Introduction to psychoanalysis Full-time Job

Please forgive me for treating you like a psychopath at the beginning of the lecture, and I would like to advise you not to come to the lecture next time. I want to tell you that I can only give you a little incomplete knowledge about psychoanalysis, and it is not easy for you to form an independent judgment about psychoanalysis. Because your education, your habits of thought, compel you to oppose psychoanalysis, you must first exert a great deal of effort in your hearts before you can overcome this instinctive resistance. It is impossible to predict how much my lecture will teach you about psychoanalysis, but I will at least tell you that you will not learn how to do psychoanalytic research or psychoanalytic treatment after listening to the lecture. And if any of you are not satisfied with superficial understanding, but want to establish a permanent relationship with psychoanalysis, I not only do not encourage it, but actually warn it. Because now, if he chooses this profession, he will be deprived of the chance of academic success, and when he officially opens his business, he will find that the whole society can not understand his purpose and intention, hostile to him, and let all the hidden evil impulses vent on him. From the pernicious influence of the present war in Europe, you may infer that the troubles he has to deal with must be incalculable. However, a new knowledge is often enough to attract some people regardless of everything. If any of you, though warned, come a second time,PET blow moulding machine, you are of course most welcome. But you all have a right to know the inherent difficulties of psychoanalysis that I am about to point out. The first is the teaching and explanation of psychoanalysis. When you do medical research, you are accustomed to using your eyes. You see the specimen of dissection, the deposit of chemical reactions, the contraction of all muscles after nerve stimulation. Later, when you come into contact with the patient, you use your senses to understand the patient's symptoms, to observe the results of pathological effects, and sometimes to analyze the cause of the disease. As far as surgery is concerned,liquid bottle filling machine, you can see the operation with your own eyes and try it yourself. Even as far as psychiatry is concerned, the patient's symptoms, abnormal manifestations, language and behavior provide a series of phenomena that leave a deep impression on your mind. So the medical professor does most of his work of explanation and instruction, as if he were guiding you through a museum, so that you can have a direct relationship with the object of observation, and from your own experience, you can be sure of the existence of new facts. But psychoanalysis, unfortunately, is different. In psychoanalytic treatment, there is nothing but the doctor talking to the patient. The patient speaks of his past experiences, current impressions, complaints, and expresses his desires and emotions. The doctor can only listen, Blowing Filling Capping combiblock ,Vegetable oil filling machine, try to guide the patient's thinking, force him to pay attention to certain aspects, give him some explanations, and observe his approval or denial reactions. Relatives and friends of the sick believe only in what they see, touch, or see in the movies, and now they all doubt that "talking can cure". Their reasons are, of course, contradictory and illogical. Because they also believe that the pain of neurotics is purely imaginary. Speaking and witchcraft were originally the same thing. Today, we can use words to make people happy or disappointed. Teachers use words to impart knowledge to students, and speakers use words to move the audience and influence their judgment. Words can evoke emotions, and we often use them as tools for mutual induction. So let's not underestimate the therapy talk. If you hear the psychoanalyst talking to the patient, you should be satisfied. But listening to the call is also difficult; because the conversation during the analysis is not allowed to be heard, and its progress cannot be made public. Of course, when we talk about psychiatry, we can introduce students to patients with neurasthenia or hysteria, but patients will only describe their condition and symptoms, and will not involve others. Only when they have special feelings for doctors, they are willing to talk freely to meet the needs of analysis. If there is a third party who has nothing to do with him, he will be silent again. For what was to be said in the analysis was their secret thoughts and feelings, which, far from being revealed, he tried to hide from himself. So you can't visit psychoanalytic therapy. If you want to learn psychoanalysis, you have to rely on hearsay. This indirect knowledge makes it extremely difficult for you to form your own judgments on the subject of psychoanalysis. Therefore, you should basically trust the reliability of the reporter. Now assume for a moment that you are listening to a lecture on history, not on psychiatry, and that the lecturer is talking about the biography and success of Alexander the Great. What reason have you to believe what he has told you? As far as the circumstances are concerned, his deeds seem to be more unreliable than those of psychiatry, for the professor of history, like you, did not take part in the battle of Alexandria; as for the psychoanalyst, he can at least tell you the facts in which he himself participated. But what evidence do historians have to base themselves on? He can refer you to the accounts of Diodorus, Plutarch, and Aryan, all of whom were at the same time or later than Alexander. He can also invite you to look at the stone statues and coins of Alexander that he has preserved in Pompeii, showing pictures of the inlays of the wars of Aesop. But strictly speaking, these evidences are only enough to prove that the ancients believed in the existence of Alexander and the authenticity of his military exploits. Your criticism may begin again. You may think that the account of Alexander is not credible, and some of the details are not fully substantiated. But when you leave the classroom, I dare say that you will never doubt the existence of Alexander. Why is that? In the first place, the teacher will never force you to believe the historical facts he doubts, because it is not good for him. In the second place, there are few contradictions in the historical records of ancient historians. If you should doubt their records, you can use two tests: first, to see whether they have a motive for possible forgery, and second, to see whether their records are consistent. From the results of such a test,juice filling machine, it will be seen that Alexander was beyond doubt, and that Moses and Niroth were probably a little worse. Later, you will see what there is to doubt about psychoanalysis. gzxilinear.com