Do Psychologists generally believe that depression can be inherited?

Odysseus

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

Crumbs. Take a day off and look what happens.

Yous are all off-topic! Way off topic!


(but I'm not going to do anything about it!)

Ah sure we where just taking the senic route, it just happened that there was a little detour along the way. All roads lead to Rome eventually;), however, point taken. I'll restrict my ramlbings after a qiuck answer to Hotspur's question, the short answer is I don't know enough about it to make any type of call on it, but I would have similar thoughts about CAT myself. However, I can be a bit of a purist, that and time constraints [we never have enough time to study all areas of interest] have prevented me from forming a reasonable opinion on it.

Resolve

Odysseus wrote: »

It was aimed at anyone in particular rather the contant, by that I'm saying I have seen similar threads go downhill very fast, so sorry if it came across as being aimed at the poster.

I'm wary of people who claim to be eclectic, it can be used to justify anything if you want by cherry picking bits from here and there. I wary not saying this applies to everyone, I have come across therapists who told me they work psycho-dynamically [for example], upon questioning they never even seen a book by Freud. I remember this old psychiatrist stating electicism is the refugee of the rogue, and to a certain piont I would agree with that. Then again I work in an area that does attrach a certain amount of "rogue" therapists, and we are often left picking up the pieces. However, I'm sure there are therapists who manage this well too.

However, with saying that I would use different modalities with different patients, my main area of study psychoanalysis is not suited to everyone or may not be suited at a particular time, or in the case of a an example of high suicidial intent i will have to move out of a psychoanalytic position.

I don't know about being boxed in by your modality, if your trained well you should be either able to work with the reason for presentation or posess the ability to recognise your limitations; and therefore refer the person on.

However, I do agree that that one should read and study outside of your area; it's a must if you are going to be part of a multi-dis team giving you the ability to interact with your co-workers or other agencies.

I'm not trying to trap you or anything but I'm wondering about your too deep and abstract comment about psychoanalysis, can I ask what type of training or experience lead you to that type of conclusion?

well firstly look into frueds meeting with the psychologist Gordon Allport and you will see what i mean by abstract! Secondly the reason i feel the more rounded knowledge you have the better, is in your comments about cherry picking. Now i respectfully say this, and i will put it in terms of psychoanalysis for you, INTROJECTION. you have become boxed into a certain school of thought! Comments like eclecticism is the refuge of the rogue? and you have mentioned you move out of psychoanalyisis for the treatment of depression??? I hate to say it but you are ECLECTIC?? do you deny that having more knowledge is a plus? because that would be a very strange thing for you to admit. the more techniques and therapies you know the better you are able to tailor to the clients specific needs... this is what i am saying. i take bits from loads of different therapies SFBT, CBT, Reality therapy, Motivational Interviewing, even existential philosophy i find works well. my training is an HNrs Degree in counselling and psychometric testing, H dip in Systems therapy, Diploma in business and psychology, also step 3 in Reality therapy training. what are your credentials????

Odysseus

Resolve wrote: »

well firstly look into frueds meeting with the psychologist Gordon Allport and you will see what i mean by abstract! Secondly the reason i feel the more rounded knowledge you have the better, is in your comments about cherry picking. Now i respectfully say this, and i will put it in terms of psychoanalysis for you, INTROJECTION. you have become boxed into a certain school of thought! Comments like eclecticism is the refuge of the rogue? and you have mentioned you move out of psychoanalyisis for the treatment of depression??? I hate to say it but you are ECLECTIC?? do you deny that having more knowledge is a plus? because that would be a very strange thing for you to admit. the more techniques and therapies you know the better you are able to tailor to the clients specific needs... this is what i am saying. i take bits from loads of different therapies SFBT, CBT, Reality therapy, Motivational Interviewing, even existential philosophy i find works well. my training is an HNrs Degree in counselling and psychometric testing, H dip in Systems therapy, Diploma in business and psychology, also step 3 in Reality therapy training. what are your credentials????

OK I think you may be taking me up wrongly, as you know tone can be difficult to gauge in posts at the best of times. I was interested in your opinion not challenging you. Especially in relation to the psychoanalysis comment as I was interested in how you would form such an opinion. I did try to state that of course my opinion cannot be applied to everyone who works in such as manner. I'm not familiar with that author if you don't mind would you explain the viewpoint a bit, as that was the nature of my question in the first place. Though I have a bit of time to try find stuff on the net later, but I'm wary of picking up stuff just from the net. Hopefully that will settle things down a tad, I will say it again I was not challenging your work as a therapist, regular posters here will know I hold an each to their own position and do not try to negate anybody's practice.

I used that quote to say it can be used that way; I also acknowledged the opposite too. I did not state I treat depressive patients by non-psychoanalytic models, quite the opposite in fact, as you would know the main paper from a Freudian perspective for depression would be Mourning and Melancholia, I am interested in other viewpoints to the extent that I’m about to start a MSc in Bereavement Studies, just to look at what other modalities have to say on it. I did say that in cases of high suicidal intent not ideation that I would move out of a psychoanalytic position, maybe I’m wasn’t clear enough. That would mean if I believed that there was a high probability a person would not be alive for next weeks appointment, I have to change my position.

I am undertaking that programme as I see a relation between that paper and certain aspects of addiction, however, engaging in such a course of study will I hope further my psychoanalytic understanding of the issue through study of other lines of thought on the matter. Some of this is explained in the thread entitled "your journey to your PhD" a few therads below.

I’m far from being boxed in by Freud and Lacan, there is a big question about using their work with addicted subjects and how this can be done, the application of such an approach is not fully developed even by people working with addicts much longer than me. I did agree with you about the need to study outside your own area, maybe I wasn’t clear enough on that.

I asked about your experience of psychoanalysis and your comment about in order to try find out more about how you formulated that opinion, not to challenge your credentials as a therapist. I was wondering if you actually studied it or if your opinion was based upon personal experience of analysis; that is all. I was not making any suggestions as to you “credentials”. The reason I ask is that often people hold strong opinions on Freud but never actually read his work, rather they read commentators opinions on it. So I'm merely interested in your opinion.

For your information as you asked my primary degree is in psychoanalysis, my Research MA is additionally in Psychoanalysis, I was looking at the difference between psycho-diagnostics within the ICD-10 and the DSM and psychoanalysis in relation to comorbid states in addiction. In addition to this, I’m in the Addiction Services about 13 years now, as I have various CPD courses on the usual suspects, MI, Reality Therapy, 12 Step Facilitation, Brief Solution Focused, the list goes on quite a bit, as I’m sure it does in your case. Additionally, I'm also qualified as a member of the now non-operational HSE Critical Incident Team, which would view its self as more “psychological first aid” hence my comment that psychoanalysis is not suitable for everything. I don’t want to negate the impact a violent attack can have upon a staff member, but it’s rarely a case for psychoanalysis. I would not view myself as a CBT therapist but I completed the training run by Leeds University for the Addiction Services in CBCS about two years ago. There is other stuff such as private work and teaching, but I can’t see the point in going on much further about it; unless it is of direct relavence to a point of discussion.

As I said I do not deny that having more knowledge about different modalities is important in a person’s professional formation. I did state that I’m sure some people work this well, however, I do have reservations about people who cherry pick from vastly different models, in my experience it has raised significant questions for me and the quality of the person treatment. However, I did not say this applies to everybody who takes such an approach. In a similar vein I would have difficulties around the notion of specialities within therapy, for example bereavement counselling, specific abuse therapies, even within my own field the notion of an addiction counsellor, thankfully at least the HSE have finally dropped that label. An example of being boxed in would be when another profession states “Ah so you’re an addiction counsellor” the boxed in being there is so much more to the work than just the chemical usage.

Two common examples would be I used to get regular calls from a bereavement counselling service stating that during their work with a person the discovered “drug related issues” and would I see the person for that and they will continue to see the person in relation to the grief/bereavement issues. Second example being this idea that I should refer a person on to a different area following a sexual assault or if a historical assault is discovered. Just my opinion, but your either a therapist and able to deal with both of the issues or your not a therapist. Like my comments in the above post they are my opinions merely not something that I think I have the right to impose on others, but this is also a discussion board for the discussion of facts, ideas, questions and opinions.

I hope this clears up matters, but as JC noted we have gone way off topic, I have no problem with that as I come here to discuss things and gain further insight into others opinions. However, if you want to discuss the matter further maybe starting a new thread would facilitate that and keep the Mods happy.