I love your videos Rory, I'm trying to be a therapist myself and whilst doing my assignments your videos are so helpful at presenting the theories exc from a different perspective.
Hi Mike, Just to clear a few things up:- 1, I am not a psychoanalysist, my modality is Client Centred Rogerian, Bob who is sat on the right is an analysit. 2, This is an education channel and we are giveing exapmples of how transference may look , 3, Transference is not a 'pet theory' unless you dissmis the hundreds of books and thousands of research papers on the subject.
I've enjoyed and learnt from every one of your videos I've watched. I like the way you break down concepts and make them easy to understand, useful and relevant. Thanks for making them available on RU-vid.
I'm with you on this one Mark. These guys' replies show - yet again - the self serving nature of psychoanalysis. Don't be surprised when they choose examples of transferrence to suit themselves and dismiss others out of hand, including yours. That's how it works. Psychoanalysists self-validate their pet theories by attaching their own interpretations to whatever they deem to be significant. Techniques such as free association work in a similar way. Mike
4, Finally I am not running CNN, FOX or columbia pictures, I am a counselling tutor who is sharing my knowledge on my subject free of charge for the benefit of students. I have recenty spent many £££ of pounds upgrading my equipment to include high definition picture as well as sound ( check out the projective identification video , it is in stereo! ) Would you like a cup of tea?
Hi Simon, Hope you enjoy your training, I am glad you found this dialogue interesting. Bob Cooke is a very experienced psychotherapist and trainer, I learned so much in this discussion . Kind Regards Rory
This was a really interesting video. Im doing level 4 counselling and psychotherapy. I had no idea what transference and counter transference was til i watched this...I am covering this in my next part of my course so im glad im watched it as it makes alot more sense, great video :)
Mark, thank you for your feedback. I have played the recording back again and it still sounds OK although as you and others have correctly pointed out the audio could be better. Now as for your analysis of my response I would point you to to Freud' s apocryphal remark that 'sometimes a cigar is just a cigar'.:) I hope you enjoy the other presentations. Rory
Hi, I am reading up on the differences between concordant and complementary countertransference and also reactive and proactive counter transference. I understand proactive countertransference is a projection of therapists past onto client (as you have explained in the video), and reactive countertransference is similar to empathy, when our own feelings are evoked in response to the client. I am confused over the difference between concordant proactive countertransference and complementary proactive countertransference, please could you offer a simple explanation? I am a 3rd year student completing my BA. Many thanks, Bridget
Hi Rory Thanks for your reply, however you haven't addressed the points I made or Mark's original comments. What I mean by 'pet theory' is that the concept of transferrance is so vague and mysterious that it's left open for each analyst to decide what behaviour is an example of it and what isn't. No doubt a lot has been written on the subject but unfortunately almost no scientific research has been carried out. Is that a cup of tea and sympathy? Mike
Hi Rory, Side-stepping the issue again! But glad to hear you're Rogerian! Can I leave you with this quote from Rogers? "There is absolutely no need to make a special case of attitudes that are transferred to the therapist, and no need for the therapist to permit the dependence that is so often a part of .....psychoanalysis". .....and warmly recommend the video "Conversations with History: Frederick Crewes" here on You-Tube. bw Mike
This reply seems strange to me as you have just given a talk about transference and countertransference. Instead of checking out the facts of the person's comments that the audio might be hard to understand, you fire back with a rather flip comment "it sounds OK here" which seems defensive. Is it also countertransference to what was essentially meant as a helpful comment? I can hear your video but the room is overly reverberant and the way the video is miked does not lend itself to clarity.
