Here's an interesting, non-diagnostic article from _Psychiatric Times_
on patient defenses and resistance in therapy.

http://tinyurl.com/2v84bo

On Jan 30, 10:29?pm, "marcia" <desi...@insight.rr.com> wrote:

Here's an interesting, non-diagnostic article from _Psychiatric Times_
on patient defenses and resistance in therapy.

http://tinyurl.com/2v84bo

HaHa. Well it would be if it wasn't so true. I will use it in my
essay.

That article is a good example of what Derrida might call the 'logic
of supplementarity'. The article presents psychological resistance as
a supplement or exception to the rule of normal psychology. However
psychological resistance is necessary to the concept of normal
psychology. The priviliging of one state over another, or the creation
of binary opposites - normal psychology over abnormal psychology, in
this case - is a common tactic used by science and theoreticians when
they need to expel from a theory that which is necessary to it, but
also is unpalatable to it.

In other words, normal psychology grew out of its own destruction. We
needed to expel abnormal psychology - now merely a supplement - from
psychology to be able to create and define normal psychology.
Psychology in this case has no origin.

I usually express it in the form that the arguments of psychology are
circular - that they need to appeal to a framework outside of their
theory to account for the divisions (like normal and abnormal) that
they place within their theory. The failure to appeal to independent
sources results in psychological theories being merely 'analytic' or
circularly empty.

On Feb 4, 7:03 am, "John Jones" <jonescard...@aol.com> wrote:
On Jan 30, 10:29?pm, "marcia" <desi...@insight.rr.com> wrote:

Here's an interesting, non-diagnostic article from _Psychiatric Times_
on patient defenses and resistance in therapy.

http://tinyurl.com/2v84bo

HaHa. Well it would be if it wasn't so true. I will use it in my
essay.

That article is a good example of what Derrida might call the 'logic
of supplementarity'. The article presents psychological resistance as
a supplement or exception to the rule of normal psychology. However
psychological resistance is necessary to the concept of normal
psychology. The priviliging of one state over another, or the creation
of binary opposites - normal psychology over abnormal psychology, in
this case - is a common tactic used by science and theoreticians when
they need to expel from a theory that which is necessary to it, but
also is unpalatable to it.

In other words, normal psychology grew out of its own destruction. We
needed to expel abnormal psychology - now merely a supplement - from
psychology to be able to create and define normal psychology.
Psychology in this case has no origin.

I usually express it in the form that the arguments of psychology are
circular - that they need to appeal to a framework outside of their
theory to account for the divisions (like normal and abnormal) that
they place within their theory. The failure to appeal to independent
sources results in psychological theories being merely 'analytic' or
circularly empty.

I could be wrong, but I don't think ego defenses--by themselves--are
considered abnormal because we all use them to maintain a stable sense
of self. The article refers specifically to the end of the spectrum
where defenses are so strong, or so overused, that they interfere with
desireable life goals like intimacy and realistic introspection.

"marcia" <desi...@insight.rr.com> wrote in message

news:1170602718.824263.101810@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...



On Feb 4, 7:03 am, "John Jones" <jonescard...@aol.com> wrote:
On Jan 30, 10:29?pm, "marcia" <desi...@insight.rr.com> wrote:

Here's an interesting, non-diagnostic article from _Psychiatric Times_
on patient defenses and resistance in therapy.

http://tinyurl.com/2v84bo

HaHa. Well it would be if it wasn't so true. I will use it in my
essay.

That article is a good example of what Derrida might call the 'logic
of supplementarity'. The article presents psychological resistance as
a supplement or exception to the rule of normal psychology. However
psychological resistance is necessary to the concept of normal
psychology. The priviliging of one state over another, or the creation
of binary opposites - normal psychology over abnormal psychology, in
this case - is a common tactic used by science and theoreticians when
they need to expel from a theory that which is necessary to it, but
also is unpalatable to it.

In other words, normal psychology grew out of its own destruction. We
needed to expel abnormal psychology - now merely a supplement - from
psychology to be able to create and define normal psychology.
Psychology in this case has no origin.

I usually express it in the form that the arguments of psychology are
circular - that they need to appeal to a framework outside of their
theory to account for the divisions (like normal and abnormal) that
they place within their theory. The failure to appeal to independent
sources results in psychological theories being merely 'analytic' or
circularly empty.

But those are not the arguments of psychology, but rather the arguments
of solipsism. In psychology, it is not so much as matter of "if" there is
a certain behavior, but rather whether is is adaptive or maladaptive in
it's degree, location, etc.

I could be wrong, but I don't think ego defenses--by themselves--are
considered abnormal because we all use them to maintain a stable sense
of self. The article refers specifically to the end of the spectrum
where defenses are so strong, or so overused, that they interfere with
desireable life goals like intimacy and realistic introspection.

You, Marcia, hit the nail right on the head. Any psychologist would say
that defenses are normal and necessary. But not in some degrees or
locations, etc. When they interfere ...

card xii

On Feb 5, 1:52 pm, "Card XII" <blotspar...@sciencefrontiers.com
wrote:





"marcia" <desi...@insight.rr.com> wrote in message

news:1170602718.824263.101810@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...

On Feb 4, 7:03 am, "John Jones" <jonescard...@aol.com> wrote:
On Jan 30, 10:29?pm, "marcia" <desi...@insight.rr.com> wrote:

Here's an interesting, non-diagnostic article from _Psychiatric Times_
on patient defenses and resistance in therapy.

http://tinyurl.com/2v84bo

HaHa. Well it would be if it wasn't so true. I will use it in my
essay.

That article is a good example of what Derrida might call the 'logic
of supplementarity'. The article presents psychological resistance as
a supplement or exception to the rule of normal psychology. However
psychological resistance is necessary to the concept of normal
psychology. The priviliging of one state over another, or the creation
of binary opposites - normal psychology over abnormal psychology, in
this case - is a common tactic used by science and theoreticians when
they need to expel from a theory that which is necessary to it, but
also is unpalatable to it.

In other words, normal psychology grew out of its own destruction. We
needed to expel abnormal psychology - now merely a supplement - from
psychology to be able to create and define normal psychology.
Psychology in this case has no origin.

I usually express it in the form that the arguments of psychology are
circular - that they need to appeal to a framework outside of their
theory to account for the divisions (like normal and abnormal) that
they place within their theory. The failure to appeal to independent
sources results in psychological theories being merely 'analytic' or
circularly empty.

But those are not the arguments of psychology, but rather the arguments
of solipsism.  In psychology, it is not so much as matter of "if" there is
a certain behavior, but rather whether is is adaptive or maladaptive in
it's degree, location, etc.

I could be wrong, but I don't think ego defenses--by themselves--are
considered abnormal because we all use them to maintain a stable sense
of self. The article refers specifically to the end of the spectrum
where defenses are so strong, or so overused, that they interfere with
desireable life goals like intimacy and realistic introspection.

You, Marcia, hit the nail right on the head.  Any psychologist would say
that defenses are normal and necessary.  But not in some degrees or
locations, etc.  When they interfere ...

card xii

*smooch*  - Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Feb 5, 8:10?pm, "marcia" <desi...@insight.rr.com> wrote:



On Feb 5, 1:52 pm, "Card XII" <blotspar...@sciencefrontiers.com
wrote:

"marcia" <desi...@insight.rr.com> wrote in message

news:1170602718.824263.101810@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...

On Feb 4, 7:03 am, "John Jones" <jonescard...@aol.com> wrote:
On Jan 30, 10:29?pm, "marcia" <desi...@insight.rr.com> wrote:

Here's an interesting, non-diagnostic article from _Psychiatric Times_
on patient defenses and resistance in therapy.

http://tinyurl.com/2v84bo

HaHa. Well it would be if it wasn't so true. I will use it in my
essay.

That article is a good example of what Derrida might call the 'logic
of supplementarity'. The article presents psychological resistance as
a supplement or exception to the rule of normal psychology. However
psychological resistance is necessary to the concept of normal
psychology. The priviliging of one state over another, or the creation
of binary opposites - normal psychology over abnormal psychology, in
this case - is a common tactic used by science and theoreticians when
they need to expel from a theory that which is necessary to it, but
also is unpalatable to it.

In other words, normal psychology grew out of its own destruction. We
needed to expel abnormal psychology - now merely a supplement - from
psychology to be able to create and define normal psychology.
Psychology in this case has no origin.

I usually express it in the form that the arguments of psychology are
circular - that they need to appeal to a framework outside of their
theory to account for the divisions (like normal and abnormal) that
they place within their theory. The failure to appeal to independent
sources results in psychological theories being merely 'analytic' or
circularly empty.

But those are not the arguments of psychology, but rather the arguments
of solipsism. ?In psychology, it is not so much as matter of "if" there is
a certain behavior, but rather whether is is adaptive or maladaptive in
it's degree, location, etc.

I could be wrong, but I don't think ego defenses--by themselves--are
considered abnormal because we all use them to maintain a stable sense
of self. The article refers specifically to the end of the spectrum
where defenses are so strong, or so overused, that they interfere with
desireable life goals like intimacy and realistic introspection.

You, Marcia, hit the nail right on the head. ?Any psychologist would say
that defenses are normal and necessary. ?But not in some degrees or
locations, etc. ?When they interfere ...

card xii

*smooch* ?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

a common tactic used by science and theoreticians when
they need to expel from a theory that which is necessary to it, but
also is unpalatable to it.