Psychodynamic Manual/Text

[BSWdavid]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Anyone know of a good introductory manual for psychodynamic therapy? There are many good texts available, but if you could pick just one text, what would it be?

Thanks,
David

 

[erg923]

Anything by Gabbard. He also happens to give grand round lectures in the psychiatry department in our med school almost every year too. He is a great speaker. I gues that why he keeps getting invited back...lol

 

[docma]

All of Nancy McWilliam's texts are worth reading several times. Wachtel's Therapeutic Communication is also a good basic text and covers a skill set that crosses theoretical models.

 

[psychmama]

Nancy McWilliams - Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy. Very accessible but with much depth. A classic.

Karen Maroda - Psychodynamic Techniques (just came out in the past yr).

 

[deleted343839]

I second Glen Gabbard. This particular text is very concise and aimed at novice psychodynamic practitioners:

http://www.amazon.com/Long-term-Psy...=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1281056325&sr=8-2

 

[Doctor Eliza]

I agree w/ Nancy McWilliams. She has a book on psychoanalytic case formation that is awesome. I used it as a guide when writing up a case study for publication. It was extremely helpful and I was published w/o revision!! 🙂


Dr. Eliza

 

[ClinPsycMasters]

I don't like Nancy McWilliams that much. She's too old school for my liking. Gabbard is better.

 

[docma]

What I value about McWilliams is her attitude and tone in relation to clients. Too many psychotherapy writers end up sounding like they do not really like clients and have a somewhat paternalistic or arrogant pathologizing outlook. McWilliams works with very challenging clients and doesn't overlook that fact but also is consistently hopeful and compassionate in ways that I believe are healthy and helpful for students. I think she does a great job of making it seem possible to use a classic analytic model and have it be relevant in contemporary work and integrated settings. And in person she is delightfully warm, authentic and funny.

 

[ClinPsycMasters]

What I value about McWilliams is her attitude and tone in relation to clients. Too many psychotherapy writers end up sounding like they do not really like clients and have a somewhat paternalistic or arrogant pathologizing outlook. McWilliams works with very challenging clients and doesn't overlook that fact but also is consistently hopeful and compassionate in ways that I believe are healthy and helpful for students. I think she does a great job of making it seem possible to use a classic analytic model and have it be relevant in contemporary work and integrated settings. And in person she is delightfully warm, authentic and funny.

I find your post deeply flawed, pathologically organized around deeply immature infantile wishes for soft-hearted therapist, a quasi-parental and magical presence that fulfills all your needs, specially need for love. In all my greatness, I do grant you the golden opportunity to lie on my couch five times a week for an hour ($399/hr) for 8-10 years, while I constantly frustrate your wishes and impulses (though I may entertain the idea of sexual intercourse depending on physical beauty--assuming you are a feeble woman with penis envy), smoking my pipe and looking ultra dignified. It is only through awareness of your deeply distorted feminized logic, and being constantly crushed by the refreshingly masculine fist of reality that you may after a dozen years of therapy, be cured. 😉

p.s. I know I'm distorting the classic view but it's done for a good reason, in service of my sense of humor.

 

[psychmama]

What I value about McWilliams is her attitude and tone in relation to clients. Too many psychotherapy writers end up sounding like they do not really like clients and have a somewhat paternalistic or arrogant pathologizing outlook. McWilliams works with very challenging clients and doesn't overlook that fact but also is consistently hopeful and compassionate in ways that I believe are healthy and helpful for students. I think she does a great job of making it seem possible to use a classic analytic model and have it be relevant in contemporary work and integrated settings. And in person she is delightfully warm, authentic and funny.

As someone who was trained by her, I couldn't agree more.

 

[psychmama]

I find your post deeply flawed, pathologically organized around deeply immature infantile wishes for soft-hearted therapist, a quasi-parental and magical presence that fulfills all your needs, specially need for love. In all my greatness, I do grant you the golden opportunity to lie on my couch five times a week for an hour ($399/hr) for 8-10 years, while I constantly frustrate your wishes and impulses (though I may entertain the idea of sexual intercourse depending on physical beauty--assuming you are a feeble woman with penis envy), smoking my pipe and looking ultra dignified. It is only through awareness of your deeply distorted feminized logic, and being constantly crushed by the refreshingly masculine fist of reality that you may after a dozen years of therapy, be cured. 😉

p.s. I know I'm distorting the classic view but it's done for a good reason, in service of my sense of humor.

Huh?? Are you saying this is McWilliams' view? If so, I disagree. But perhaps I'm not getting your joke...?😕

 

[ClinPsycMasters]

Huh?? Are you saying this is McWilliams' view? If so, I disagree. But perhaps I'm not getting your joke...?😕

If you look at the original post, you note that I am mocking the "paternalistic" and "arrogant" classical analysts/writers.

I still think that McWilliam's views are not contemporary enough but I do agree that she comes across as a compassionate therapist. I have not met the person, and this is based on the only book of hers that I have read

 

[BSWdavid]

Presently, I am reading Psychoanalytic Diagnosis by McWilliams and I have to say I find it quite difficult to follow. Perhaps it will get better, but I am having a hard to staying focused with it. I don't know exactly why but the book just doesn't seem to present the material in an interesting manner. I will read a page and have no idea what I read. Perhaps my ADHD is making it challenging but I need something fresh; I just can't get into it at all.

 

[PsychGraduate]

Psychodynamic Therapy: A Guide to Evidence-Based Practice, by Richards Summers and Jacques Barber. Easy to read, enthralling and relevant.

 

[docma]

I think McWilliam's texts, like Linehan's, can definitely be hard work, especially if you are reading them in isolation from applied practice and supervision. They begin to come alive and make much more sense once you are in the provider's seat. I'd say plow ahead and gain some familiarity with the language and concepts; then put them on your shelf for reference once you are in practicum or internship.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I think McWilliam's texts, like Linehan's, can definitely be hard work, especially if you are reading them in isolation from applied practice and supervision. They begin to come alive and make much more sense once you are in the provider's seat. I'd say plow ahead and gain some familiarity with the language and concepts; then put them on your shelf for reference once you are in practicum or internship.

Absolutely. This is why clinical psychology requires close supervision and mentorship during the training process.

 

[psychmama]

If you look at the original post, you note that I am mocking the "paternalistic" and "arrogant" classical analysts/writers.

I still think that McWilliam's views are not contemporary enough but I do agree that she comes across as a compassionate therapist. I have not met the person, and this is based on the only book of hers that I have read

Thanks for the clarification. I agree that McWilliams comes out of the classical school. What makes her different, in my opinion, is her compassion and lack of dogma combined with her ability to write clearly without too much jargon. Anyway, she's just one of many good choices.

 

[ClinPsycMasters]

As someone who was trained by her, I couldn't agree more.

At my college there are about 7-8 books by Gabbard (incl. older eds) whereas only a single book by McWilliams--Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy. Her case formulation book, which I was more interested in, I was unable to find at any of our libraries. I couldn't afford to buy the book (in big debt already for "required" non-psychoanalytic texts). It was priced at just over C$60 from Amazon.

Regardless, I still like to be able to purchase that in the future and add it to my library. I can remember looking at table of contents online and a chapter heading "Assessing What Cannot Be Changed" caught my eyes. This was years ago as I was contemplating entering a clinical psychology graduate program and reluctantly deciding to enter a very research-oriented program. I was under the impression that personality was set in stone and when I looked under the chapter heading, "temperaments" was listed amongst things that could not be changed. Personality wasn't!

I had found that behaviorism was very optimistic about the ways the human mind can change. You could be anything! Yet I did not like it. I found it dehumanizing and mechanical. I had a similar feeling towards psychoanalysis. Rogers, therapist extraordinaire, was the only one who saw people as people and deeply valued them. Psychoanalysts also didn't care about the person. Analysis was dehumanizing and impersonal, as if the actual relationship was between the subconscious and the analyst. The patient with his consciousness was in the way, an obstacle to be overcome!

I come from a religious background. Though I do not practice a particular religion, there is a spiritual side to me. I love the idea that we are not limited by our physical body. However, I think that becoming a being that is superior to our human selves would require that we first respect and value the selves we have. I think once you maximize your potential as this mortal self, you can reach the next level.

I know this all sounds abstract but I think I shortchanged McWilliams in my initial post. Though her views are not contemporary enough for my liking--as I mentioned before--her compassion and caring for patients as human beings really comes through. Going back to that memory of mine, I started looking at the table of contents of that case formulation book online, which led to me borrowing the only book of hers available at our library (Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy) and browsing through it. I couldn't believe someone classically trained like herself could be so caring. It is only when you read some other classical writers (not all of course) that you can appreciate the difference. My exaggerated and humorous take on such therapists also appears in this thread. 😀

I have come to the conclusion that though a particular orientation may attract more or less goodhearted future therapists, all schools seem to have their share of compassionate and understanding people who value and respect their patients/clients as humans first, as people with their own subjectivity, values, and meaning-making systems, and authors of their own lives.

 

[psychmama]

ClinPsychMasters- I enjoyed reading your post. I think I've shared many of your feelings about the dehumanizing elements that exist within a number of the psychology orientations. My primary orientation is psychodynamic, because I believe it does the best job of explaining complex human behavior. However, I've never been a fan of certain theoreticians who too rigidly adopt a classic analytic stance, and I'm left equally cold by rigid behaviorists, or even cognitive behaviorists, who want to reduce everything to contingencies and a behavioral chain, or to distortions in thinking.

Having said the above, I'd consider myself psychodynamic in formulation but more integrative when it comes to interventions. I pull from short-term dynamic techniques, family systems theory, existential/humanistic work, and also CBT. I think when starting out in psychology it's good to learn as much as possible about the broad range of orientations and methods. As time goes on and you become more confident in understanding and applying the theory, you often modify and combine aspects to complement your unique strengths, weaknesses, and beliefs. As someone who is still a novice, I think that's the process I'm going through now.

McWilliams is certainly worth reading, whatever your theoretical orientation. The Psychoanalytic Diagnosis book is a classic. McWilliams approaches much of her formulation and treatment from a personality perspective. Whether you agree with this or not, many therapists say that it provides valuable insight into the personality organization of clients.

Thanks for your thoughts!

 

[aequitasveritas]

Another good book is "How Psychotherapy Works" by Joseph Weiss. It includes control mastery in addition to classic Freudian roots. It's not an advanced book per se but you do need to have a a grasp of the more basic texts of psychodynamic therapy before reading it.

An extremely easy and very basic intro book is "How Psychotherapy Really Works" by Willard Gaylin.

 

[aequitasveritas]

also check out

Psychodynamic Psychotherapy: Learning to Listen from Multiple Perspectives
by Jon Frederickson