Can you psycho-analyze someone you hardly know?

[Deleted member 66627]

Why yes, yes you can.

Opinions?

 

[chicago]

Depends on your definition of hardly.

I mean, you can, but it's highly possible you could be wrong if you don't know them at all. If you know them enough to notice patterns in behavior and such, then analyze away!

Seriously though, according to Wikipedia, "Psychoanalysis is a body of ideas developed by Austrian physician Sigmund Freud and his followers, which is devoted to the study of human psychological functioning and behavior. It has three applications: 1) a method of investigation of the mind; 2) a systematized set of theories about human behavior; and 3) a method of treatment of psychological or emotional illness.[1] Under the broad umbrella of psychoanalysis there are at least 20 different theoretical orientations regarding the underlying theory of understanding of human mentation and human development. The various approaches in treatment called "psychoanalytic" vary as much as the different theories do. In addition, the term refers to a method of studying child development."

I don't think half the people who "psychoanalyze" others really know what they're doing. And most times, it's not used as a means of helping another, more as a means of justifying the judging of a person one doesn't know well.

 

[Deleted member 66627]

Mairead; It'd be along the lines of Number One.

.

 

[badreligion]

*sigh*

No.

Again.. the discussion was leading way off topic, but you had posed an interesting statement. One that would be cool to discuss. It didn't 'totally pop into my head' if you were the one who made it, guy.

well ok then im sorry for hurling insults it just seemed very suspicious

 

[Deleted member 66627]

well ok then im sorry for hurling insults it just seemed very suspicious

Forgiven.

Now, why do you feel as if it's not possible? (without the flaming, plz.)

But to stay on topic, we’ve got enough information here to psycho-analyze, properly diagnose, and prescribe appropriate treatment (including drugs) for all involved.

See? And I know you're serious too.. because, it's true!

 

[Redmage]

Learn. Punctuation.

As for the OP, yes, it's possible. Depends on what you mean by "hardly know," and what the issue is you're analyzing. For example you don't have to know a whole lot about a person to recognize paranoid schizophrenia.

In less extreme cases, people go to psychoanalysts and psychologists all the time for diagnosis and therapy, and it's safe to say that these professionals don't really "know" their patients in any intimate sense. They're trained to find out what they need to know about a patient in order to make a diagnosis, but additional personal details are usually gravy.

And even for a non-professional, it's not always hard to spot someone who has issues, even if you don't know exactly what the issues are. Where it gets tricky is when you try to diagnose a problem in yourself, or in another person as it relates to you, because there your own issues are very likely to color your perceptions. Professionals don't even try to do this; they bring in another, impartial professional to help them.

So in a sense you could say that you can't psychoanalyze someone if you know them too well.

 

[RUNOFFSTAGE]

Well .. if you can get the person to show things hidden in their subconscious mind and
you take notice in them I think that's quite possible.
Although, as Redmage said, it can't be done by someone who knows the person too well.

 

[Dave2112]

There is a vast set of differences between spotting personality traits and patterns and truly psycho-analyzing a person. So, to jump into the debate... (And since there are many people involved at this point, let me state that this is an overall opinion on the topic, not directed at any particular poster.)

There is a reason that people who psychoanalyze for a living train and go to school longer than most of us own a car or live in the same place. It is one thing to read people's internet posts or interact with them online and notice patterns and quite another to fully understand the underlying reasons for those patterns and personality traits.

Mairead gave us a list of three things involving psychoanalysis. The third is treatment. You can't just do the first two without the third and consider it "psychoanalysis". You don't get to pick and choose which parts you want to perform.

Redmage stated that it doesn't take much to recognize a paranoid shizophrenic. Well....yes it does. Paranoid schizophrenia mimics many other disorders and is rarely diagnosed quickly, and never lightly, even by trained professionals. Can you tell by reading posts that a person is PS and not, say....dissociative? Or suffering from a state of regression? Considering the fact that the same "treatment" or even "personal dealing/interaction" will have vastly different effects for just those three possibilities would make me extremely hesitant to comfortably decide what someone I hardly know is apparently suffering from. The potential for damage is too great.

And that's the real meat of the issue here. Not only is the unqualified psychoanalysis of someone over the internet, someone you don't know, irresponsible...it's potentially extremely dangerous. It's one thing to gather information and collate it into a perceived summation, to "get a rough idea of what the person is about"....and quite another to understand what's NOT being said. The reasons behind things. People will foten say certain things, act certain ways, but hold the motivations for that close to the chest. Let's say a person says "Thing X"....but you don't know why. You think you do. You've put a few things together and pretty assured that you know why. But without it being said, you really don't. Now, let's say Thing X was said because a person is momentarily angry. Or, let's say that Thing X was said because of a deep-seated issue regarding abuse. Or possibly that it's physical and due to a chemical imbalance. Now, you respond with Thing Y, nopt knowing that underlying reason. In the first instance, it will do little more than agitate. Not helpful, but not anything we don't see every single day online. In the second or possibly third cases, you could inadvertantly trigger that person into something you didn't expect. Something potentially dangerous.

Because you were not qualified to see the larger picture. I'll share a little something here. Past couple weeks, I've been dealing with some things, and talking with someone online who has training. It helped a bit, getting an outside perspective. However, at a certain point, this person told me that there was only so much that could be done this way, that he was not qualified to go any further, from a distance and without knowing me better and knowing more of the underlying causes. And I've known said individual for some time.

So, I'd have to say that, no....I don't believe that we can psychoanalyze someone we don't know, or even someone we do if we're not qualified. We can help, we can offer support....but to attempt to psychoanalyze a person without the proper training and qualifications is not only irresponsible, but potentially very dangerous to that individual and to yourself. It's like a car...let's say you don't know a hell of a lot about cars, but you can "figure things out" pretty well. Your friend comes to you and says his brakes aren't working, and there's a puddle of fluid under one of the wheels. So, you hop online and tell him to replace the brake line for that wheel and bleed the brakes. What you didn't know was that the bleeder itself was broken. He does what you tell him, drives his car and gets into an accident. Because you weren't qualified and trained to look for the other possible reasons. A rough analogy, yes...but valid.

Bottom line is, we're all capable of reading into one another to some extent, some more than others. But true psychoanalysis needs to be left to the professionals. It's easier than you'd ever imagine to be wrong and cause more damage than you're fixing. And if you're going to decide to take someone's analysis upon your shoulders, you better damn well be prepared to put responsibility for the possible consequences on those same shoulders when and if you're wrong or misinformed.

Sorry for the long post, but I feel very strongly about this topic.

 

[MySoCalledLaugh]

...

Dave, I was about to try and wade into the ridiculous pissing match going on here when I read your post. It is not only a display of towering insight and sensitivity, it resonates for me, personally, in ways I cannot even begin to describe.

All I can say is, thank you for this. It should be required reading not only for everyone here, but for everyone who uses the internets in general.

There is a vast set of differences between spotting personality traits and patterns and truly psycho-analyzing a person. So, to jump into the debate... (And since there are many people involved at this point, let me state that this is an overall opinion on the topic, not directed at any particular poster.)

There is a reason that people who psychoanalyze for a living train and go to school longer than most of us own a car or live in the same place. It is one thing to read people's internet posts or interact with them online and notice patterns and quite another to fully understand the underlying reasons for those patterns and personality traits.

Mairead gave us a list of three things involving psychoanalysis. The third is treatment. You can't just do the first two without the third and consider it "psychoanalysis". You don't get to pick and choose which parts you want to perform.

Redmage stated that it doesn't take much to recognize a paranoid shizophrenic. Well....yes it does. Paranoid schizophrenia mimics many other disorders and is rarely diagnosed quickly, and never lightly, even by trained professionals. Can you tell by reading posts that a person is PS and not, say....dissociative? Or suffering from a state of regression? Considering the fact that the same "treatment" or even "personal dealing/interaction" will have vastly different effects for just those three possibilities would make me extremely hesitant to comfortably decide what someone I hardly know is apparently suffering from. The potential for damage is too great.

And that's the real meat of the issue here. Not only is the unqualified psychoanalysis of someone over the internet, someone you don't know, irresponsible...it's potentially extremely dangerous. It's one thing to gather information and collate it into a perceived summation, to "get a rough idea of what the person is about"....and quite another to understand what's NOT being said. The reasons behind things. People will foten say certain things, act certain ways, but hold the motivations for that close to the chest. Let's say a person says "Thing X"....but you don't know why. You think you do. You've put a few things together and pretty assured that you know why. But without it being said, you really don't. Now, let's say Thing X was said because a person is momentarily angry. Or, let's say that Thing X was said because of a deep-seated issue regarding abuse. Or possibly that it's physical and due to a chemical imbalance. Now, you respond with Thing Y, nopt knowing that underlying reason. In the first instance, it will do little more than agitate. Not helpful, but not anything we don't see every single day online. In the second or possibly third cases, you could inadvertantly trigger that person into something you didn't expect. Something potentially dangerous.

Because you were not qualified to see the larger picture. I'll share a little something here. Past couple weeks, I've been dealing with some things, and talking with someone online who has training. It helped a bit, getting an outside perspective. However, at a certain point, this person told me that there was only so much that could be done this way, that he was not qualified to go any further, from a distance and without knowing me better and knowing more of the underlying causes. And I've known said individual for some time.

So, I'd have to say that, no....I don't believe that we can psychoanalyze someone we don't know, or even someone we do if we're not qualified. We can help, we can offer support....but to attempt to psychoanalyze a person without the proper training and qualifications is not only irresponsible, but potentially very dangerous to that individual and to yourself. It's like a car...let's say you don't know a hell of a lot about cars, but you can "figure things out" pretty well. Your friend comes to you and says his brakes aren't working, and there's a puddle of fluid under one of the wheels. So, you hop online and tell him to replace the brake line for that wheel and bleed the brakes. What you didn't know was that the bleeder itself was broken. He does what you tell him, drives his car and gets into an accident. Because you weren't qualified and trained to look for the other possible reasons. A rough analogy, yes...but valid.

Bottom line is, we're all capable of reading into one another to some extent, some more than others. But true psychoanalysis needs to be left to the professionals. It's easier than you'd ever imagine to be wrong and cause more damage than you're fixing. And if you're going to decide to take someone's analysis upon your shoulders, you better damn well be prepared to put responsibility for the possible consequences on those same shoulders when and if you're wrong or misinformed.

Sorry for the long post, but I feel very strongly about this topic.

 

[RobAce]

that was a great post Dave2112.

Nuff said.

Rob

 

[Obelon]

I was going to say No and give my reason why but to be honest Dave has more than said anything I could.

What I will add and is something Dave has said this apply's not only to online but in the real world as well. Without skill/training and taking the time to get to know a person it is stabing in the dark trying to psychoanalyze a person.

 

[Myriads]

The short answer to the Op's question: No.

When you 'hardly' know a person, or only have a handful of data points of observation from various internet postings, or the occasional conversation then you are at best able to make informed guesses about a person and their mental state.

That is not real analyisis, it's playing a game of connect the dots in hoping that you see the 'real' picture.

I do a lot of suicide and grief counceling. It requires me to get a fast read on a person and make chocies to de-escalate the situation on the fly. I do this by looking at any and all information that I can lay hands on and quickly guessing as to the right path to the goal (a calmer and more rational person) through it.

Some might call that analysis, I call it skillful guessing. And that is the best you can hope for when you don't have serious interactive time with a person. Guesses. You can back it with experince and knowledge and skill, but you are still guessing. You have no clue as to what is deeper in that persons past and mind that is motivating what behavior you can see.

The trained analyst brings more weight of knowledge and understanding of the mechanics of the mind. The Amature can gain this knowledge, but it's still hard to have complete training. I've free-counceled for almost 25 years now, and do not consider myself a professional even though I am good at it. There always comes the point where I tell a person they need to seek pro help if their situation warrents it. I'm a triage councelor at best. I hold folks togther long enough to get them to the real doctors, or past the sort of problem that is temp issue that will fade with time and distance, and for which they just needed an ear.

People are complex. The bits we see are very much like the iceburg floating along. They inform us there is a lot below, and even perhaps some of its shape and composition, but damned if we can be sure exactly what.

Professionals can't (and won't) do it until they have a lot of contact time. Oh, they will drop things into general catagories, paranoid, psychotic, etc. But even then those are still guesses, they are throwing the ball into a very large box with a lable on it. They still are not sure, other then what they see sure looks like one of these basic groups.

Believing that as an amature, one can 'know' a person, or diagnose what exactly is wrong with them based only on removed viewing of conversation, or minimal contact is a bad way to go in ones interactions. It makes one forget that you are guessing. It makes one take chances that may be amazingly dangerous if you knew more.

I'd not recommend it.

So no. No you cannot psycho-analyse a person effectivly when you don't know them. At best you have a guess. And when one mucks about with a persons emotions and thoughts and feelings, a guess, even a good one, is a huge risk.

Myriads

 

[Headsnap]

I wonder if I'd made this thread, would it have gotten to two pages in length? :-o

Perhaps DJ Mujava has the answer. Let's ask DJ Mujava!

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0l5-zQlgoEE&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0l5-zQlgoEE&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

[tcklft]

...
So, I'd have to say that, no....I don't believe that we can psychoanalyze someone we don't know, or even someone we do if we're not qualified. We can help, we can offer support....but to attempt to psychoanalyze a person without the proper training and qualifications is not only irresponsible, but potentially very dangerous to that individual and to yourself.

Bottom line is, we're all capable of reading into one another to some extent, some more than others. But true psychoanalysis needs to be left to the professionals. It's easier than you'd ever imagine to be wrong and cause more damage than you're fixing. And if you're going to decide to take someone's analysis upon your shoulders, you better damn well be prepared to put responsibility for the possible consequences on those same shoulders when and if you're wrong or misinformed.

Excellent post, Dave.

Apropos of not much: anyone here ever hang with a first year psych student? One that thinks he/she is qualified to diagnose your every twitch and tic minutes after meeting you? It's creepy, I tells ya ... creepy! 😱

 

[RUNOFFSTAGE]

Excellent post, Dave.

Apropos of not much: anyone here ever hang with a first year psych student? One that thinks he/she is qualified to diagnose your every twitch and tic minutes after meeting you? It's creepy, I tells ya ... creepy! 😱

Amen to that O.O At first they seem to treat you like a normal person, then comes the
occassional nods and "hmm"s of understanding. THEN they tell you that you might be
mentally ill. Quite charming, it is ..

On another note..
Can you psycho-analyze someone, or, can you correctly psycho-analyze someone?
Because we can all walk around, playing Sigmund Freud - that's even good for your mind ;]

 

[EcEu]

Dave and Myriads really have their shit together when it comes to the human psyche, their posts speak the truth.

This is one of the major reasons why i changed my mind about having psychology as a minor, even with a lifetime of experience it's still impossible to be able to fully figure someone out, like Myriads said we would only be making educated guesses. An individual goes through so many experiences in their life time, all those things influence thoughts and decisions on the fly each day, it's hard enough to figure out people in a general sense in person, so i think it would be even more improbable to make a good read on someone online.

Jo Jo you make the best threads 🙂 <3 <3 <3

 

[Deleted member 66627]

Okay, so in a round-about way, if the thread topic was changed to 'educated guess' about someone, it'd be a different story.

In a way though, aren't acts of observation of one's personality or possible mental condition, small forms of psychology? Or is it something that runs deeper?

 

[Headsnap]

Okay, so in a round-about way, if the thread topic was changed to 'educated guess' about someone, it'd be a different story.

In a way though, aren't acts of observation of one's personality or possible mental condition, small forms of psychology? Or is it something that runs deeper?

Perhaps we should ask DJ Mujava, South Africa's leading specialist on psychoanalysis and stripped-down techno music?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0l5-zQlgoEE&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0l5-zQlgoEE&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

I think the answer there is unequivocal.

 

[EcEu]

you already posted that video twice, could you explain where you are getting at and how this relates to the topic?

 

[Headsnap]

you already posted that video twice, could you explain where you are getting at and how this relates to the topic?

The answers to your questions are contained within the video. I would've thought that would be self-evident to anyone who had actually watched the video. If you are having trouble comprehending the message please contact DJ Mujava directly, as I see no need to elucidate further upon the relevance of his video to the topic under discussion.

Also I think you'll find I've posted this video a lot moar than twice.

 

[Skipadeedoodah]

Excellent post, Dave.

Apropos of not much: anyone here ever hang with a first year psych student? One that thinks he/she is qualified to diagnose your every twitch and tic minutes after meeting you? It's creepy, I tells ya ... creepy! 😱

I'm a psych student (4th year not 1st year but I feel this still applies) and I work with people with severe mental illness.

I've always been the type of person who listens to people and tries to help them with their problems. The standard "mmhmm"-ing isn't someone trying to act like a therapist, it's called active listening, and it's a way to let the other person know that you're engaged what they're saying, even if you're just listening. I did that long before I made the choice to study psychology, and I'll do it for the rest of my life, just because it's part of how I communicate.

As far as telling people they may have mental illness, I'm not a psychologist or any other professional who is licensed to diagnose, however, if someone tells me they're hearing voices, contemplating suicide, or having obsessive thoughts and relieving their anxiety with compulsive behaviors, because I have some education in this area, I AM going to tell them that based on what they've told me, and my familiarity with mental illness, they may have a type of psychosis, depression, or OCD, accordingly.

If someone who does not appear to have any mental illness or symptoms thereof is talking to me and brings up an issue that I feel is more serious or severe than I, as a FRIEND, not as a professional, am equipped to deal with, I will encourage them to talk to someone who is.

Case in point, a very close friend of mine has battled with depression, isolation and anxiety for as long as I've known him. He's confided things in me, and I've suggested he speak to a counselor. At one point, he told me that he cuts himself when he gets really stressed out or depressed. I know that cutting is dangerous, and a big warning sign, so I told him that I really felt like he needed to share this with his therapist. It wasn't me trying to psychoanalyze him or "read" him. It was me expressing concern and being a friend.

Having knowledge about something, and putting that knowledge to use for the people you love isn't creepy. It's just trying to help them out.

 

[Marquis De Sade]

More than half the time I can't even figure myself out.

 

[Dave2112]

Even a "read" can be misleading. Sure, it can give one insight and a basis to relate to another, but in the end it really doesn't matter what terminology we use. Psychoanalysis, a "read", insight.....it's still the same thing. Assuming one knows more about a person than they actually do. We can connect all the dots we want from posts and such, but the inherant dangers are still the same, no matter what we choose to call it. It's still assumption. It's still putting a puzzle together without all the pieces. And it still carries great risk when we decide to act a certain way based on faulty "knowledge".

We often base what we think we know about someone on our own experiences as well. We see what we wish to see when confronted with similar patterns. There is no way to "unbias" oneself when the observer may share similar problems, deficiencies, traumas...whatever...with the observed.

Simply put, it's just not possible to do anything more than get a rough idea about anyone's complexities through these means. You never get it all. And we ALL wind up missing key components, because so few of us actually put EVERYTHING out there. Just changing the terminology doesn't change the arguement...everything remains the same. Convincing ourselves that we "know" someone and that we've "figured them out" still runs great risk of possibly damaging or hurting that person if we're reacting based on faulty or incomplete information, regardless of the label we put on it.

 

[Deleted member 66627]

So no. No you cannot psycho-analyse a person effectivly when you don't know them. At best you have a guess. And when one mucks about with a persons emotions and thoughts and feelings, a guess, even a good one, is a huge risk.

Myriads

Psycho-analyzing a person you've just met, though is possible. You've made it clear that it can be done.. the debate seems to lie within how effectively it can be done.

In short, Yes. I think it can be the more I think about it. Especially given your post.

Psycho-analyzing someone effectively and solving all their problems? No. That's when you begin to go into 'dropping balls into boxes'.

 

[BellaRisa]

Psycho-analyzing a person you've just met, though is possible. You've made it clear that it can be done.. the debate seems to lie within how effectively it can be done.

In short, Yes. I think it can be the more I think about it. Especially given your post.

Psycho-analyzing someone effectively and solving all their problems? No. That's when you begin to go into 'dropping balls into boxes'.

I could be wrong, but I get the impression that your question is more along the lines of whether we can get a decent idea of someone's personality/issues based on the behavior they show us in the short term (internet, brief meeting, etc.) Now, while I completely agree with those who say that you cannot analyze someone that way, you can most definitely get an idea and go with that gut instinct. That immediate vibe is rarely wrong, in my experience, and while getting to know someone better can indeed change your view, that initial 'read' based on what that person is showing the world can hardly be faulted and ignoring it can be a horrible mistake.