Have you had the experience of being treated for a difficulty with either or both of these therapies, and what was that like?
Share as freely as you feel comfortable doing.
2006-09-15 13:36:43 · 6 answers · asked by semper 3 in Social Science ➔ Psychology
CBT is pretty kickass. From a general standpoint, it's one way to return locus of control to the individual. I've been there and done that, and it DID help a lot with MDD. It's weird to kind of police your own thoughts, but at the same time, it makes some sense when you've got something that impairs judgement / cognitive ability etc. And a lot of it is just really practical: "Pay attention to what things are different when you're feeling good. Try to recreate those circumstances."
I haven't really done psychoanalytic much: I think one guy started pulling that in one appointment, and...I just really wasn't buying it. I've got some serious doubts about the theory behind it and all, so....I'm just all around not a fan.
2006-09-15 21:11:21 · answer #1 · answered by Atropis 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Some theories of psychology work better with certain issues presented in a therapeutic setting. CBT, for example, works well for controlling specific problematic behaviors such as smoking or overeating. While psychoanalysis is used to gain more insight into the overall personality of an individual that will hopefully lead to different ways of doing/thinking/feeling/etc. that will improve the mental health of that person. Also, CBT is used in settings where the therapeutic relationship is expected to be more short-term, while psychoanalysis based therapies are used for more long-term services.
2006-09-16 07:44:52 · answer #2 · answered by julie_shannon 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I believe that both of the therapies are far too lenient and are always leaning to the side of caution.
Social behaviour therapies should be introduced as that is what society needs. It doesn't need anymore medicated fools who's minds were changed over the course of a week.
2006-09-16 10:34:37 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Both have its own premise. Both have benefits. Therapy doesn't always have to be one way, one method. The psychodynamics of any context is too complicated to include every detail or to ensure fairplay all the time. We dont' always know which application is the best at any one time.
On the one hand, we don't want to psycho-analyse until one gets para-lysed(heard of paralysis of analysis?). On the other, we don't want to assume every behavior action we take or not take is going to get us what we want all the time.
As we grow up (older is not within our control), we hope to apply character development as part of overall growth plan.
It helps if we stop seeing life as 'black-n-white' too much. "No one is good", says Jesus. He didn't say that to make us feel indiffernt or to run us down. He said that becos that's the 'truth' about humanity,so let's not be ignorant of a basic truth about ourselves. And that doesn't mean we don't set boundaries, learn new behaviors to deal with problems to ensure as much fair-play as possible (imperfect though it may be), take dif angles of perspectives, run the whole cycle of renewing behaviors, speech, attitudes, etc...
Until we 'think' our way thru, and our hearts are clear of much hurts/wounds, we arent' able to use our hearts to lead our brains into renewed living conditions with ourselves and others.
2006-09-15 15:20:37 · answer #4 · answered by thru a glass darkly 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The testing is moderate in the memory and eye vision to mind thinking, being able to remember, and place things in order in which they work or were precieved, thats all i can remeber the test was about 6 hours long.
2006-09-15 13:47:04 · answer #5 · answered by edgarrrw 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
well, i mind the best its psychoanalytic, but depend of the motive of therapie consult
2006-09-15 13:45:18 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋