@@JohnDoe-in3ep You do realize how absurdic your statement is, right? Who is behind this "science"? Mark Solms is a scientist, he is part of the scientific community, yet he seems to be far from agreeing with you. So give me some names. I've never heard of any scientific agreement/consensus on that point to be honest. In the matter of fact, I cant think of any psychotherapeutic modality, which ain't influenced by basic psychoanalytic ideas. Please, help out with that. But one thing does crystallize. Only a layman, without professional expertise in clinical psychology/psychopathology can share such copy/paste opinion. Prove me wrong, would love to discuss it.
@@Jubidar Lmao. Psychoanalysis has been left behind in the trash heap of history, as a primitive idea. But even a broken clock is wrong twice a day. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoanalysis#Criticism
@@JohnDoe-in3ep Well, just as I expected. No evidences to back up your statement. I don't accept Wikipedia as a source of information. Plus, check by yourself how many of the critics on that page have actually anything to do with clinical experience with patients and psychology/medicine. You will be disappointed for sure. Now let us see what the facts are from the scientific community: Psychoanalytic psychotherapy is equally effective as other forms of evidence-based psychotherapy (e.g. cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT)). This is now unequivocally established (Steinert et al, 2017). Moreover, there is evidence to suggest that the effects of psychoanalytic therapy last longer - and even increase - after the end of the treatment. Shedler's (2010) authoritative review of all randomised controlled trials to date reported effect sizes of between 0.78 and 1.46, even for diluted and truncated forms of psychoanalytic therapy. An especially methodologically rigorous meta-analysis (Abbass et al, 2006) yielded an overall effect of 0.97 for general symptom improvement with psychoanalytic therapy. The effect increased to 1.51 when the patients were assessed at follow-up. A more recent meta-analysis by Abbass et al (2014) yielded an overall effect size of 0.71, and the finding of maintained and increased effects at follow-up was reconfirmed. This was for short-term psychoanalytic treatment. According to the meta-analysis of de Maat et al (2009), which was less methodologically rigorous than the Abbass studies, longer-term psychoanalytic psychotherapy yields an effect size of 0.78 at termination and 0.94 at follow-up, and psychoanalysis proper achieves a mean effect of 0.87, and 1.18 at follow-up. This is the overall finding; the effect size for symptom improvement (as opposed to personality change) was 1.03 for long-term psychoanalytic therapy, and for psychoanalysis it was 1.38. Leuzinger-Bohleber et al (2018) will shortly report even greater effect sizes for psychoanalysis in depression. The consistent trend toward larger effect sizes at follow-up suggests that psychoanalytic therapy sets in motion processes of change that continue after therapy has ended (whereas the effects of other forms of psychotherapy, such as CBT, tend to decay) It is therefore perhaps not surprising that psychotherapists, irrespective of their stated orientation, tend to choose psychoanalytic psychotherapy for themselves! (Norcross, 2005) ( BOOM! )
@@JohnDoe-in3ep Well, I certainly had psychoanalytic class at my university. There are and always have been psychoanalytic associations which promote and educate new professionals. Name me one therapeutic modality that you study at university practically. I don't know what you mean with "left behind", I really don't. Psychoanalysis has always been present from day one. And as you can see, professionals of different therapeutic modalities tend to choose psychoanalytic therapy for themselves. Look, it seems obvious to me that you have your personal case against analysis. This ain't new. Analytics have their idea why someone would be so resistant. I showed you undeniable evidences and asked you to do the same. Didn't get anything. I'm off now.
It seems that these two areas of interest - psychoanalysis and neuroscience - are viewed as separate, unrelated, fields of study. Psychoanalysts knew consciousness was a reality, yet, the tools were not discovered to explore the brain for evidence of its presence.. Consciousness is involved in both areas. Neuroscience delves into the area of the brain to determine if consciousness originates in the brain. Mark Solms has picked up where Freud left off, now that brain scans have been discovered and are commonly available everywhere in medicine. Hopefully, in the near future, psychoanalysis and neuropsychology (neuroscience) can interact to further their research together to form a base of scientific evidence. Such a goal would return psychoanalysis to medical schools for training upcoming psychoanalysts. The future of Neuro-psychoanalysis is up and coming, weaving together psychology , biology, chemistry and genetics.
If neuroscience gets to the point of elucidating the unconscious, neurological interventions would be less painful than psychoanalysis, since psychotherapy is emotionally and mentally draining.
What about interventions for depression that support people at key points where there are increased stressors? Often there is no recognition of any social origins of depressions. Even if some people are more vulnerable it shouldn't mean mitigation shouldn't be sought. If a government considers implimenting a policy, they should also consider the immediate and long term consequences and explain how they are justifying the inevitable human suffering of a sizable minoirity even if not the majority. For example if an immigration policy means a family is stressed and members are separated, there will be inevitable suffering which can have long term consequences on the health of individuals, communities and populations.
He did not say what neuropsychoanalysis is. If it is the discovery of the unconscious by psychology and neuroscience, this is not neuropsychoanalysis. Scientific psychology has discovered the unconscious in recent decades, and much of the current research is about unconscious processes. They don't need psychoanalysis for that. It's Kahneman's system 1, or Jonathan Haidt's rider. He would have to come up with something more to justify neuropsychoanalysis.
Didnt really teach anythiing. Depression !!!! I AM AN EXPERT Keep your ears and eyes and remember, the thousands and thousands of patients sacracrificed at the alter of science... Freud was on to something...In the Interpretation of Dreams.
Psychoanalysis has always been way ahead of its time. Mark Solms is a discoverer of our time.
Science considers psychoanalysis pseudoscience.
@@JohnDoe-in3ep You do realize how absurdic your statement is, right? Who is behind this "science"? Mark Solms is a scientist, he is part of the scientific community, yet he seems to be far from agreeing with you. So give me some names. I've never heard of any scientific agreement/consensus on that point to be honest. In the matter of fact, I cant think of any psychotherapeutic modality, which ain't influenced by basic psychoanalytic ideas. Please, help out with that. But one thing does crystallize. Only a layman, without professional expertise in clinical psychology/psychopathology can share such copy/paste opinion. Prove me wrong, would love to discuss it.
@@Jubidar Lmao. Psychoanalysis has been left behind in the trash heap of history, as a primitive idea. But even a broken clock is wrong twice a day. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoanalysis#Criticism
@@JohnDoe-in3ep Well, just as I expected. No evidences to back up your statement. I don't accept Wikipedia as a source of information. Plus, check by yourself how many of the critics on that page have actually anything to do with clinical experience with patients and psychology/medicine. You will be disappointed for sure. Now let us see what the facts are from the scientific community: Psychoanalytic psychotherapy is equally effective as other forms of evidence-based psychotherapy (e.g. cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT)). This is now unequivocally established (Steinert et al, 2017). Moreover, there is evidence to suggest that the effects of psychoanalytic therapy last longer - and even increase - after the end of the treatment. Shedler's (2010) authoritative review of all randomised controlled trials to date reported effect sizes of between 0.78 and 1.46, even for diluted and truncated forms of psychoanalytic therapy. An especially methodologically rigorous meta-analysis (Abbass et al, 2006) yielded an overall effect of 0.97 for general symptom improvement with psychoanalytic therapy. The effect increased to 1.51 when the patients were assessed at follow-up. A more recent meta-analysis by Abbass et al (2014) yielded an overall effect size of 0.71, and the finding of maintained and increased effects at follow-up was reconfirmed. This was for short-term psychoanalytic treatment. According to the meta-analysis of de Maat et al (2009), which was less methodologically rigorous than the Abbass studies, longer-term psychoanalytic psychotherapy yields an effect size of 0.78 at termination and 0.94 at follow-up, and psychoanalysis proper achieves a mean effect of 0.87, and 1.18 at follow-up. This is the overall finding; the effect size for symptom improvement (as opposed to personality change) was 1.03 for long-term psychoanalytic therapy, and for psychoanalysis it was 1.38. Leuzinger-Bohleber et al (2018) will shortly report even greater effect sizes for psychoanalysis in depression. The consistent trend toward larger effect sizes at follow-up suggests that psychoanalytic therapy sets in motion processes of change that continue after therapy has ended (whereas the effects of other forms of psychotherapy, such as CBT, tend to decay) It is therefore perhaps not surprising that psychotherapists, irrespective of their stated orientation, tend to choose psychoanalytic psychotherapy for themselves! (Norcross, 2005) ( BOOM! )
@@JohnDoe-in3ep Well, I certainly had psychoanalytic class at my university. There are and always have been psychoanalytic associations which promote and educate new professionals. Name me one therapeutic modality that you study at university practically. I don't know what you mean with "left behind", I really don't. Psychoanalysis has always been present from day one. And as you can see, professionals of different therapeutic modalities tend to choose psychoanalytic therapy for themselves. Look, it seems obvious to me that you have your personal case against analysis. This ain't new. Analytics have their idea why someone would be so resistant. I showed you undeniable evidences and asked you to do the same. Didn't get anything. I'm off now.
Fantastic interview, very informative. Nice to see Freud being merited for his ideas.
Thank you for the video. I especially appreciated the insights on the ubiquity of unconscious mental processes.
It seems that these two areas of interest - psychoanalysis and neuroscience - are viewed as separate, unrelated, fields of study.
Psychoanalysts knew consciousness was a reality, yet, the tools were not discovered to explore the brain for evidence of its presence..
Consciousness is involved in both areas. Neuroscience delves into the area of the brain to determine if consciousness originates in the brain.
Mark Solms has picked up where Freud left off, now that brain scans have been discovered and are commonly available everywhere in medicine.
Hopefully, in the near future, psychoanalysis and neuropsychology (neuroscience) can interact to further their research together to form a base of scientific evidence. Such a goal would return psychoanalysis to medical schools for training upcoming psychoanalysts. The future of Neuro-psychoanalysis is up and coming, weaving together psychology , biology, chemistry and genetics.
Great interview and underscores the need to consider Al information and disciplines in order to reach or attempt to reach a valid conclusion.
What a fascinating topic.
Fascinating! We are oblivious to so much!
Thank you! 🌷
this is wonderful. i feel so enlightened.
I really liked it very much.Very useful information
Truly a very lucid explanation👍
Helpful and fascinating
thank you
brilliant
Contradictory assessment with the straightforward explanation, well done.
If neuroscience gets to the point of elucidating the unconscious, neurological interventions would be less painful than psychoanalysis, since psychotherapy is emotionally and mentally draining.
@rf4life An intervention does not have to be surgical
Smart guy! From UCT of course!
What about interventions for depression that support people at key points where there are increased stressors? Often there is no recognition of any social origins of depressions. Even if some people are more vulnerable it shouldn't mean mitigation shouldn't be sought. If a government considers implimenting a policy, they should also consider the immediate and long term consequences and explain how they are justifying the inevitable human suffering of a sizable minoirity even if not the majority. For example if an immigration policy means a family is stressed and members are separated, there will be inevitable suffering which can have long term consequences on the health of individuals, communities and populations.
How can I join this society?
Ramon Solis Go to their website.
He did not say what neuropsychoanalysis is. If it is the discovery of the unconscious by psychology and neuroscience, this is not neuropsychoanalysis. Scientific psychology has discovered the unconscious in recent decades, and much of the current research is about unconscious processes. They don't need psychoanalysis for that. It's Kahneman's system 1, or Jonathan Haidt's rider. He would have to come up with something more to justify neuropsychoanalysis.
Didnt really teach anythiing. Depression !!!! I AM AN EXPERT Keep your ears and eyes and remember, the thousands and thousands of patients sacracrificed at the alter of science...
Freud was on to something...In the Interpretation of Dreams.
Waste of time, read Ponty instead
Which is more apartheid? Israel or South Africa?
This is quite off-topic, but for your question: Israel is not an Apartheid regime, so: South Africa is the answer.