.
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
For me it was that my T has experience clinically. I think there is a different between learning something in school versus having applicable clinical experience. I didn't know mine had experience until after I started working with her, and we discussed it (she's my first T) and it's been a part of our work ever since.
So I'd say who understands it and who doesn't is those who have had experience but even then that doesn't necessarily mean they have done the "right thing". My T does a lot of couples therapy and I think that has really enhanced her understanding of attachment in adults. If I were in a position to look for another T I'd look for one with a theoretical orientation dealt more in using/analyzing transference or object relations. I think from a client perspective it is subjective as to whether a T "understands" or not because our preferences and transference get in the way
The only thing I think is reliable is to ask situational based questions, experience, etc. There are tons of things I've received education on that I've never ever used in my business!
So I'd say who understands it and who doesn't is those who have had experience but even then that doesn't necessarily mean they have done the "right thing". My T does a lot of couples therapy and I think that has really enhanced her understanding of attachment in adults. If I were in a position to look for another T I'd look for one with a theoretical orientation dealt more in using/analyzing transference or object relations. I think from a client perspective it is subjective as to whether a T "understands" or not because our preferences and transference get in the way
The only thing I think is reliable is to ask situational based questions, experience, etc. There are tons of things I've received education on that I've never ever used in my business!
I've always been confused about the concept of attachment in therapy, if I'm honest...from my frequent google searches, I always get the impression that using attachment in therapy on purpose is not something that has been extensively researched or applied. google searches (such as they are) always give me the impression that attachment is more something that has been used to understand what helps developmentally in childhood, not used for adults.(would love to be corrected on this) My old "guru T" supposedly accepted my attachment to him. new cowboy T, would not, if I were, except in the sense of...accepting where a patient is at. the other thing that I'm confused on, is the idea that there are such things as "attachment therapists." I live in a large city, and have researched pretty much every therapist available, and have yet to come across one who bills themselves as attachment oriented in any way. My T bills himself on his website among other things, as a C who can help to deal with "unresolved attachment issues" -and yet his primary focus is CBT and SFT. He does not accept attachment, as such. In fact, when I told him that I was not particularly attached to him, his response recently was "good, that means the realtionship is healthy." I'm still real confused on the issue! Real confused! I've been struggling, big time, with therapy, and I just don't know if it is for me, but rather, just drugs.
T says he is good with being my "safety net." But clearly he is not ok being an "attachment figure in that sense. What I am sondering is, what if the whole question is really one of semantics? What if none of our T's *really* understands what attachment means for us emotionally? and, all of this being said- it still makes sense to me based on my stubborn cling to the books fo Conrad Baars. yarg.
T says he is good with being my "safety net." But clearly he is not ok being an "attachment figure in that sense. What I am sondering is, what if the whole question is really one of semantics? What if none of our T's *really* understands what attachment means for us emotionally? and, all of this being said- it still makes sense to me based on my stubborn cling to the books fo Conrad Baars. yarg.
Beebs, my recently ex-T was using AEDP (accelerated experiental-dynamic psychotherapy) with me, and I believe this might be the first type of therapy to be explicitly based upon attachment theory. So not only was she accepting my attachment to her, she was actively encouraging it through the way she worked. This turned out to be somewhat bad IMO, only because of my abandonment issues and how she didn't do enough to prevent them from getting triggered. The more I attach to someone, the stronger perceived abandonment by that person can feel. This is why I am switching T's now...not to find someone I won't attach to (I know I will attach regardless, whether I like it or not), but to find someone sufficiently available, consistent, and proactive enough to navigate around the abandonment stuff.
So I don't think it's so much a question of understanding attachment theory per se, or of working in an explicitly attachment-based format, so much as it is a question of whether the T is able to help a client feel comfortable and secure, regardless of the attachment stuff they are bringing in to therapy with them. In other words, *not* traumatizing their client by rejecting an attachment if it is there and pushing them away.
On the positive side though, for those of us who do form attachment relationships with our T's, it can be an excellent opportunity for healing, IMO. To be able to form a secure attachment, in contrast to the insecure or unsafe one we had as children, can help us make developmental progress and to grieve for what we didn't have before. As well, the feeling of safety we can get from having a stable attachment figure, I think can do a lot to help us heal from trauma. But those things could still potentially happen, almost automatically, with a T who doesn't explicitly work with attachment.
I guess I am interested in my future T understanding attachment though, because in my opinion so many of my most intractable problems stem from my poor attachment to my mom in infancy. And as well, I know I will attach to any T, and it helped that my ex-T understood where those feelings were coming from so I didn't have to explain them too much or feel to weird about them.
So I don't think it's so much a question of understanding attachment theory per se, or of working in an explicitly attachment-based format, so much as it is a question of whether the T is able to help a client feel comfortable and secure, regardless of the attachment stuff they are bringing in to therapy with them. In other words, *not* traumatizing their client by rejecting an attachment if it is there and pushing them away.
On the positive side though, for those of us who do form attachment relationships with our T's, it can be an excellent opportunity for healing, IMO. To be able to form a secure attachment, in contrast to the insecure or unsafe one we had as children, can help us make developmental progress and to grieve for what we didn't have before. As well, the feeling of safety we can get from having a stable attachment figure, I think can do a lot to help us heal from trauma. But those things could still potentially happen, almost automatically, with a T who doesn't explicitly work with attachment.
I guess I am interested in my future T understanding attachment though, because in my opinion so many of my most intractable problems stem from my poor attachment to my mom in infancy. And as well, I know I will attach to any T, and it helped that my ex-T understood where those feelings were coming from so I didn't have to explain them too much or feel to weird about them.
quote:Not everyone has attachment problems...Some people go to therapy with a feeling their therapist is a 'partner' rather than an attachment figure.
I think this is a good point to make, and for myself it took awhile to figure it out. When I first began therapy I had this idea that everyone was like me, lost in this desperate dance of disorganized attachment and crazy transference. In actuality, there are probably many more people who go to therapy with an entirely different approach because they don't have attachment problems and its not what they are seeking. Those kinds of folks just honestly need to consult with a professional to get some perspective on particular life challenges. They target those challenges, often within a relatively shorter time period, and then are fine to go on their merry way.
But a problem seems to be that the majority of therapists are only trained -- or simply prefer to work with -- the folks who do not have severe transferences or attachment wounds. (Because, let's face it, its easier. Those who have CPTSD or BPO are more demanding clients and require more of our T's.) They just are not comfortable doing it, and I think both discomfort and lack of understanding is the key for those therapists who think it best to ignore, deny, or discourage transference.
I have a professor right now who is like this. He is an LCSW and has a philosophy that he only agrees to see clients for 8 weeks at a time. If a client isn't showing progress by 8 weeks then he will re-evaluate whether he is wasting their time or whether they need to change things up and try another 8-week course. But he believes that long-term therapy is just stealing clients money unnecessarily. It is hard for me to sit in class without challenging him. I just cannot fathom that he really believes most mental illness can be fixed in only 8 or 16 weeks. It seems to me that he operates more like a counselor than a psychotherapist, working only with (in my view, and I hope this term isn't offensive to anyone) more superficial problems.
quote:Maybe there are exception, but I don't think there is any such thing as 'attachment therapists', except for children (example-RAD), and you are not the first I've seen here searching for one. I think to find an 'attachment therapist' one would look for someone who specializes in CPTSD/personality disorders, which often (but not always) someone extensively trained to work with transference. Or some focus on EMDR.
This is the conclusion I have come to as well. You can't find out what your T's background and philosophy is by googling "attachment specialists" but if the therapist has a lot of experience treating CPTSD or personality disorders then you can bet they have encountered plenty of transference and are more likely to understand it without freaking out.
My SIL lives in Flagstaff and she needs an attachment therapst and I found one for her in Flagstaff. However, I am in a major metropolitan area and there aren't any attachment therapists around here except for RAD. It seems, though, that you might find someone who is more accepting of attachment if you research "trauma" T's. There seems to be a lot more of those.
When I consulted with the trauma T over the summer, she mentioned that she didn't think (and this is coming from a T) my T had the sensitivity I needed. I went to a T last year and he said, in response to something I told him my T said, "ouch when you are doing surgery, you want to go in with a sharp knife, not a blunt knife."
If they themselves have not experienced a particular problem and cannot simply relate and then on top of it are relying on this theory or that expert, it's quite possible that you could find someone who doesn't have a solid understanding of attachment. All minds are not created equal.
My T and I have actually discussed the following. He has never experienced the pain of longing. At least not like I do. How can he possibly relate? Or begin to develop anything but an intellectual understanding of what I am go through. He would certainly never have an emotional understanding of what I go through.
My T's training was in CBT. He did not seem to have a complete understanding of transference and whatever understanding he did have of it was learned on his own or in talking to other therapists. He seemed to say the right things most of the time but did not have it all worked out for himself on an emotional level. His nonverbals often gave him away.
He shies away from the psychoanalytic stuff (and has told me so) and chose his graduate school based on his own personal inclinations. He seemed to have the same basic boundaries for everyone. He'd never attend a client's wedding, etc., that kind of stuff. I really loved that article you posted XOXO on boundary negotiation because now I see so clearly what happened between he and I. I can see how it would take a lot more work for a T to renegotiate their own boundaries in order to accommodate a client.
In my T's defense, he just got stuck in his own thinking. He's a human being. We all get stuck in our own thinking.
Experience has a lot to do with it, attitudes towards dependence and sensitivity. If your own T is highly independent, he or she may bristle at the thought of someone depending too deeply on them. Sounds like poor Cipher's prof falls into that category. That would be hard for me to swallow also Cipher.
What about the losses they have sustained in their own lives. If they have experienced some devastating loss(es) they may be reluctant to get too attached themselves to clients, which seems inevitable when you work with someone over a period of time.
Or they themselves may not be very emotional people and may not form emotional attachments with other people. T's form their opinions based on their own emotional makeup and understanding of the world and apply what they've learned within that context.
It seems to me that dependent personality disorder and borderline pd have common overlaps. If you've ever read the stuff on dependent personality disorder, the literature actually talks about not letting therapy go on for to long because the client will become too dependent, etc. etc. And that the therapist actually must bring up termination.
IMO, it goes above and beyond attachment and object relations and straight into developing that space between your emotions and your mind. Most of us are embedded in our emotional experience. We have an emotion and that is our reality. We can have all the understanding in the world re: our object relations but until we develop that space and the critical thinking and then new ways of behaving and feeling, etc. etc., we won't get anywhere.
As I have started to develop the capacity to mentalize, I am able to reflect on my own experience and make a "guess" about the experience of others at the same time or close in time afterwards, which is definitely helping me to become less "embedded" in my emotional experience.
I downloaded an "Expert's" treatment book re: borderlines and he said that "these people" will want to come twice a week but you can't let them come more than once a week. If you are a T and you are relying on that book, you could have someone who isn't functioning well and needs to come more than once a week but you think you are being a good T because you are following the treatment manual of a so-called expert. And you are being a good T because you are following that treatment manual. But maybe there is a missing piece.
Jeffrey Young, who is CBT trained, has developed his own treatment program for borderlines and he recommends that they go to therapy twice a week for three years.
Which expert is right? Which one has a more complete understanding of borderlines? Which one has a more complete understanding of attachment? Which one has a more complete understanding of object relations?
I'm going with Jeffrey Young but that is solely based on my own experience as an individual.
When I consulted with the trauma T over the summer, she mentioned that she didn't think (and this is coming from a T) my T had the sensitivity I needed. I went to a T last year and he said, in response to something I told him my T said, "ouch when you are doing surgery, you want to go in with a sharp knife, not a blunt knife."
If they themselves have not experienced a particular problem and cannot simply relate and then on top of it are relying on this theory or that expert, it's quite possible that you could find someone who doesn't have a solid understanding of attachment. All minds are not created equal.
My T and I have actually discussed the following. He has never experienced the pain of longing. At least not like I do. How can he possibly relate? Or begin to develop anything but an intellectual understanding of what I am go through. He would certainly never have an emotional understanding of what I go through.
My T's training was in CBT. He did not seem to have a complete understanding of transference and whatever understanding he did have of it was learned on his own or in talking to other therapists. He seemed to say the right things most of the time but did not have it all worked out for himself on an emotional level. His nonverbals often gave him away.
He shies away from the psychoanalytic stuff (and has told me so) and chose his graduate school based on his own personal inclinations. He seemed to have the same basic boundaries for everyone. He'd never attend a client's wedding, etc., that kind of stuff. I really loved that article you posted XOXO on boundary negotiation because now I see so clearly what happened between he and I. I can see how it would take a lot more work for a T to renegotiate their own boundaries in order to accommodate a client.
In my T's defense, he just got stuck in his own thinking. He's a human being. We all get stuck in our own thinking.
Experience has a lot to do with it, attitudes towards dependence and sensitivity. If your own T is highly independent, he or she may bristle at the thought of someone depending too deeply on them. Sounds like poor Cipher's prof falls into that category. That would be hard for me to swallow also Cipher.
What about the losses they have sustained in their own lives. If they have experienced some devastating loss(es) they may be reluctant to get too attached themselves to clients, which seems inevitable when you work with someone over a period of time.
Or they themselves may not be very emotional people and may not form emotional attachments with other people. T's form their opinions based on their own emotional makeup and understanding of the world and apply what they've learned within that context.
It seems to me that dependent personality disorder and borderline pd have common overlaps. If you've ever read the stuff on dependent personality disorder, the literature actually talks about not letting therapy go on for to long because the client will become too dependent, etc. etc. And that the therapist actually must bring up termination.
IMO, it goes above and beyond attachment and object relations and straight into developing that space between your emotions and your mind. Most of us are embedded in our emotional experience. We have an emotion and that is our reality. We can have all the understanding in the world re: our object relations but until we develop that space and the critical thinking and then new ways of behaving and feeling, etc. etc., we won't get anywhere.
As I have started to develop the capacity to mentalize, I am able to reflect on my own experience and make a "guess" about the experience of others at the same time or close in time afterwards, which is definitely helping me to become less "embedded" in my emotional experience.
I downloaded an "Expert's" treatment book re: borderlines and he said that "these people" will want to come twice a week but you can't let them come more than once a week. If you are a T and you are relying on that book, you could have someone who isn't functioning well and needs to come more than once a week but you think you are being a good T because you are following the treatment manual of a so-called expert. And you are being a good T because you are following that treatment manual. But maybe there is a missing piece.
Jeffrey Young, who is CBT trained, has developed his own treatment program for borderlines and he recommends that they go to therapy twice a week for three years.
Which expert is right? Which one has a more complete understanding of borderlines? Which one has a more complete understanding of attachment? Which one has a more complete understanding of object relations?
I'm going with Jeffrey Young but that is solely based on my own experience as an individual.