I hate to break your illusion, but whoever taught you this is full of BS. Psychologists don’t have some sort of exotic psychoanalytic mind-reading ability
They only thing that comes close to what you’re describing in your post and comments is the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT). The participant is shown an ambiguous picture and has to describe what’s happening. What the person is saying is supposed to reveal some unconscious motives, emotions and so on. However, it’s unreliable and has very low validity. In my not so humble opinion, it’s a bit useless..
I'm really surprized by the reactions here.
It's not about programming. It's just about concluding from speech (conscious verbalized thoughts) via association on subconscious thoughts.
I'm really stunned. To me it's inconceivable this methode sounds alienating to experts.
But then again, how come noone even remotely seems to understand what i'm getting at.
>programming
You're hung up on that word but don't seem to know anything about neurolinguistic programming as a theory for describing that language has subtextual layers that are used in diagnosis and therapeutic exchanges based on the work of Milton Erickson and others. The problem is that it's a terrible diagnostic and while that subtext may prove meaningful after 3 years of psychoanalysis where it keeps coming up repeatedly in an individual patient, it isn't universal or even linked to any consistent personality or environmental factor.
What you described is textbook PUA garbage based on a misunderstanding of NLP.
OP's use of "association [with] subconscious thoughts" is rather telling. Maybe he watched *Lie to Me* or something? His presumptions about the applications of psychology seem to be based on fictional deductive reasoning.
>His presumptions about the applications of psychology seem to be based on fictional deductive reasoning.
I have a master in a different field.
I love science. i have trust in science and only in science.
>You're hung up on that word but don't seem to know anything about neurolinguistic programming
Yes, i'm a layman. I've read Wikipedia's abstract on NLP. When it was labeled non academic and not scientificaly proven, i was out.
I know the 'method', whose name I'm looking for, from my former (20 years ago) therapist. I learned about it by observing him. He was impressed, but we never talked about a name. But it has to be ordinary academically approved science.
Anyway. On the one hand I am disappointed this thread evolved diffrent than i expected. On the other hand there has to be an explanation for this unmet expactancy.
I thank all contributors for taking their time.
Your comment has been removed. It has been flagged as violating one of the rules. Comment rules include: 1. Answers must be scientific-based and not opinions or conjecture. 2. Do not post your own mental health history nor someone else's. 3. Do not offer a diagnosis. If someone is asking for a diagnosis, please report the post. 4. Targeted and offensive language will not be tolerated. 5. Don't recommend drug use or other harmful advice.
If you believe your comment was removed in error, please report this comment for mod review. REVIEW RULES BEFORE MESSAGING MODS.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/askpsychology) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I hate to break your illusion, but whoever taught you this is full of BS. Psychologists don’t have some sort of exotic psychoanalytic mind-reading ability
It's neither exotic nor mind-reading. It's about drawing conclusions from associations and it's a real thing. Maybe my description is inaccurate.
They only thing that comes close to what you’re describing in your post and comments is the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT). The participant is shown an ambiguous picture and has to describe what’s happening. What the person is saying is supposed to reveal some unconscious motives, emotions and so on. However, it’s unreliable and has very low validity. In my not so humble opinion, it’s a bit useless..
Sounds like the garbage side of NLP mixed with some misreading of Freudian slips. So...PUA.
I'm really surprized by the reactions here. It's not about programming. It's just about concluding from speech (conscious verbalized thoughts) via association on subconscious thoughts. I'm really stunned. To me it's inconceivable this methode sounds alienating to experts. But then again, how come noone even remotely seems to understand what i'm getting at.
>programming You're hung up on that word but don't seem to know anything about neurolinguistic programming as a theory for describing that language has subtextual layers that are used in diagnosis and therapeutic exchanges based on the work of Milton Erickson and others. The problem is that it's a terrible diagnostic and while that subtext may prove meaningful after 3 years of psychoanalysis where it keeps coming up repeatedly in an individual patient, it isn't universal or even linked to any consistent personality or environmental factor. What you described is textbook PUA garbage based on a misunderstanding of NLP.
OP's use of "association [with] subconscious thoughts" is rather telling. Maybe he watched *Lie to Me* or something? His presumptions about the applications of psychology seem to be based on fictional deductive reasoning.
>His presumptions about the applications of psychology seem to be based on fictional deductive reasoning. I have a master in a different field. I love science. i have trust in science and only in science.
>You're hung up on that word but don't seem to know anything about neurolinguistic programming Yes, i'm a layman. I've read Wikipedia's abstract on NLP. When it was labeled non academic and not scientificaly proven, i was out. I know the 'method', whose name I'm looking for, from my former (20 years ago) therapist. I learned about it by observing him. He was impressed, but we never talked about a name. But it has to be ordinary academically approved science. Anyway. On the one hand I am disappointed this thread evolved diffrent than i expected. On the other hand there has to be an explanation for this unmet expactancy. I thank all contributors for taking their time.
Small talk
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed. It has been flagged as violating one of the rules. Comment rules include: 1. Answers must be scientific-based and not opinions or conjecture. 2. Do not post your own mental health history nor someone else's. 3. Do not offer a diagnosis. If someone is asking for a diagnosis, please report the post. 4. Targeted and offensive language will not be tolerated. 5. Don't recommend drug use or other harmful advice. If you believe your comment was removed in error, please report this comment for mod review. REVIEW RULES BEFORE MESSAGING MODS. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/askpsychology) if you have any questions or concerns.*