It's impossible to say that neuroses come from such and such. The sources of neuroses are as varied as the biological life of earth. If you're sincerely interested in this question then I suggest you read some intro psychoanalysis books. Psychoanalysis is the study of causes of neuroses.
I read somewhere that it comes from a childhood emotional trauma(the trauma could come from feeling unloved as a child or being locked in a room or cupboard as a child)I wanted to know at which point this can be true,thanks a lot for your help stateofmind,I'll surely read the psychoanalysis books for learning more about it.Thanks.
"Neurosis" has no scientific or clinical backing whatsoever. Let us leave this tired concept behind with the remainder of Freud's and Jung's failures.
Actually, there is quite a bit of research. They are generally now called neurotic disorders, and include such things as anxiety disorders. The DSM no longer has neuroses in its categories, but then they did this out of a desire to shift to categories based on behavior - or how the problem presents - rather than theories of origin. But the neuroses are all are still there and they are the most common diagnoses out there. Since they are, in a sense, descriptions of patterns that do in fact exist in humans, their existence is NOT controversial. Their ontology and how to deal with them is.
It is indeed true the concept of “neurosis” has been studied and debated, researched and tested relentlessly, even amongst many famous pioneers of psychology. However, what all of the laborious study and debate, research and testing share in common is a distinct lack of a definition of the concept, and an utter failure amongst advocates to prove its scientific existence and importance beyond vague conjectures of their own political works. “Neurosis” has no organic cause, and therefore it is a futile subject in the face of scientific experimentation both in terms discovering its origin and diagnosing its presence. Let the self-proclaimed psychoanalytic intellectuals theorize and debate over the tired concept endlessly in vain hopes of producing knowledge to the world whilst the rest of us allow such a worthless concept, and others of its like, to become simple phrases of common language.
It is also true that the clinical psychology industry is busy generating more and more neuroses. I suspect that their long term aim is to make sure that pretty much everybody will eventually be diagnisable as having some neurotic dysfunction or other, so that the whole population becomes their market for treatment. Lots of $$$.
It's hard to define whether anything in the DSM "exists", they are merely categories which certain professionals want to endow with statistical significance. Neurosis has been ditched by APA's listing because it is such a broad category as to not be significant when creating categories. Also, you say that "neurosis has no organic cause". It is not necessary to have an organic cause for something to have clinical significance. P.S. As a clinical psychologist, let me tell you that psychoanalytic ideas still have much utility in the field, and has spawned a very large body of research to this day.
I would suggest that Neurosis is based on a "Natural" process of learning, the main reason for this is when you look at the human mind as a self-learning system and how it attempts to construct self-testing processes. For instance when young, you might not have any clue as to the world around you. You might touch a flame and find a sensor response to express that it's potentially damaging and therefore flinch away from it. Since it's a first hand observation and now memory, your brain will construct the reasoning that fire burns, it damages, it creates pain, it should be catalogued and remembered so you don't have to "suffer" a burn again in the future. In future instances of dealing with a flame you'll impose a certain amount of caution, not because of the first hand observation of what that flame entails, but because of how your memory addresses that flame. Your memory will contain some of the various details from your initial observation but also contain a "construct" from the processing of that initial experience in an attempt to not repeat it. This is just a simple explanation of a construct, however in the human brain we don't have a memory of set constants, instead we have a system of applied variables. Those variables are constantly updated and changed by our observations, our continued additions from future observations then construct far more in-depth constructs on the particular subject matter. Neurosis is when these self-defined constructs grow beyond that of normal parameters and the construct itself is broken down into infinitesimal functions of itself. Where a simple thought equation like "This particular nylon material feels slippery" becomes "This particular nylon material feels slippery, it outputs a weird sound which in turn generates a weird tingling sensation which in turn causes an uncontrollable need to shy away", it can be implied that the functions of "a weird sound, a tingling sensation and uncontrollable need to shy away" are subset constructs where "extreme data" isn't processed correctly and causes these rather bizarre reactions. The same could be applied to OCD (Obsessive Compulsive Disorders), where one person is quite happy to use a fork cleaned by a stainless steel dishwasher in a restaurant, another might manifest a construct based upon literature about "The cleaning of surgical utensils" and concern themselves about how various proteins can attach themselves to cutlery and can not be removed by standard disinfectants or steam alone. Obviously in this instance it's a construct that takes into consideration that a persons mind can have something similar to a Tetris effect, where by people of a particular intellect will attempt to fit various pieces of information together subconsciously to generate an outcome to a puzzle that hasn't even been identified. This can however lead to people misinterpreting data and causing them to be or at least seem "delusional".
Anything related to psychology is inclined to push my bullsh%t alarm. I did first year psychology 40 odd years ago as part of my science degree. Easy stuff, and I got a very good pass mark with minimal study. However, I was a bit disgusted at the subject, due to too much theorising and too little empirical evidence. I dumped psychology as a topic. Now I was prepared to accept that 40 years of advancement would make a big difference to this topic. I even thought that psychological therapies and counselling might have some merit. But I went to a sceptical lecture on counselling by an expert on the subject. Counselling is something that most people actually love. There is nothing better than talking through one's problems with a sympathetic listener. However, that does not mean it is therapeutic. According to the lecturer, most studies into the impact of counselling look at subjective results, in which the person being counselled talks about how wonderful it is. Conclusions are therefore misleading. Research studies that actually try to measure the effects in a more objective manner are few and far between. The main one listed was a British study into counselling for bereavement trauma. Result : those who received counselling took longer to heal. Results were very significant statistically. Seven other studies cited were similar. A couple years ago I went to a lecture by a woman who was a Ph.D. carrying out research into human psychology. She had something of a snide attitude to clinical psychology (but naturally enough, a very approving attitude towards research psychologists). She did not use 'naughty' words like charlaton, but they were clearly not far from her thoughts. She had a low opinion of clinical psychology, and actually said that the therapeutic results were debatable, to say the least.
Well, don't believe your teachers or your first gut reaction. Try to find what empirical, peer reviewed research says. Psychotherapy is effcient and cost-effective: http://www.talkingworks.co.nz/articles/evidence/apaefficacy2006.html Psychotherapy is cost-effective: http://www.apa.org/monitor/jan00/pr2.aspx Brain Data Reveal Why Psychotherapy Works: http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/content/39/9/34.1.full How Psychotherapy Works: http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2009/12/wampold.aspx
Cappucino If you want to offer evidence, it is best to find impartial reports. The APA and the other references you offered are clearly far from impartial. A bit like Glaxo writing a report on how Big Pharma is completely non corrupt. For example : the first reference shows psychotherapy assisting in treatment for cancer. Even though I am not a psychologist I know that to be total bulldust. Cancer researchers have run numerous tests checking for more favourable outcomes using various behavioural therapies, and the end result is zip. Psychological therapy might help cancer patients to die with a smile on their faces, but they aint gonna live one day longer. It is real easy, though, to cherry pick data in order to find 'evidence' for what you want to believe. Its a bit like those guys who want to prove prayor helps cancer sufferers. There are studies that actually show that. There are more studies that don't, but if you cherry pick - what the hell. Anyway, my earlier post was not about psychotherapy. It referred to counselling. Or are you going to tell me they are the same thing? The problem is that a lot of this sort of thing is "ice cream therapy". Meaning it does not actually help you, but it feels good at the time. If you measure the 'feel good' factor, you will conclude it is successful, despite the fact that the long term outcome is no better than no therapy. There are, of course, numerous 'therapies' that work better than drugs. For example, in cases of depression, the patient is better off guided through an intensive and long term course of physical fitness training, than given drugs. Many other conditions simply come right with time. It is true that drugs are over-used. But this does not mean that the best alternative is psychotherapy.
I made a number of statements. Please specify which you want evidence for. For example : the benefit of exercise on depression is found in many internet references. eg, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0675/is_3_18/ai_62342798/
The APAs (American Psychiatric Association & American Psychological Association) are not businesses, to start with. Then, did you miss the reference from the British Journal of Medicine? Peer review. The results in general are that Psychotherapeutic and Psychopharmacological treatments are roughly equivalent in the treatment of emotional conditions, but conjunctly work better. http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/177/2/138 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/8/38/abstract http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a747351564 http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/164/5/768 http://archives.drugabuse.gov/btdp/Effective/Liddle.html http://www.aasmnet.org/Articles.aspx?id=1295 So what? That isn't the objective of psychotherapy! It's like saying exercise will help your overall cardiorespiratory condition, but won't cure your cancer. Well, that's good news, not bad. Cancer treatment was never the objective of the leg press. You have yet to prove that peer reviewed journals "cherry pick" (you did not say they did, but since you suggested someone [me] who BTW was citing them... If A is B and B is C, then A is C). As I have cited medical journals also, you have just imputed the most presigious instruments of peer review the medical community possesses. You interspersed your statements about "counseling" (which many take as a synonym of 'therapy') between your statements about psychology and clinical psychology. For instance: "Anything related to psychology is inclined to push my bullsh%t alarm. I did first year psychology 40 odd years ago as part of my science degree. Easy stuff, and I got a very good pass mark with minimal study. However, I was a bit disgusted at the subject, due to too much theorising and too little empirical evidence. I dumped psychology as a topic." -and- "[...] and actually said that the therapeutic results were debatable, to say the least". Both are unfair assessments regarding the area. I do not agree and have not seen trustworthy evidence in either direction, regarding 'counselling versus psychotherapy'. Please provide references that physical fitness training is better than psychotherapy. I understand there are some studies surrounding phys exerc as being a inexpensive alternative, but not better than psychotherapy. And that's only about depression (unipolar). If you take the pages dedicated to unipolar depression in the DSM-IV, you will notice it takes some 4 or 5 pages out of the immense tome of "disorders" identified. I still consider, backed up by both logic and research, that the interpersonal coping skills acquired through therapy are the best, and most complete, means of handling the effects of interpersonal distress that accounts for practically all axis 2 and a great deal of axis 1 "disorders".
Actually, my statement about depression was comparing fitness training to drugs, in which the patient is better off on many levels. Drugs carry side effects, which are avoided by the fitness approach. Fitness also carries numerous health benefits. And fitness works well at combatting depression, as previously pointed out. Though I was not comparing fitness to psychotherapy, I think it is pretty obvious that the health benefits overall of fitness are a major advantage compared to psychotherapy. You have not answered my question about the difference between counselling and psychotherapy. Your references are valid, but not terribly convincing. Most show little benefit of psychotherapy compared to natural healing, or compared to drugs. I am also aware (from what I was told in the previously mentioned lectures) that there are peer reviewed studies that show the opposite. I have a personal suspicion that 'peer therapy' might be a better approach anyway. That is, spending time with friends and family - people who genuinely love the emotionally ill victim. I am inclined to accept the value of love as a therapy, as long as that love is long term, and not just for a short period, such as counselling sessions.
