Talk:Psychodynamic psychotherapy

Bullshit desciption
what kind of a bullshit description is this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.240.45.155 (talk) 07:34, June 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * i agree, im givin it a shot. people, please make it better. JoeSmack (talk) 15:56, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Completely disagree, this a great job, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.44.160.88 (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

mentoring
Influence patter, influence blather, influence prattle ...  is this the stuff of an encylopedia entry? >beadtot@aol.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beadtot (talk • contribs) 23:32, September 2, 2005

Pros and cons
I think this needs something on the advantages and disadvantages of this approach, and a wider-ranging comparison with other modalities. I can't do this, but came here looking for it and it isn't there. Nineteenthly 14:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Needs solid intro definition
The definition as it stands is presently is:


 * Psychodynamic psychotherapy is a type of psychotherapy, usually meeting about once or twice a week.

This is recursive and explains nothing. Will someone please fix this? --Sadi Carnot 23:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Same problem - I'm a lay reader looking for straight info on latest opinion/evidence on what works for what conditions. I'm a sceptic looking to be convinced. Glarner 16:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * i agree. this is a very bad intro definition, and the rest can use much work. Platypusjones 13:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic section removed
The following text was under the heading "Objective": —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Meco (talk • contribs) 10:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

This text I find to contain very little factual information, actually it's pure common sense gabble, so I removed it. __meco 20:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, lots of WP:OR too. JoeSmack Talk 05:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The contentious complex related to Psychodynamics
I believe I have found serious flaws in the Psychodynamics article which makes me question whether that article is at all valid and reliable. I have also nominated the related Category:Psychodynamic psychotherapy for deletion (see deletion discussion), a move which spurrred the creation of Category:Psychodynamics instead. However, this debacle appears to be all-encompassing as also this article, Psychodynamic psychotherapy, to my critical reasoning is founded on very loose thinking indeed. It starts by establishing regression as the psychodynamic foundation of this alleged psychotherapeutic discipline. To my knowledge regression is a psychological defense mechanism – hardly something you would want to base a therapeutic discipline on. There exists something called Regression therapy, although Wikipedia currently does not have an article about it, but I do not possess enough knowledge to ascertain if this might be what is meant here. The rest of the article seems to be an unsourced (the only given source is completely spurious) mishmash of other, established therapeutic disciplines leaving no clearly delineated definition of either Psychodynamic psychotherapy or Psychodynamics upon which this therapeutic approach is supposed to be based. According to User:Sadi Carnot in the ongoing category deletion discussion, this therapy was established in the 1920, so why doesn't the article reflect this? __meco 11:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Regression is indeed a psychological defense mechanism - the therapist uses it in therapy to divulge the original relationship one has with the original caregiver. This relationship under these tenants is repeated throughout life, a kind of a template for how to relate to someone. If it is maladapted (usually because of a troubled past), then the template is flawed and causes considerable trouble for the person when their relationships as they dilly-dally through life are similarly poor and fettering. Thus they come in for therapy. Does this clear things up a bit?
 * User:Sadi Carnot says it was established in 1920? Does he have a ref or anything? I'm thinking this user is going at it straight from Freud, and even Freud had his muses.
 * This article is indeed unsourced mostly; now you can see the difficulty of clinical psychology articles on Wikipedia. Mostly the problem is this: can you whip up a big plate of ego, regression or denial? Can you hold it in your hand? Can you tell me how much it weighs? Not only does it deal with the intangible, but theories around it constantly change, reform, and renew. It just isn't easy to write a clinical article. I wish I could be more reassuring, but never the less such articles are important! JoeSmack Talk 12:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the least we should demand from an article espousing to document a distinct therapeutic direction is some references to professional organizations, education, journals and so forth. The article provides no such citations. Instead we get references which carry the term "psychodynamic" in their title, however, this to me is very little in ways of such documentation as "psychodynamic" on its own is merely an rather generic adjective that I'm sure is being used across the entire field of psychology in various contexts, as well as within other disciplines with altorgether different connotations.


 * As for your explanation on the relation of regression to psychodynamics (is that in fact what you were attempting?), I was rather aware of these aspects of the term (except for your use of the word 'tenants' which doesn't make sense to me), however, beyond the prominent mention in the article, I see nothing that corroborates it being a central tenet to the discipline of Psychodynamic psychotherapy. The introduction of the article uses "regression" as an example of the "principles of Psychodynamics", however the Psychodynamics article itself gives no prominent place for regression. It is mentioned in the section on Jungian psychodynamics thusly: "The key concepts in Jungian psychodynamics are psychic energy or libido, value, equivalence, entropy, progression and regression, and canalization. Also, cathexis might be a word that conveys more relevant context than 'regression' in the way you focus on its relevance here. I have lots of other grievances with this article also, but I want to focus first on what has been introduced already. __meco 14:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe I meant 'terms'. How strange. I should have also conjugated that verb to 'are'. Sorry. :)
 * I think cathexis is a bit more towards pure psychoanalysis. Anyways, I think we can all agree this article needs some serious work in prose, direction and references. Perhaps at this point we should wipe the slate clean and start over? Anyone willing to take a swing and be bold? JoeSmack Talk 16:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I see User:Sadi Carnot is putting in an inordinate effort to improve the reference infrastructure for the Psychodynamics article, which I commend. Despite what may have been perceived by this user as an unforgiving assault on anything connected with Psychodynamics, I am in fact quite entertaining to the idea of collaborating on giving this field the best possible coverage which Wikipedia can provide. However, I still want the discussion to continue on which articles are in fact needed to cover this field properly. __meco 17:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I find the re-write of the article by User:DashaKat to be a tremendous improvement over the previous version. As it currently reads (I have emphasized a couple of points related to its connection with psychoanalysis) I find it to be quite decent. However, I still note the lack of references when it comes to any disciplinary infrastructure such as any professional societies, standards or journals. __meco 08:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Your compliments are well received on this end, and I thank you. My ad hominen was inappropriate, and unacceptable, while your response has been nothing but gracious.  My apologies are extended.


 * Mutual admiration aside, I appreciate your additions/emphasis, and agree with your concerns. The issue is that Psychodynamic psychotherapy is something of a "style", rather than a school of thought/application.  I suspect we could draw a line to people like Rogers, etc., but it would not likely be a straight one.  Thoughts? --DashaKat 11:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

why has a child cited their own essay as a source?
The tin. Why are people with no academic credentials putting their own essays as sources for this article? The technique proportion of this article has barely any content and what's their isn't sourced correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.203.171.16 (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussing evidence
"Psychodynamic psychotherapy is an evidence-based therapy (Shedler 2010) and its more intensive form, psychoanalysis is also evidence-based." This is not a useful way to discuss any intervention. They aren't either "evidence-based" or "not evidence-based". It should be replaced by the quality of evidence for specific outcomes, and the strength and limitations of the evidence. S C Cheese (talk) 11:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)