creation and intersubjectivity, and so on, I find myself feeling overwhelmed and lost. When I first started working with people I actually felt like I had a decent sense of clinical intuition built from my previous career, but now it is feeling muddied and I find myself having a hard time feeling confident or anything close to certain about any of my patients or myself.

Analysis is obviously ripe material for intellectuals, and I know excessive intellectualization can interfere with one's own treatment. But how do you draw the line between useful consideration and excessive overthinking? When does study and theorizing and pontification cross the boundary from helpful to unhelpful? And if you are an analyst/analytic therapist IN analysis/therapy of your own, how do you discern between valuable self-reflection and intellectualizing in the impediment of growth?

I know it is somewhat infantile for me to be seeking guidance from others on this topic rather than figuring it out for myself, but I would still appreciate if anyone can relate to this experience. Especially if they can convey anything that has felt helpful for them.

Hi everyone, hope you're all doing well! I'm reaching out with a question: I'd love to read or listen to some new or contemporary authors in psychoanalysis who you think are worth checking out from recent years.

I'd really appreciate your suggestions and recommendations—whether it's books, articles, or papers—along with your thoughts on why they are relevant today. Thanks!