in the psychological dispute at times between the therapy schools. The representatives are sometimes extremely resourceful in mutual gestures of disparagement - what is that actually good for? An interjection from publicist and editor.
Michael B. Buchholz in his Psycho-Newsletter number 93 from October 2012 once again suggested “the bankruptcy of one's own behavioral therapeutic methods and basic concepts” () in the direction of behavioral therapy (VT). Even four years later, in the journal Psychotherapie im Dialog , Thomas Schnell () felt compelled to emphasize that there was no question of such bankruptcy, rather that the VT was in constant and dynamic state Further development. In his sympathetic attempt to compare psychodynamic and behavioral therapies and to do justice to both, Cord Benecke () claimed that psychoanalytic and psychodynamic therapies could presumably claim at least better "long-term prognosis". However, some people are already rocking their heads and countering that the results of the corresponding studies are not valid enough to be able to say that once and for all.
One can dismiss such skirmishes as purely academic disputes and presumably such trench warfare hardly ever occupies established therapists in their practice - at least this side of the controversy over medical versus psychological approaches. One can also say that such delimitations follow market logic in order to secure their own benefices, or purely sociological struggle for identity formation.
Great complexity
With all of this there is still basic problem solved, because with all self-assertion of one's own better effectiveness, there is “killer question” over all therapeutic procedures: Who wants to measure effectiveness “objectively” in what way? The individual psychodynamics that take place on biological equipment and develop in differentiated psychosocial environment with their biographical maturity gets into such complex real social as well as psychological world with the encounter in the psychotherapeutic setting that already in it - see the impossibility of researcher observation and the " measurable “evaluation from outside - an empirical analysis seems completely impossible. Systemic knowledge should be included as well as “constructionist” observer variables ().
in the psychological dispute at times between the therapy schools. The representatives are sometimes extremely resourceful in mutual gestures of disparagement - what is that actually good for? An interjection from publicist and editor.
Michael B. Buchholz in his Psycho-Newsletter number 93 from October 2012 once again suggested “the bankruptcy of one's own behavioral therapeutic methods and basic concepts” () in the direction of behavioral therapy (VT). Even four years later, in the journal Psychotherapie im Dialog , Thomas Schnell () felt compelled to emphasize that there was no question of such bankruptcy, rather that the VT was in constant and dynamic state Further development. In his sympathetic attempt to compare psychodynamic and behavioral therapies and to do justice to both, Cord Benecke () claimed that psychoanalytic and psychodynamic therapies could presumably claim at least better "long-term prognosis". However, some people are already rocking their heads and countering that the results of the corresponding studies are not valid enough to be able to say that once and for all.
One can dismiss such skirmishes as purely academic disputes and presumably such trench warfare hardly ever occupies established therapists in their practice - at least this side of the controversy over medical versus psychological approaches. One can also say that such delimitations follow market logic in order to secure their own benefices, or purely sociological struggle for identity formation.
Great complexity
With all of this there is still basic problem solved, because with all self-assertion of one's own better effectiveness, there is “killer question” over all therapeutic procedures: Who wants to measure effectiveness “objectively” in what way? The individual psychodynamics that take place on biological equipment and develop in differentiated psychosocial environment with their biographical maturity gets into such complex real social as well as psychological world with the encounter in the psychotherapeutic setting that already in it - see the impossibility of researcher observation and the " measurable “evaluation from outside - an empirical analysis seems completely impossible. Systemic knowledge should be included as well as “constructionist” observer variables ().
But this complexity is nothing compared to the fact that studies can research the after-effects of psychotherapeutically structured interpersonal events even years after the end of the therapy and would probably have to control what feels like hundred conditions. Who would want to assume such research position at all? Not to mention the question of the perspective from which the proof should actually be provided. Not even the pragmatic, comprehensible retreat to the position that only the client himself could be decisive is scientifically sufficient, because the client can subjectively declare therapeutic event to be unhelpful, but benefit from exactly this event without ever having to rely on the therapy to acquire. So Olympus cannot be reached either with video evidence in football or with this question.
This is also associated with rejection of overly under-complex scientific fantasies: Yes, the psychological process is one that is related to neural connections and every assumption detached human “spirit” belongs to the research field of theology, but the fact that the description of neuronal processes at synapses will at some point be able to depict the most complex psychological processes in therapeutically helpful manner can only be found in the dream world of people who feel overwhelmed by complexity seem to be. Wolf Singer has repeatedly pointed out that brain research will probably one day achieve an abstraction comparable to theoretical physics and can only describe grammar of neural processes, but probably never (psychological) semantics. Andreas Heinz and Gerhard Roth () recently pointed this out.
So maybe little more serenity will help all directions. Let's put it simply: Each direction works with its respective strengths - at least as long as there are no gross technical therapeutic errors and brutal offenses such as sexual assault by the therapist. The reference to the “general factors” explains this effectiveness of all perhaps quite well. And the rest seems to be at least difficult to prove empirically.
The general factors also refer to something that Thomas Bock never tires of pointing out with regard to psychosis psychotherapy (): He takes humane anthropological approach in which he claims that the therapist must also remain present “as person” to the person in need, and not only when it becomes necessary to exercise social control instead of therapeutic assistance, for example when third parties are at risk. In spite of all professional distance, point would be marked here where the therapist - whatever the school - is challenged “as person”.
But this complexity is nothing compared to the fact that studies can research the after-effects of psychotherapeutically structured interpersonal events even years after the end of the therapy and would probably have to control what feels like hundred conditions. Who would want to assume such research position at all? Not to mention the question of the perspective from which the proof should actually be provided. Not even the pragmatic, comprehensible retreat to the position that only the client himself could be decisive is scientifically sufficient, because the client can subjectively declare therapeutic event to be unhelpful, but benefit from exactly this event without ever having to rely on the therapy to acquire. So Olympus cannot be reached either with video evidence in football or with this question.
This is also associated with rejection of overly under-complex scientific fantasies: Yes, the psychological process is one that is related to neural connections and every assumption detached human “spirit” belongs to the research field of theology, but the fact that the description of neuronal processes at synapses will at some point be able to depict the most complex psychological processes in therapeutically helpful manner can only be found in the dream world of people who feel overwhelmed by complexity seem to be. Wolf Singer has repeatedly pointed out that brain research will probably one day achieve an abstraction comparable to theoretical physics and can only describe grammar of neural processes, but probably never (psychological) semantics. Andreas Heinz and Gerhard Roth () recently pointed this out.
So maybe little more serenity will help all directions. Let's put it simply: Each direction works with its respective strengths - at least as long as there are no gross technical therapeutic errors and brutal offenses such as sexual assault by the therapist. The reference to the “general factors” explains this effectiveness of all perhaps quite well. And the rest seems to be at least difficult to prove empirically.
The general factors also refer to something that Thomas Bock never tires of pointing out with regard to psychosis psychotherapy (): He takes humane anthropological approach in which he claims that the therapist must also remain present “as person” to the person in need, and not only when it becomes necessary to exercise social control instead of therapeutic assistance, for example when third parties are at risk. In spite of all professional distance, point would be marked here where the therapist - whatever the school - is challenged “as person”.
There is one observation in therapy research that is irritating, although it can be explained - and it is precisely this explanation that could provide another important indication of the complexity of the psyche and thus the need for variety of psychotherapeutic help: on individual groups of disorders Targeted specific psychotherapy procedures do not achieve any good effects on those patients in whom the disorder is particularly pronounced. This supposed paradox can be explained, for example, by the fact that precisely these people have such weak healthy and beneficial resources (in other words: there is too high degree of comorbidity) that they cannot implement specific procedure. If that is the case, it would mean that it would be necessary to work with these people in very “general” manner, i.e. not specific to the disorder, in order to increase the overall level of resources and to gradually achieve better resilience in life.
If such finding is combined with research on general impact factors, it would mean that psychotherapeutic work, especially with these people, would need long-term orientation and that they would have to be helped “as people” (in adolescent psychotherapy and not only there it is called “post-maturation”).
Fewer disparaging gestures
Of course, some will now object that in practice this is usually the case anyway. Yes, nice if that is the case. But even in the discourse it would be less important to fight one another. “Competition stimulates business” is slogan that is instilled into us every day in the capitalist economic system. It may be that competition sometimes stimulates business and here and there also provides new developments, but the really great human achievements did not arise from competition, but from cooperation. Language for example. In the sense of helping people in dire need and in order to be able to provide them with differentiated, cooperative offer of help in which every school with its strengths and abilities takes on its part, we could, so my suggestion, perhaps be little less effective in mutual disparaging gestures. After all, therapists know particularly well how destructive constant mutual hurts can have.
- How this article is cited: PP 2018; 16 (): 270–1
Address of the author: Uwe Britten Dresdener Straße 5, 99817 Eisenach
There is one observation in therapy research that is irritating, although it can be explained - and it is precisely this explanation that could provide another important indication of the complexity of the psyche and thus the need for variety of psychotherapeutic help: on individual groups of disorders Targeted specific psychotherapy procedures do not achieve any good effects on those patients in whom the disorder is particularly pronounced. This supposed paradox can be explained, for example, by the fact that precisely these people have such weak healthy and beneficial resources (in other words: there is too high degree of comorbidity) that they cannot implement specific procedure. If that is the case, it would mean that it would be necessary to work with these people in very “general” manner, i.e. not specific to the disorder, in order to increase the overall level of resources and to gradually achieve better resilience in life.
If such finding is combined with research on general impact factors, it would mean that psychotherapeutic work, especially with these people, would need long-term orientation and that they would have to be helped “as people” (in adolescent psychotherapy and not only there it is called “post-maturation”).
Fewer disparaging gestures
Of course, some will now object that in practice this is usually the case anyway. Yes, nice if that is the case. But even in the discourse it would be less important to fight one another. “Competition stimulates business” is slogan that is instilled into us every day in the capitalist economic system. It may be that competition sometimes stimulates business and here and there also provides new developments, but the really great human achievements did not arise from competition, but from cooperation. Language for example. In the sense of helping people in dire need and in order to be able to provide them with differentiated, cooperative offer of help in which every school with its strengths and abilities takes on its part, we could, so my suggestion, perhaps be little less effective in mutual disparaging gestures. After all, therapists know particularly well how destructive constant mutual hurts can have.
- How this article is cited: PP 2018; 16 (): 270–1
Address of the author: Uwe Britten Dresdener Straße 5, 99817 Eisenach
10
0
Do you want a website?