About Dreaming and Dreams andOther Things

• A Favor-----Please by Doug W., 12/5/98
  • (...)
    
    • Clarity by Vic Comello, 3/20/99
      
      

I'm interested in hearing some more about this discussion regarding dreams. The premises that guide dream interpretation should be clarified, not to mention how one goes about attempting to validate that one's interpretation is actually true. Also, this is another area of psychotherapy where the manner in which one approaches the understanding of dreams can be dominated by theoretical preference. Of course, if something is unconscious then presumably the patient or client is unaware and can't provide validation- We then can enter the same black hole of possibilities that occur in trying discuss whether one intervention is better than another. I have always found it interesting when psychotherapists talk of letting the patient validate an intervention. When I read what this actually means- the catch-22 begins all anew, because again it is the therapist's 'inferences' that then determines the meaning of what the patient has actually said.

If anyone took the time to truly consider all of the potential variables influencing a patients behavior inside and outside of a psychotherapy we might all be a bit more conservative about pronouncing that this therapy or that, or this intervention or that intervention made a difference. Sociologists have always marveled at how enraptured we become with our 'individual' psychologies (perhaps living in a democracy biases us in certain ways). How is it that in the discussion of case presentation material it is extremely rare to ever find any discussion that really attempts to fully explicate as many potential variables influencing a person as possible (rather than the one, two or three that a person's theoretical persuasion leads them to think about). While it is laudable to fully examine in the light of day what therapists actually do versus what they say they do-- examining the actually transcripts hardly addresses some of the very serious underlying difficulties in trying to address what changes human affects and behaviors. If nothing else, we should at least acknowledge that our brains (all human brains!!) are very adept at ascribing the wrong cause and effect relationships to what goes on around us. Lacking a clear anchor point for the experiemental validation of what we do, we should all be walking around feeling very insecure about what we do. I am of the pessimistic opinion that real progress is not going to occur until there is a very clear joining of psychotherapists with people in the neurosciences. It is unfortunate that the interfaces occuring now have primarily to do with medications.

The question I'm afraid will always have to do with --how many of our superstitions we have come to believe as truth. The more vigorously we inadvertently defend these errors in logic and reasoning, the more we assure ourselves of establishing a 'dead end' in our social science opposed to what Vic believes could be a steppingstone to a new understanding of the human psyche.

The scientists supporting phrenology published lots and lots of stuff in support of their 'science'. That makes interesting reading by the way. So do the frenetic defenses of the earth being the center of the solar system and the earth being flat---any dope can see validation right out of their own window. If you can't believe your own eyes what can you believe. The sun rises over there and sets over there. It obviously goes around us.

What kind of egregious errors can we be making right now that parallel the above. I'd bet a million dollars right now we are (gee, but how could we prove it??)

Maybe it would be helpful if I made a potential list!!!

• Uncertainty by Vic Comello, 3/20/99