Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2021 23:06:11 GMT
alexandra , such a good point. Sometimes people assume that the person they couldn't make it work with can't make it work with anyone else... but that's not always the case, certainly. Some people are like oil and water. Some people have challenges and there is something i. each of them that compels them to figure it out. Sometimes, a relationship is long lasting and not exactly what either wants but they stay for whatever reason. Everybody has their own row to hoe. An ex I left because of his temper has been together with a woman half his age for about 15 years, and for the life of me I can't see what she sees in him, haha. He's charming for a minute... Some personalities clash horribly, and it isn't all about one or the other being the devil or irretrievably broken. And, it's super hard to be accurate when you're trying to get into anyone's head. When my SO gets triggered (his trigger, not necessarily my action...) and he does the AP thing of trying to read my mind and interpret my motive and meaning, WOW does he get it wrong. Just saying... it's never as bad as he thinks, it's usually not anywhere close. It's his own trigger he's responding to. I do see a tendency for partners/ex partners to begin to generalize and apply whatever information they read to the other person's situation. But that's pretty tricky stuff. People are individuals, everything occurs on a spectrum, and there is a reason that even licensed professionals don't diagnose/treat people they are intimately involved with... it's too subjective. Anyway, good idea to leave the ex alone to walk their own walk. There's nobody that can't use some self-analysis and breakups are a great time to do that- for yourself.
|
|
|
|
Post by krolle on May 31, 2021 15:53:52 GMT
I haven't heard about it in therapy much nor explored it, I've learned about it on the web. Why aren't more therapists into this? It seems essential. The therapist family member said it was psuedo-science and they didn't incorporate it into their practice because of how skeptical they were :/ I was very frustrated to hear that because with all the research, it's not even true! Are we sure all this is not, at least to some extent Pseudoscience? I'm not criticizing your statement. Just stating I personally don't have enough knowledge to be sure, and invite you guys to share your knowledge. I keep questioning whether it's an accurate depiction of reality or simply my own cognitive baises seeing things that are true and ignoring things that are not. Sort of like confirmation bias. The same phenomenon thay happens when people read their star signs or tarot cards etc. I know there is the work of Bowlby, but that's quiet old. Have there been many empirical studies on adult attachment styles? I know a couple of people in my circle of friends who have done their own studies on the subject for their masters or PHD thesis. But the way they collected data was through questionnaires. Which I do not trust due to the fact it relies on people to know themselves well and even then, be honest, aware of baises etc. I guess human psychology is such a nebulous subject it's hard to pin down globally repeatable results and make accurate predictions across populations. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2021 16:09:18 GMT
krolle, good questions.... I also know people who utilize a variety of self help and healing methods that are nothing to do with established psychology, who experience tremendous growth and evolution in their emotional and mental well being. Shamans, energy healing, alternative practices... I think that people find routes that resonate and there is no one-size-fits-all.
|
|
|
|
Post by alexandra on May 31, 2021 16:53:02 GMT
In my opinion, it's not psuedo-science. It is an analytical approach that's extensively research-backed, made complete logical sense to me, and I suppose I also have the perspective of having shifted attachment styles and actually experiencing two totally different and contrasting sets of thought patterns. I was skeptical too until I shifted styles and viscerally experienced two of them. Plus, I've been able to help a lot of people using this framework. But, as introvert said, different approaches work for different people. Going this route will likely require a couple years of effort, and it can be hard to stick with something that takes a long time to show progress or mastery.
I'd suggest you read the book "The Truth," which is about Neil Strauss's journey from FA to secure (though he doesn't talk about it in attachment style terms). He was skeptical for decades, and discusses his attempt to rationalize away the introspection he actually needed to do until he was in enough pain to be ready to change. You can get it free from the library.
I don't have go-to studies handy because I read up on things a few years ago and no longer have the links saved, but looking up attachment style academic papers online should yield a lot of results.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2021 1:16:16 GMT
sorry, did I miss the point or did someone say that attachment styles are considered pseudoscience?? If it's the latter, here's my little rant.  Attachment styles are well published in psychology studies. Go to google scholar, and type in attachment styles. There's a slew of publications on them. Now, whether or not one considers psychology as a (real) science is a different matter, and how rigorous the studies are conducted is another. If you consider peer-review publications as an indicator of "real" science being conducted, then for sure attachment styles is not a pseudoscience. As a scientist myself, I am often baffled at how people reject potentially helpful methods because it's not "science-based". Science often lags because we observe what happens around us and THEN document and experiment with those ideas that arose from observations. Science is also a method, not the only source of truth. Scientists are also people full of biases, stupidity, and ignorance. Relying on science alone is rather inadequate, because the process of science is often flawed in itself. In fact, some people consider therapy a "pseudoscience"! I'm all for adopting certain ideas and methods that are "pseudoscience"; my issue is when these ideas hurt more than help, preventing true well-being improvements. << This is where the hard part is - do you know if you are truly moving forward, or just holding yourself (and your mind) back by slapping on multiple bandaids with pseudoscience? /rant over In any case, I have the same experience as alexandra where I experienced both security and insecurity, and sometimes still swing between them. There is a distinct difference in thought patterns and emotional repertoires. For me, the root of the issue is in maladaptive thought, coping and emotional responses that is a common theme across all styles. Different styles just have different versions/forms of maladaptation, and that is why we distinctly recognize styles. This maladaptation, which form it comes in, is what needs addressing through deep inner work. The styles itself don't matter that much once you see beyond these labels, helpful as they might be. |
|
|
|
Post by krolle on Jun 1, 2021 3:46:48 GMT
Wonderful responses.
I don't think anyone on this forum thinks that it's pseudoscience. I believe it was the therapist of one of Alexandra's aquintainces.
I raised the question of how much we know on the topic is empirically backed up however. Not because I personally believe it's pseudoscience. But more so to invite people to offer their knowledge on the depth of legitimate research on the subject. Which I am not familiar with.
And I also had the second goal of drawing peoples attentions to critical thinking when it comes to theories, perceptions etc. And how easily false assumptions can be propagated, especially in the self help genre. Often with the best of intent.
A personal example I might give is that I used to work as a fitness instructor. I was well educated on the subject and spoke with a sense of authority about what worked and what didn't. I also knew from substantial experience what generally worked for people and got results. But Now 10 or 20 years later some things I took as gospel truth have been proven otherwise, and some common practices back in the day have even been proven downright dangerous. We simply regurgitated what we were told by our teachers and the information available at the time. Then sold it as empirical truth because it often worked.
Things have value if they work of course, even if we don't understand the mechanism, Introverts example about healing energies, shamanism etc. Which is why I never invalid when someone's perspectives on those types of things differ to mine.
But I still think it's important to critically analyse the information we give and in turn pass on. Because if not it can be subject to misuse by charlatans etc. Well intentioned or otherwise.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2021 13:19:36 GMT
Wonderful responses. I don't think anyone on this forum thinks that it's pseudoscience. I believe it was the therapist of one of Alexandra's aquintainces. I raised the question of how much we know on the topic is empirically backed up however. Not because I personally believe it's pseudoscience. But more so to invite people to offer their knowledge on the depth of legitimate research on the subject. Which I am not familiar with. And I also had the second goal of drawing peoples attentions to critical thinking when it comes to theories, perceptions etc. And how easily false assumptions can be propagated, especially in the self help genre. Often with the best of intent. A personal example I might give is that I used to work as a fitness instructor. I was well educated on the subject and spoke with a sense of authority about what worked and what didn't. I also knew from substantial experience what generally worked for people and got results. But Now 10 or 20 years later some things I took as gospel truth have been proven otherwise, and some common practices back in the day have even been proven downright dangerous. We simply regurgitated what we were told by our teachers and the information available at the time. Then sold it as empirical truth because it often worked. Things have value if they work of course, even if we don't understand the mechanism, Introverts example about healing energies, shamanism etc. Which is why I never invalid when someone's perspectives on those types of things differ to mine. But I still think it's important to critically analyse the information we give and in turn pass on. Because if not it can be subject to misuse by charlatans etc. Well intentioned or otherwise. You are absolutely right - and I see this everyday as a scientist myself. I don't disagree with you. There is plenty of publications on the topic, and it is empirically backed on that basis. However, the rigor of that empirics may be questionable, particularly as methods, knowledge and precision evolve over time coupled with questionable scientists. We now have what we call a replication crisis where plenty of psychology findings are questioned, so it is an ongoing debate (and a professional crisis for myself!) regarding the validity of "empirical evidence" we were once so proud of. Poorly performed science is not the same as pseudoscience, I suppose? See these two for attachment theory: www.researchgate.net/publication/344445461_Replication_Crisis_Lost_in_Translation_On_Translational_Caution_and_Premature_Applications_of_Attachment_Theory societyforpsychotherapy.org/most-psychotherapy-research-probably-isnt-reproducible/Given the replication crisis and a scientist myself, I completely agree with you that it is important to critically analyse the information and not trust blindly. That said, after a certain point, the real, deeper, inner work is to turn within oneself to be a better version of ourselves; this work is emotional and spiritual. Attachment styles, at least for me, was only one framework/language but not the only. To be clear, I don't disagree with you at all. I think my greater point is just take everything with a pinch of salt, science or pseudoscience, and focus inward. For myself, in my journey, I read and dabbled everything from attachment styles to spiritual healing, and the simple (but not easy) answer was for me to define the kind of person and partner I wish to be and act accordingly. The definition and corresponding actions are determined by the frameworks you choose to use. I think for me, Gottman was helpful as well. |
|
