Thank you for raising this topic, ILikeLogic. I am sufficiently insecure that it has taken me quite some time even to post here. (It is my first time posting - not reading - on LessWrong.)
I have lately been looking for therapy to deal with matters, but two sessions with a therapist leave me with the impression (rightly or wrongly) that this person is less philosophically/scientifically acute than I am. From college experience, I got the impression that there is a lot of hollow conceptualizing going on in academic psychology (or it may be that I am so emotionally twisted that I did not get it, but I do doubt this). There may be empathy, but there must also be enough sharpness for me to let my guard down so that we can get anywhere emotionally. Consequently, while I will keep on looking for face-to-face therapy, my expectations are not too high; and the discussion here is stimulating, so let's see.
I have a few items:
You say that with self-applied primal therapy, you (sometimes, I understand) "felt completely secure and free of anxiety for up to a few days". What happens then? Also, could you describe in a few lines what procedure you used -- or is there some sort of copyright issue with that? (I did follow the link to Janov's blog, but could not pin anything down in a reasonable span of time...)
You say (I'm paraphrasing) that insecurity comes from distress made worse by negative responses to expressing that distress, and subsequent defensive reactions. Sounds true, also personally. But I wonder: are such responses bad for everyone, always? Does an order to "stop crying" (literal or in some other form) always lead to a defensive response? I would guess not -- some are able to find a proactive modus to overcome the distress. Maybe because they enjoy winning more, because they have different hormone levels, because of X, Y and Z? My point is: in what cases is it enough to 'rewire the emotional brain', and in what cases does that leave the person with a brain that is actually 'too optimistic' for him/her to handle, given his/her other attributes?
I had a particular look at Coherence Therapy. Found this interview underwhelming. Most of it seems hollow academic talk to me. When Ecker finally reveals the heart of the matter at the end, it comes down to 'bring up negative past experience and emotion / associate with a positive emotion in relevantly similar situations / follow-up'. Sounds good by itself, but instead of all the vague talking, I'd like a short script of sorts that guides me through these steps. Where have you gotten with CT / "Unlocking the Emotional Brain" by now?
In this annotated transcript there is an interesting case of a man who was insecure and self-sabotaging because of harsh treatment by his father (didn't want to 'win in life' because it would prove the father right); Coherence Therapy helps the young man to face the fact that his father is not going to apologize, and to move on. Now such a single damaging childhood figure, bad as it may be, is one thing. I feel I am more facing a probabilistic issue here: you never know who is going to stab you. Showing me that I should not be afraid of a particular person, or repeating this particular fear until I feel I 'own' it, etc. ... might not do that much good, because I know already that many people do not stab. I fear (!) that even if I go through a perhaps tortuous process of trying to identify and re-live and lay to rest particular negative experiences (and what about potential pre-memory, infant ones? they're out of reach), my rational brain will still ask of the next person I face: does this person stab? Because some people do stab. Is this sort of thing addressed in "Unlocking the Emotional Brain"?
Thank you for raising this topic, ILikeLogic. I am sufficiently insecure that it has taken me quite some time even to post here. (It is my first time posting - not reading - on LessWrong.)
I have lately been looking for therapy to deal with matters, but two sessions with a therapist leave me with the impression (rightly or wrongly) that this person is less philosophically/scientifically acute than I am. From college experience, I got the impression that there is a lot of hollow conceptualizing going on in academic psychology (or it may be that I am so emotionally twisted that I did not get it, but I do doubt this). There may be empathy, but there must also be enough sharpness for me to let my guard down so that we can get anywhere emotionally. Consequently, while I will keep on looking for face-to-face therapy, my expectations are not too high; and the discussion here is stimulating, so let's see.
I have a few items:
Thanks again!