Aspergers and psychoanalytic ideas

[ladykayak]

...I'm training as a psychoanalyst after having worked in mainstream psychiatry for a number of years. As part of this I'm having my own analysis sessions - the topic of my aspergers diagnosis has obviously come up and we spoke about my various obsessions over the years - public information films, the titanic disaster, the history of english comedy, nuclear war/civil defence policy and latterly the Moors murders. Am uncovering "meaning"/connectedness within my choices of topic. Do other people feel that there are deeper reasons/unconscious drives behind the things they get interested in/obsessed by....?

 

[Randomperson]

I only get obsessed with interesting things Do you not also find this fact fascinating?!

 

[ladykayak]

Well of course...but it's what demarcates what is "interesting" to each person that I guess I'm starting to pull apart. Why one thing and not the other if you see what I mean.

 

[AsheSkyler]

I think most interests do have deep roots. In example, when I was very young, my grandfather gave me a bug book. Whether because he loves to learn things and wanted to share that passion with me or I showed an interest in bugs, I don't know, but I had a bug obsession when I was little partly due to the books he gave me. I still like to study bugs from time to time, but not as I once did. It may rekindle as my son gets older and he possibly develops a love of bugs. I have had other interests that seemed rooted to a feeling of identity or my own inner struggle, and a bunch of stuff I struggle putting words to at the moment. And then there were a few random, unconnected things I just simply liked.

 

[Maddox]

Do other people feel that there are deeper reasons/unconscious drives behind the things they get interested in/obsessed by....?

Interesting question. A psychoanalyst would say that an obsession with tanks is clearly a sign of unexpressed anger and aggressiveness, at least if it is an isolated interest. However, I would rather ask more details which could simply reveal an interest in heavy machinery and they way tracked vehicles work.

The whole theory of unconscious drives is totally outdated anyway, neuroscience has overtaken, so my personal POV is that certain interests, translated into action, stimulate certain brain areas and lead to a release of neurotransmitters. For instance, a person who is highly interested in solving crossword puzzles will tell you that this activity helps them to relax. This applies more or less for all interests which go beyond immediate life support.

The schema of psychoanalysis and psychology goes backwards by assuming that some secret, hidden, unexpressed, unconscious forces or drives determine a person's behavior in the presence. Seen from a logical point of view however, this assumption is ridiculous. It makes more sense to look forward and presume that activities we perform right now have nothing to do with the past but the immediate future. If a person feels stressed out, they don't so because of something that has happened decades ago, and they don't want to relax in any distant past, but within the next hour(s).

 

[ladykayak]

Ah, I"m totally on the psychoanalytic wavelength so I will disagree with a fair bit of that! To be honest there are different schools within psychoanalysis so it's not a case of "psychoanalysis says this means/stands for that" - freud very clear that structures of meaning are highly-personal rather than universal (Jung)....I guess my interest is in how we construct "meaning:"...

 

[clg114]

Ah, I"m totally on the psychoanalytic wavelength so I will disagree with a fair bit of that! To be honest there are different schools within psychoanalysis so it's not a case of "psychoanalysis says this means/stands for that" - freud very clear that structures of meaning are highly-personal rather than universal (Jung)....I guess my interest is in how we construct "meaning:"...

I am glad to see this clarification. It seems to me, to understand the "meaning" of some ones obsession you would have to know all of the facts about the obsession and a lot about the person. Are there other standard facts that you would use to determine what your final analysis would be?

 

[ladykayak]

Hell yes, that's why analysis takes so long....years! Different schools again have different ideas about what a "final analysis" looks like, and even if there is such a thing....I'm noting links in my various "obsessions" about disasters, safety, death....am only just starting the process but was interested that these things came up....

 

[Cali Cat]

... Do other people feel that there are deeper reasons/unconscious drives behind the things they get interested in/obsessed by....?

I never thought about it. Typically, I tend to believe there's a deeper meaning to taking out the trash, being the philosophical type. However, I don't know if I could assign "meaning" as such to my interests/obsessions. I guess one would have to analyze the events surrounding the initial development of the interest/obsession. That could be hard to pinpoint because the development process likely occurred over time, and the timing of the initial spark that fueled the I/O may be completely forgotten.

 

[theblitz6794]

Well frankly I'm obsessed with psychoanalysis itself. Jungian theory, and by that I mean "pure" Jungian theory (MBTI and the like stray away from what Jung was trying to get it; John Beebe is a good one who follows up on Jung). I'm digging as deep as I possibly can into this subject about how the cognitive functions are related and directly connected to different archetypes in your mind. I'm trying to expand on the dichotomies and relate all functions to each other.

N is a perception function and thus it is in the same category as S, but how does N relate to T? Well, I think N and T are symbolic or abstract functions--that is, they use symbolism and are subject to primary processing in the lower parts of the brain and mind before coming to conscious awareness. S and F, then, are literal functions. They are "what you see is what you get" types.

F and N are holistic functions, which I am having trouble describing, but essentially goes that they synthesize different information into an impression and you consciously experience the impression. "The sum of the parts is not equal to the whole"

S and T are sequential or dualistic functions. "The sum of the parts is equal to the whole"

Now, when you model the functions in this 3 variable system, what happens is the individual functions sort of disappear and what we are left with is that people tend to process things in a way that is abstractly related to the archetype of whatever functions they "use" the most.

For example, (INTJ here) I don't use NiTeFiSe in a 4 function system. I just think and the way I think is simply very similar to a robot/archetypical person that thinks purely in those 4 ways.

I hope this makes sense

 

[ladykayak]

I'm on the Lacanian wavelength myself....

 

[radasp]

I was asked out on a date by a guy who turned out to be a Freudian analyst. I never went out with him again. He was deluded for believing that crap - how could I ever have a serious conversation with him?

 

[ladykayak]

Ah there's more to it than the pub-version of Freud most people hear.....it does get a bad rap but most of our cultural assumptions are built on freud's work. He's controversial yes but a genius...