NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #20/NN_1992_20.iso/spool/bit/listserv/psycgrad/3524

Text File | 1992-09-11 | 3.7 KB | 71 lines

Comments: Gated by [e-mail]
Path: sparky!uunet!paladin.american.edu!auvm!UNC.BITNET!FRESCO
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 16:54:00 EDT
Sender:       "Psychology Graduate Students Discussion Group List"
              <[e-mail]>
From:         "David M. Fresco" <[e-mail]>
Subject:      Anima
Lines: 59

Rick Adams recenbtly said:
>
>     In terms of psychometrics, since you raise the issue, I'm sure that
> you are conversant with such terms as introversion and extroversion. Were
> you aware that Jung coined the terms, or that his research in the areas of
> personality types and word association were generally acknowledged by the
> scientific community as the most sophisticated work that had been done in
> the area? If you have ever performed any sort of projective or relational
> testing in which you considered response time as a part of the overall
> criteria, you have Jung to thank for demonstrating this principle to the
> scientific community and providing evidence of its validity.
>
Yes, I have performed projectives (Exner Rorschach and TAT stop watch in
hand so to speak).  I've heard the arguments for timing responses, but
I'm not convinced by Exner's research that the data are that meaningful.
>     You ask if it is easier to tell a client that "he has a need for
> affiliation and social bonds" than to ask him to "get in touch with his
> elusive feminine side (anima)." Of course it's easier. But is it as
> meaningful?
>
Speaking of meaningful, what do you mean by "meaningful"?  From my
understanding of your position it sounds like the words exotic or
esoteric could easily be put in the place of your "meaningful".  Since
my primary language is English, I'd like to couch the formulation of my
clients in English too.
>
>     Neither the concept of the anima nor that of affiliation and social
> bonds are ones which may be easily understood. What, precisely, IS
> affiliation? Can you define affiliation in terms not only understood
> intellectually, but internalized to a therapeutic level by a client? How
> about "social bonds?" Assuming the client DOES understand the terms in a
> specific, versus a generic, sense - will that understanding help the client
> to affect change? Or will it merely provide more buzzwords and labels which
> the client can use to self-define?
>
Buzz-words?  What's more buzzy than a German translation of some
obscure Latin word with a little ancient Greek and Sanskrit thrown in?
>     With a Jungian approach, the concept of "anima" will be introduced
> in a more intuitive manner. The client may be encouraged to read mythology
> in which the anima is a key component, then the myths discussed in relation
> to the client own experiences. By relating the client's problems to those
> overcome by a mythological character a greater understanding of the process
> is integrated into the client's experience.
Why take the client on a history lesson?  S/he probably has a personal
history that could use sorting out.  Let them be their own archetype.
>
>     This approach may superficially seem "mystical" or imprecise - but
> is it really? The behaviorist (arguably the most "precise" system of
> psychology) may be able to affect change in a client through a system of
> reinforcement - but has the internal state of the client changed or only the
> external one?
>
This point seems irrelevent to me, not that I deny this "internal state"
Rather, I refute your assertion that only your insight-oriented,
psychodynamic therapy is capable of affecting a wholesale change in an
individual.  Frankly, it's a haughty position to imply with little
credible research to back it up.  (on several outcome measures:
residivism, time in treatment, etc.)
David Fresco