I have a question regarding the idea in the paper that states that Erickson had a new theory of personality vs. the traditional view based on Freudian psychology but it may be difficult to describe in one sentence. Did Erickson simply "make up" the explanation he gave to clients in order to access their resources? For instance, did the man in your example really love his wife so much that he did not want to have sex with her or did he really not like her but changed his mind after Erickson reframed the situation? It seems to me that both situations are plausible and that many other explanations could be used to introduce a new way of thinking to the clients. Since there might be an infinite number of potential explanations as to why the husband did not want to have sex with the wife, did Erickson simply choose the one that he thought had the best probability of bringing the couple together? My other question relates to the question of truth. How can we be sure that sumptoms are cues of developmental problems that can be resolved through reassocation of experience when we cannot be sure of truth from a historical sense. In other words, how would we ever find the developmental dificiencies and replace them with new experiences since there might be 50 million ways that the deficiency developed. Looking to the past at deficiencies seems to me to be the same as looking for internal conflicts based on historical relationship issues. Is this why Erickson simply decided that it was impossible to determine the historical origins of the deficiency and just decided to look forward at ways to correct the problem? Please explain where my thinking is incorrect.
Replies:
|
| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |
Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.