Talk About Tennis 2.0

I agree with ponchi. Have a household account where both contribute and then each person is free to spend their money as they see fit. If one stops contributing to the household account then there are issues.

I don't have a Reddit account or even know if you need one, but I read these two and then took a big scary blind jump down that rabbit hole. I really have no words for some of these people. Human beings can be truly horrible. Thanks?

Kevin

MJ2004 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 12:43 am ...

Sorry, nope, can't agree with you on bank accounts. Barring second marriages or people coming in already with large sums of money and keeping that separate, I do believe in couples setting up joint accounts and fully sharing everything. This assumes both parties are sane and without criminal tendencies. Everyone is different and it may not work for all, but I would never unequivocally say that married people shouldn't share bank accounts.

Agree with you on bathrooms.

I did not say NOT share expenses. That is the opposite. You should share all expenses, not to the point of keeping a running Excel sheet, but in a relationship where both partners bring in an income, a proper spread of expenses is the fair way to go. Things like "you pay HULU, I pay NETFLIX".

ti-amie wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 12:47 am I agree with ponchi. Have a household account where both contribute and then each person is free to spend their money as they see fit. If one stops contributing to the household account then there are issues.

This would be my way of going.

---0---
The cancer case. That was very harsh from the sister. But, not inviting your family to your wedding is basically burning that bridge which, for people in the 20's, will be a long time of a life without family.
Of course, if the younger sister were to apologize, it would be so easy.

I like the NAH or NTA BUT responses on the sister wedding one, that's more what I'm thinking there. Don't think the sister that doesn't want to accept the apology is fully thinking through everything and is hanging on to this mistake with a death grip. If she wants to hold on that tight, then so be it, but she should really think through how she wants the rest of her life to go past the wedding. For me, both sisters have shown their immaturity in this scenario.

A designer I follow had this in his IG Stories and it is, by far, the most attractive view I've seen of the Arc de Triomphe in the Christo installation. Made me appreciate what I think they were going for much more than I had on the previous views. So just in case it helps others, I thought I'd share. Use the arrow to see different shots, including ones taken at night with the city lights.

I don't get it.

Somewhere in UK...

If it only were not true...

I have been thinking about this "problem" for a while now, and I believe that the collective brain power of TAT2.0 may help me.
As you may know, I am surrounded by the psychoanalytical profession. Those in my family that are NOT analysts are being analyzed (I am an exception). During one conversation with one of the analyzed, I explained some of the points why I do not believe in this methodology. One of my problems with psychoanalysis is the well documented unreliability of human memory; many experiments have proven that implanting or distorting memories is very easy to do and therefore, if the process of psychoanalysis is fundamentally based on recollection of memories and their analyses but, if such memories are actually not based on facts or real events, the entire process, to me, is bogus a best, charlatanerie at worst.*
My kin replied that it did not matter. Even if the memories are false, they are what you have and therefore their analysis is worthy. I found that reply interesting, although I have a feeling that it is wrong. If a memory is false and it induces psychiatric issues, the best way to get rid of these consequences, to me, would be to determine if the recollections are indeed false and, if so, declare them as such and take away the foundation of the issue. Of course, psychoanalysis is incapable of doing this (there are no processes inherent to the discipline to make this differentiation) and therefore, ALL memories, false or real, are treated as reliable information to be analyzed. No wonder (I say) that psychoanalysis goes on for years.
My question is: how do you refute the argument? To me, it is akin to saying that you will study and analyze any physical signal, regardless of its origin, without checking if the detecting apparatus is indeed working properly or generating noise by itself (i.e. the signal does not exist, the observed phenomenon is the result of a faulty machine). For example: my older sister once asked me to go with her to one of her sessions (her psychologist's idea) and, after she had talked for a while, the analyst looked at my face and asked me what was wrong. I had to admit: what my sister was talking about, I had no memories of (she was talking about our childhood life). So either she was making it up, or I had blocked it (the fact that I had not been paying attention at those events was not discussed).

I 100% agree with your "analyzed" family member. I think you're looking at it from an overly pragmatic stance. But therapy / psychology treats the emotional and the subconscious not the physical (Psychiatry is more oriented towards that, although not totally).Yes, finding out something you believe happened didn't could potentially free one from some sort of pressure, but it won't change the feelings and patterns they developed subconsciously because they believed it.

What I really don't understand from people who "refuse to believe" in psychoanalysis and/or actively try to refute it is why? What's the harm of other people benefitting from it (except potentially the cost), or even you trying it, if you think it does nothing. It's not like it's potentially dangerous and powerful like organized religion.

I also agree with your family member. My younger brother and I grew up in exactly the same home with exactly the same parents and yet our memories and experiences of our childhoods, for various reasons, are wildly different. In many cases, perception = happen. I know that it may sound a little wonky, but it was actually a big "a hah" moment for me when I understood this. I will support you in that such analysis, or results from it, would have to be examined very carefully if used in a criminal case or something in which someone might be held responsible for perceived behavior, but as far as how it affects the person's psyche, it's totally valid. And as mmmm8 says, it seems like if someone is interested in figuring themself out better, why not?

Kevin

My remaining siblings and I all have different memories of our childhood because as adults we found out that our parents treated the then four of us differently. I watched the Friday night fights with my Dad as well as baseball. My younger sister remembers him taking her to church services with her. My brother, may he rest in peace, was supposed to go visit a relative with him the day after he died. I've never had a chance to talk with my other sister since she has been partially incapacitated by a stroke.

I don't think that that alone negates therapy. I think that people have to be very careful in choosing who they choose though. There was a recent example in my extended family that someone who is supposed to be a trained analyst has such deep issues of her own that she in no way should be working with other people.

mmmm8 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 25, 2021 4:32 pm ...

What I really don't understand from people who "refuse to believe" in psychoanalysis and/or actively try to refute it is why? What's the harm of other people benefitting from it (except potentially the cost), or even you trying it, if you think it does nothing. It's not like it's potentially dangerous and powerful like organized religion.

Txs for your post. I find it interesting.
Why refute psychoanalysis? For the same reason you want to refute homeopathy. Of crystal power. Or any other practice that in reality provides no curative benefits. If the entire premise of psychoanalysis, to the point of Freud's partition of the mind is incorrect, that area of research may be involving considerable effort that will achieve very little, because the foundation is incorrect and not based on reality.
About its potential dangers. Some classical psychoanalytical processes claim that sexual issues, which originally for them included sexual orientation, arise from conflicts that are really not there. I find this problematic, even if it has been corrected since (now accepted just as sexual orientation, not an "issue"). I also find that the edifice of parental relation regarding the children is wrong, as when it claims the theory of Oedipus/Elektra complexes, confusing child affection to his/her parent with a position that I believe is sick (sexual attraction to the parent).
Still gotta think more about this

Question... How are we defining psychoanalysis? And how, if at all, is it different from mental health treatment (using DSM-V criteria, which I know is a separate discussion/can of worms all in itself)?