Utility of psychoanalytic training

[applicantwithquestion]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

I've interviewed at a few programs now which have talked about opportunities for residents to complete a two-year course at a nearby psychoanalytic institute concurrently with their residency. While I am interested in psychotherapy, my understanding had always been that psychoanalysis specifically is not exactly evidence based. With that said, should this be something I take into consideration when choosing a program?

 

[SmallBird]

I've interviewed at a few programs now which have talked about opportunities for residents to complete a two-year course at a nearby psychoanalytic institute concurrently with their residency. While I am interested in psychotherapy, my understanding had always been that psychoanalysis specifically is not exactly evidence based. With that said, should this be something I take into consideration when choosing a program?

As to your evidence question - there is absolutely evidence for certain types of therapy that grew out of psychoanalytic concepts (e.g. http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/pdf/10.1176/appi.ajp.2007.07040636). A key issue, in my view, is that psychoanalysis doesn't necessarily make the empirical claims that people that people say it lacks evidence for - analysts in our community frame the therapy as a rich process aimed at, amongst other things, identifying central aspects of personality structure, the role of prior experience in forming these, and using the frame of the treatment to bring more of this into awareness. There is no good evidence that after four years of psychoanalysis you're manic or panic symptoms will disappear but this is not how it is marketed either. It is completely up to you whether this is something you wish to incorporate into your career.

 

[birchswing]

If psychiatrists aren't trained in psychoanalysis theory, do they still learn about developmental models? I took a course in developmental psychology, and I found Erik Erikson's developmental model very helpful in understanding myself. It's one of the best classes I've taken. I feel like it's a great class for anyone, especially would-be parents. Seems like one of those things that should be more ubiquitous than it is.

 

[thoffen]

If psychiatrists aren't trained in psychoanalysis theory, do they still learn about developmental models? I took a course in developmental psychology, and I found Erik Erikson's developmental model very helpful in understanding myself. It's one of the best classes I've taken. I feel like it's a great class for anyone, especially would-be parents. Seems like one of those things that should be more ubiquitous than it is.

Depends. I'm sure it's required to be taught, but that does not mean it ever becomes practically useful.

To the OP's point, if you are interested, I think it can be highly valuable. Other approaches to understanding patients are going to leave you unfulfilled. While analysis is scientific in a sense, it is observational rather than experimental. However, there clearly is a whole host of complexity that we are faced with in psychiatric care which is not captured any other way. If you want to be reductionist and stick as close to experimental data as possible, you can do just fine without it.

 

[Unico]

If psychiatrists aren't trained in psychoanalysis theory, do they still learn about developmental models?

We certainly covered developmental models in medical school as part of our social science course.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[SeniorWrangler]

If you're going to go the intellectual, non evidence based road of psychoanalysis, might as well go full Jungian... it's awesome, and covers a lot of the bases that contemporary biologically focused psych residencies neglect. Just my two cents.

 

[WisNeuro]

If you're going to go the intellectual, non evidence based road of psychoanalysis, might as well go full Jungian... it's awesome, and covers a lot of the bases that contemporary biologically focused psych residencies neglect. Just my two cents.

Add in a Homeopath and a Neurochirooractor and we have a one stop shop for non-evidenced based practice! 🙂

 

[SmallBird]

Add in a Homeopath and a Neurochirooractor and we have a one stop shop for non-evidenced based practice! 🙂

Very different. Homeopathic medications claim to cure acute and chronic illness - they make empirical claims which have been falsified. Analysts simply don't make these kinds of claims about their process, and when they do there frequently is evidence.

 

[WisNeuro]

Not sure they are that different in my book, both rely on placebo for any realized benefits, most likely. I haven't seen this frequent evidence. Usually just anecdotal case studies of something like "curing" schizophrenia or some such junk.

 

[deleted736562]

Very different. Homeopathic medications claim to cure acute and chronic illness - they make empirical claims which have been falsified. Analysts simply don't make these kinds of claims about their process, and when they do there frequently is evidence.

Well, if they don't make empirical claims then on what basis are they supposed to be "effective"? And if they aren't effective, what's the point?

The thing is, albeit from my limited exposure to psychoanalysis, the explanations psychoanalysts offer for human behavior are pretty "strong" in the sense they really intend to describe objective reality and what is really going on and most often are quite objectifying of the individual, but at the same time, said analysts don't feel the need to ground their explanations, aside having offered such explanations and believed in them, which may be enough for them.

 

[nexus73]

Psychologists will act superior if you tell them you're a psychoanalyst.

 

[WisNeuro]

Psychologists will act superior if you tell them you're a psychoanalyst.

What about psychologists who are also psychoanalysts? Do they get to act doubly superior?

 

[nexus73]

What about psychologists who are also psychoanalysts? Do they get to act doubly superior?

Doubly at minimum.