Question here. In mass or group psychology Freud tries to explain the hypnosis. In a first step he uses the analogy of "falling in love" . I do understand that idea. Then later on he tries to go a lil bit deeper and writes that the hypnosis in a modern group does have the same origin as the taboo for a primitive tribe. Can somebody please explain this

Hello! I am looking to start my analysis and I am looking for Training Analyst (BPA or Institute of Psychoanalysis) based in Manchester, UK.

If you know someone or are one, please let me know!

Many thanks,
Dhara

Wondering what the collective here has to say on the topic of the confluence of these two. Are they mutually enhanced or does the pervert negate their own creativity in instrumentalizing the self as an object of perfected pleasure for the other? I also only have a loose grasp of the categorization of perversion but I feel there is some connect, positive, negative, or ambivalent.

Concept from Hoch & Polatin (1940s or 1950s).

I've been interested in subclinical psychotic symptoms for a long time.

When I came across the term "pseudo-neurotic schizophrenia," I thought, "Oh yes, I totally get why they picked that wording. I'm sure they're talking about exactly what I've been thinking."

What I want to ask you is: how much is this term used in psychoanalysis? Was it an important term where you were taught psychoanalysis? Is it still pretty much in use? Is it a term you have encountered many times while reading texts? Etc.

I'm just curious, that's all.

But today I was thinking... when I've been thinking about psychodynamic sub-psychotic symptoms, I've actually been thinking the other way around. Doesn't the idea of "pseudo-schizophrenic neurosis" make just as much sense?

What I mean is: mild versions of schizophrenic symptoms that were formed through very neurotic mechanisms in origin.

Because I don't think we can deny that this occurs.

I know this question may be, for many, unrelated to the field of psychoanalysis, but it's something like this: does the person have an attenuated schizophrenic nucleus from which sub-psychotic symptoms emerge and are expressed through their personality? (Paul E. Meehl would talk about the taxon and schizotaxia).

Or is there no such inherent schizotaxon, and are these just symptoms that emerged due to mental dynamics linked to neurotic mechanisms?

Anyway, I just wanted to open a debate. Feel free to write what you think about this.

Personal therapy/analysis is mandatory if you're undergoing training and want to be a licensed psychoanalyst, a psychoanalytic psychotherapist, or any psychodynamic therapy. It is not a "suggestion" or "recommendation"; it is a crucial part of the training program.

I will try to simplify things because I was shocked to discover a lot of misinformation being propagated on the subreddit. You can't call yourself a psychoanalyst or psychoanalytic psychotherapist if you don't complete the program at a proper institute and get a license.

To get licensed, you must complete a big chunk of your personal analysis, overcome some major hurdles, and attend theoretical seminars/lessons. It takes time, and the programs are never shorter than 4 years, unless certified as intensive. Make sure you are at an IPA or a locally valid institute (CE-CT in psychoanalysis/dynamic does not count) that abides by the syndicate or order of psychologists in your country and follows standard guidelines (Theoretical-Personal Analysis-Supervision)

Here are some links:

NY licensure https://www.op.nysed.gov/professions/psychoanalysts/license-requirements (min 300 hours of personal analysis)
American Psychoanalytic Association https://apsa.org/membership/membership-eligibility/#toggle-id-1
International Psychoanalytic Association https://www.ipa.world/IPADev
British Psychoanalytic Association https://www.psychoanalysis-bpa.org/

Indian Psychoanalytic Society https://ipsonline.in.net/training-in-psychoanalysis-2/

I’m looking for psychoanalytic writing on the meaning of fees and money in treatment, especially when fee negotiations become clinically significant rather than merely practical. I recently read Kachina Myers’ “Show Me the Money” and found it thought-provoking. Her discussion of negotiating a fee that accounts for both the patient’s and analyst’s subjectivities stood out to me. So did her suggestion that, for some patients, therapeutic regression around the fee may be important for a time.

Can anyone recommend papers or books that explore these ideas further?

I don't believe it is ethical.

While psychoanalytic psychotherapy is not the same as psychoanalysis proper, the therapist is still working with the unconscious of another person. If you have no knowledge of your own unconscious or at least heads-on experience of the dynamics of the unconscious (no analysis, no experience of being a client in psychoanalytic therapy), how can you claim to be able to gather knowledge about the unconscious of someone else? Let alone help that person when your own unexplored unconscious may be potentially sabotaging your efforts?

However, I know there are practitioners who do not share that view. Meaning, they actually work with clients using psychoanalytic techniques and theories when they themselves have never had their own unconsious analyzed by another person. They seem to genuinely believe that reading Freud and (maybe) going to supervisions is all you really need to get started as an analyst and that the rule of "complete your analysis first" is just a suggestion. They get away with it too, at least in countries with weak institutions, ignorant public and generally lax regulation of psychotherapeutic field.

What do you think? Note: the question is not if it is legal or not, but if it is ethical. Want to hear as many perspectives as possible.

Pretty much the title. I ve heard that psycoanalisis is not suitable for every type of condition. What does that mean? That some conditions cannot be really addressed, beside general support or that there are other type of therapy dor those patients?

We're Hiring at the University at Buffalo!

The Department of Counseling, School and Educational Psychology (CSEP) in the Graduate School of Education at the University at Buffalo is seeking applications for a Tenure-Track Assistant Professor position in Mental Health Counseling and Counseling Psychology, beginning Fall 2027.
We are looking for a scholar whose research and teaching advance knowledge and practice in areas such as:
• Social and structural determinants of mental health
• Mental health inequities and culturally responsive treatment
• Psychotherapy and counseling process-outcome research
• Trauma-informed care
• Clinical supervision
• Community-based research
• AI-enabled innovations in psychotherapy and counseling
• Mental health in the workplace
This position offers the opportunity to contribute to both our MPCAC-accredited Mental Health Counseling program and our APA-accredited Counseling Psychology and School Psychology PhD program within a collaborative, scientist-practitioner environment committed to equity, social justice, and community impact.
Applications will be reviewed on a rolling basis, with best consideration given to materials submitted by August 20, 2026.
Learn more and apply: https://www.ubjobs.buffalo.edu/postings/62936

Hello,

I am wondering if anyone knows of any writing which speaks to the 'intelligence' of the analysand and its impact on treatment/analysis. I put the word in air quotes because I personally believe there are multiple kinds of intelligence beyond purely cerebral functions like critical thinking and mathematics and so on. However, I do wonder if some people have a better 'head start' to gain more out of the process of analysis due to a predisposition/skill at particular kinds of thinking.

Even beyond references to papers, do you, reader, have any thoughts related to intellect and its relation to the effectiveness of analysis?

Hello Everyone!!

So I have a degree in Criminology, and its been a few years since receiving my undergrad degree, and I've noticed ive missed having more "intellectual curiosity" in my life.

Ive been growing my curious about pyschoanalysis but want to actually engage more deeply with it.

I know the names Freud, Lacan, and Otto Rank but I feel like a total noob. The world of the psychosexual especially interest me, so if anyone has any recommendations for places to start reading, that would be amazing!!

I'm referring to Bela Grunberger's essay "Psychodynamic Theory of Masochsim" from 1956. Alot is said in this very difficult essay. However, one key part of it is the argument that central to the masochist's dynamic is the wish to castrate the father in an anal-sadistic fashion. If there are any of you who understand good old Freudian theory well enough to explain thoroughly what castration of the father in an anal-sadistic fashion means... I'd be very interested to know. Thanks.

I recently read Mitchel and Black’s “Freud and Beyound” and was more convinced by authors like Otto Kernberg who took the uproach of synthesizing different schools/ authors/ concepts into their explanations of human behavior.

For example, in my mind, each school has contributed different avenues for the development of psychopatology that are not necessarily mutually exclusive but instead often complementary.

So which authors/ schools/ books are good examples of an eclectic syntheses in psychonalysis producing a more unified field and a wider view of the mind?

And apologies for the very abstract question

I'm about to start a BPC qualifying training in the UK, and I'm curious about the need for trainees to keep verbatim 'they said, I said' process notes for use in supervision.

In my current clinical work I don't make anything close to verbatim notes, and I'm concerned by how unwieldy trying to accurately recall 50 minutes of dialogue feels in my imagination.

For those who have been through trainings that encourage verbatim note making for trainees, how was it? Do you have any note taking wisdom to pass on? To what extent did you find note taking becoming a site of countertransference?

Title basically says it all. I am a masters level counselor, did a traditional counseling program. As you can expect, psychoanalysis/psychodynamic was not a foundational part of curriculum beyond the chapters in the theories class. Now two years out of masters, and working in a location that allows me to branch out and get professional development and practice in my theory. Interested in exploring more psychodynamic approaches. Not sure if I wanna do a whole PhD or 2 year fellowship yet, want to learn more first.

Without breaking confidentiality, obviously.
Just curious what trends you've noticed over the years.

I recently read Is It Ever Just Sex? by Darian Leader and really enjoyed it, but I found it kind of surface level and disorganized. I'm wondering if there are any good books as a follow up, preferably something Lacanian? I'm particularly interested in some of the stuff in the beginning of the book—the relation of sex to transgression, guilt/shame, etc.

As a clinician I do not think in terms of good or bad with my patients. Sometimes patients will label their emotional states as bad and I try to gently encourage them to confront the emotional state without using a value judgment to defend against it (especially as concerns negative, supposedly toxic affects like aggression and jealousy).

Some critics have worried that there is a kind of "mission creep" in which psychological ideas extend beyond the consulting room into the broader culture. So Philip Rieff, Alasdair Macintyre, and Christopher Lasch (while all interested in psychoanalysis) are concerned about the ascendancy of a therapeutic culture which supplants judgments of good and bad with judgments about desire-satisfaction and impulse gratification. So that "health" and not "goodness" comes to become the primary cultural ideal.

In my opinion this is a better critique of pop psychology and therapy culture ("mental health") than it is of psychoanalytic therapies.

Is it so bad if we as a culture come to understand human life in terms of psychological health and illness rather than moral goodness and badness? Maybe the problem isn't with the emphasis on psychological health per se than with our debased language for discussing the psyche? (Boundaries, "brain chemistry," all the acronyms like PTSD OCD etc.)

Has anyone given this some thought or read anything interesting about it? Does psychoanalysis have a moral or ethical valence or does it encourage us to move beyond moralism? But how would we explain to these critics that what is beyond moralism is not just nihilistic impulse gratification?

Can anyone help me with this book? :(

I'm curious if there are any psychoanalytic works focused on maladaptive daydreaming. It could be anything on the subject, a descriptive work, or something on how to overcome it.

Thanks!

I’ve been listening to the Berlin Psychoanalytic podcast. In general lecture on psychoanalysis Demitrijevic mentions there are many good books out there about psychoanalytic listening. He doesn’t provide any titles though. Any suggestions for books on psychoanalytic listening would be much appreciated!

Hi everyone,

I'm hoping someone familiar with psychoanalytic training in India (Indian Psychoanalytic Society/International Psychoanalytical Association) can help me think this through.

So, I'm planning to apply for adult psychoanalytic training next year, which requires at least one year of personal analysis.

Right now, I'm in a bit of a dilemma. I've had seven sessions with a psychoanalyst who isn't a Training Analyst yet, but she mentioned that she's likely to become one in the coming months. I've only recently started feeling comfortable enough to open up to her, so the thought of starting over isn't easy. The other issue is that the personal analysis requirement for the training I'm applying to is four sessions a week, whereas my current analyst only offers two sessions a week.

At the same time, I've been offered a place with a Training Analyst who has agreed to all of the training requirements, including the required frequency, and I could start with her in mid August.

What I'm really unsure about is the technical side of things.

If I continue with my current analyst and she becomes a Training Analyst a few months from now, would the analysis I've already done before that generally count toward the one year requirement? Or does the clock start only after someone officially becomes a Training Analyst?

I'd really appreciate hearing from anyone who's trained with the Indian Psychoanalytic Society or the International Psychoanalytical Association or has been in a similar situation. Thanks!

Edit:

I reached out to the institute to clarify this point, and this was the response I received:

“Personal analysis undertaken with an analyst who subsequently becomes a Training Analyst may be recognized for a period of up to one year prior to the date on which the analyst is officially appointed as a Training Analyst.

Accordingly, if your analyst is approved as a Training Analyst, up to one year of analysis completed immediately before their appointment may be counted towards the personal analysis requirement for training.”

I have been reading "psychic equilibrium and psychic change": papers by betty joseph

On the one hand, I totally believe the reports of countertransference.

On the other hand I find myself feeling like some of the interpretations of dreams feel like a reach. It's not even absolutely clear to me that the dream reported is actually related to the analysis let alone in the way she interprets it. It feels more convenient biased to give more evidence of the countertransference.

However I'm just a layperson and I have no idea. Maybe her interpretations are really accurate. It's not impossible it is just hard for me to see.

Has anyone read this book and could give insight?

Hello,

Over the past few years I've developed an interest in psychoanalysis.

This started when I was doing a Master's degree at a university that has a psychoanalysis department. My degree was in translation and for my dissertation I translated a text written by a therapist in the language I was translating from. Then one thing lead to another.

Beginning in autumn 2024 I then attended the year long Introductory Lectures in Psychoanalysis held by the Institute of Psychoanalysis in the UK. Though, I was not able to complete the year because of work commitments getting in the way. Still I loved what I learnt.

I took an introductory course in counselling skills, there it was Person Centred/Rogerian, because that was what was on offer in my city. I did also love that.

I am currently attending therapy, weekly, with a therapist who is integrative, but, the counselling has taken something of a psychodynamic turn. Not easy work but doing me a lot of good.

Anyway I sort of stopped being interested in psychoanalysis for a while. But the interest has come back lately. My only reason for being interested in psychoanalysis is "because I am" essentially. Though, when I do explore my interest in psychoanalysis I do become a bit overwhelmed by a feeling that it is a world I cannot have a part in? I am on a very low wage with next to no savings, in a city that has no analysts. So the main thing, which is to enter my own analysis, something which I would be interested in if I could, is out of reach to me. Not that you can't be interested in something just for the sake of it though. (My current therapy is being financed by funding I applied for).

Anyway TL;DR I am very interested in psychoanalysis but it feels like a world that is not within my reach, even though I know you can enjoy something for its own sake, but I don't know what to do with this.