Tag Archives: Psychodynamic Psychotherapy

How Lacan’s Theory Can Be Helpful in Psychotherapy

Lacan's RegistersHow Lacan’s theory can be helpful in psychotherapy may not be obvious and is often overlooked.

The theories and concepts of French psychoanalyst, Jacques Lacan, are considered by many as among the most significant contributions to psychoanalytic thinking and praxis since Freud; yet his work is largely unknown to many American psychotherapists. Lacan is mostly known in the US in terms of applications to literary criticism and socio-political theory, and those who are familiar with Lacan typically describe his contributions as intriguing, but esoteric and enigmatic. Much has been written regarding Lacan’s philosophical, political, and mathematical influences, but many Lacanian theorists have adopted an obscure and cryptic style, perhaps in homage to the master. Discussions have tended to be abstract and esoteric, making their practical application to psychotherapy difficult. Whereas Lacan’s concepts are complex, both philosophically and logically, my reading of his work suggests that he sought to promote creative and relevant applications by clinicians, and that his constructs can be very helpful in guiding one’s thinking in the clinical process.

Let me be clear—I do not consider myself to be a “Lacanian,” nor do I apply his concepts in what some may consider an “orthodox” manner. Rather, as a practicing psychoanalyst and psychologist of over 35 years, I have sought to integrate the wisdom from many theories and mentors. Lacan’s writings, published as Écrits, include discussions of art, literature, religion, culture, philosophy, and music, all as expressions of the human experience that are essential for venturing into a serious consideration of the psyche.

My original attraction to Lacan came from my interest in psycholinguistics. As linguistic creatures, our conscious thoughts are structured by our language. Lacan, perhaps more than any other psychoanalytic theorist, emphasized the role and function of language as the organizer of the mind.

Language serves as a vehicle for communicating subjective experience into a shared collective objectivity. In speaking, the person enacts their language to externalize what is intuitively known internally. This externalization is always an approximation of the internal known, and thus constitutes a compromise formation. In this way, speech is symptomatic of the unconscious since this linguistic translation is an approximation, adapting the subjective into the objective, with some aspect of that private experience being lost and changed in translation. The important question for psychotherapy is, what is being approximated? For Lacan, the answer is the patient’s personal truth. The speaker (Subject) works toward expressing a personal private truth by speaking in a language that is not their own but is required to be used for social discourse. The fact that all participants of that language/speech process are expected to use their language conventionally makes neurosis inevitable.

The enactment of language through speech or conscious thought must always be considered in a relational context, or discourse. Lacan proposes a psychologically-based model of social discourse that is informed by structural linguistics, political theory, and psychoanalysis.  He offers four structures that are contexts in a social exchange. These four structures are his discourses of Master, University, Hysteric, and Analyst, which serve as archetypal categories for social relations. Lacan’s discourses are comprised of a Subject, as the agent who initiates the communication, and an Object, as the “Other” who serves to complement the dialectic. When engaging in speech, the Subject’s motivation is an unconscious derivative of a subjective truth. This truth is “known,” but ineffable. Through the dialectical exchange with the Other, a product in the form of a verbal response is created by the Other for the Subject. In this way, the Subject’s truth is named by the language of the Other. By naming the Subject’s truth, one is subjugated into a social order that compromises the Subject in accordance with social convention. As was stated earlier, the process of socialization necessitates compromise and thereby ensures a degree of self-alienation.

Each of the four discourses establishes a variant in the dialectic between the person and others. The intent behind psychoanalysis becomes the empowerment of the person as their own master, without the necessity for the subordination by another. Lacan confers upon psychoanalysis an ethical directive to allow the patient the authority to know their self.

This pursuit is different from a medical or scientific agenda where the removal of symptoms is the goal. Symptoms and complaints expressed by the patient are respected as statements attempting to speak a personal, private truth known only to the patient, but repressed from speech owing to the inadequacy of language. The medical agenda for reducing or eliminating symptoms is at complete odds with Lacanian therapy. Emotional suffering, in this regard, demands understanding by and for the patient alone. Implicit in this suffering lies a passion and desire that eludes direct linguistic expression, yet may be knowable from recognizing the limits set by language. Herein lies the neurotic dilemma of speaking the unspeakable to another who is likewise a divided self.

Another of Lacan’s contributions to the understanding of the mind is the mental registers: Real, Imaginary, and Symbolic. These registers can, I believe, be thought of as forms of information created by the mind that together form knowledge. These mental registers add another degree of complexity in understanding the human experience. Lacan was most concerned with the phenomenological over a mechanical or biological understanding of mental experience. His mental registers can be thought to emphasize a multileveled nesting of mental processes that could provide a framework for appreciating the humanness of the mind.

It is important to reiterate that the focus of treatment is the patient in relationship to others. This position is in contradistinction to those forms of psychotherapy aimed at altering psychic structures such as the ego and its defenses or in working toward the targeting of specific symptoms. Lacan adopted an epistemological stance consistent with systems theories. From this position, a patient’s psychic conflict arises from an effort to preserve sanity in the context of living among others. Contemporary clinical psychology and American psychoanalysis tend toward promoting change in the patient by addressing diagnosed psychopathological conditions that are constellations of symptoms. The current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association (DSM-5) and other nosological systems such as the International Classification of Diseases by the World Health Organization (ICD-10), give primacy to the disease (disorder) and secondarily to the patient wherein it is thought to manifest.

How Lacan’s theory can be applied in psychotherapy? I have found that Lacan’s key concepts are helpful in understanding and guiding the therapeutic process. As clinicians, our primary tool for treating patients is rooted in our use of language to communicate and approximate understanding. Understanding, itself, is a lifelong pursuit that may be fundamental to the mind and our sanity.

If you would like to learn more about how Lacan’s basic constructs can be applied in clinical work, please see the video course, Lacan – Inspired Psychotherapy (4 CE Credits). In it, I review the basic constructs and apply them to two clinical cases. For a more thorough review of his theory in a reading, please see the course based on an article written by an expert on Lacan: Jacques Lacan: Introductory Overview (4 CE Credits).

Is Psychodynamic Psychotherapy Evidence-Based?
Evidence-Based Psychodynamic Psychotherapy

Is Psychodynamic Psychotherapy Evidence-Based?

The public—and many clinicians—often assume that it is not. In fact, many university courses teach that only cognitive-behavioral approaches have current empirical support. This assumption is false and does a disservice to the field and to the public alike. A growing number of studies demonstrate that psychodynamic psychotherapy is evidence-based, and support the value of psychoanalytic and psychodynamic approaches, especially for complex cases and long-term change. 

Some Psychological Approaches Are Easier to Research Than Others

Clinical psychology is a multifaceted discipline, with a history that spans over 100 years. Since its origins, approaches and perspectives have come and gone in popularity. Classical psychoanalysis, object relations theory, and ego psychology; humanistic client-centered, gestalt, and existential therapies; behavior therapies; cognitive, cognitive-behavioral, and mindfulness-based cognitive therapies; interpersonal therapy; eye movement desensitization therapy; dialectical behavior therapy; integrative or holistic therapy—and the list continues to grow. Some approaches have been studied more than others. Many show promising results in some studies, only to be found to be limited in others. Some win favor because they are simple to research, and so garner publicity and research grants. Others draw attention because they are easy to teach and to master, or are short in duration and so inexpensive. Psychoanalytic and psychodynamic approaches are complex; they are not easily taught and they pose challenges to research. But, despite this, they continue to have many followers and are gaining impressive scientific support.

A Growing Body of Research Supports the Value of Psychodynamic Psychotherapy, Despite Its Complexity

Is psychodynamic psychotherapy evidence-based? Absolutely! Numerous current scientific studies support the value of psychodynamic and psychoanalytic approaches. In fact, meta-analyses—studies that gather evidence across multiple studies—demonstrate the effectiveness of psychodynamic and psychoanalytic work and indicate that, in some cases, psychodynamic approaches may be more effective in the long-run than other therapeutic models (e.g., Abbass et al., 2014; Baardseth et al., 2013; Bastos, Guimaraes, & Trentini, 2015; Buchheim et al., 2012; Busch, 2015; Grande et al., 2009; Johansson et al., 2010; Kallestad, Valen, McCullough, Svartberg, Høglend, & Stiles, 2010; Klug, Zimmermann, & Huber, 2016; Leichsenring, & Rabung, 2011; Midgley & Kennedy, 2011; Parker & Turner, 2014; Rizeanu, 2016; Shedler, 2010; Shepherd & Beail, 2017; Soares et al., 2018; Waldron, Gazzillo, Genova, & Lingiardi, 2013; Waldron, Gazzillo, & Stukenberg, 2015).

Psychodynamic Psychotherapy Is Often Misperceived

As noted by Shedler (2010) in an article published by the American Psychologist—a well-regarded publication of the American Psychological Association, “the perception that psychodynamic approaches lack empirical support does not accord with available scientific evidence and may reflect selective dissemination of research findings” (p. 98). This faulty perception has led some educational programs to downplay its significance or even dismiss it as an “outdated” approach. It is in the public interest that the field conduct scientific inquiry into the potential benefits and mechanisms of all therapies that clinicians have found to be valuable. Researchers cannot adequately investigate theories that they do not fully understand—research draws from a theoretical base (Britzman, 2012), which must be clearly understood before meaningful studies can be conducted regarding its mechanisms (e.g., Gazzillo et al., 2017; Laska, Gurman, & Wampold, 2014; Waldron et al., 2015). It is, therefore, crucial for science as well that the field continue to be educated about the premises of these valuable therapeutic approaches. Unlike some behavioral theories, many of the constructs of psychodynamic and psychoanalytic theory can only be assessed indirectly. Fortunately, many researchers are accepting the creative challenge.

It Is Important to Continue Researching All Psychotherapy Approaches

It is important for psychologists, psychoanalysts, and counselors to stay current, with scientifically grounded evidence, regarding issues relevant to enhancing their service to the public and the profession. Research, and informed discussion and practice, strengthen the profession. Is psychodynamic psychotherapy evidence-based? Yes, psychodynamic and psychoanalytic therapies are indeed empirically validated as valuable approaches for a wide range of disorders and clients. And, to quote Eric Kandel, neuroscientist and Nobel Laureate, “Psychoanalysis still represents the most coherent and intellectually satisfying view of the mind” (1999, p. 505).

References for Evidence-Based Psychodynamic Psychotherapy

Abbass, A. A., Kisely, S. R., Town, J. M., Leichsenring, F., Driessen, E., De Maat, S., Gerber, A., Dekker, J., Rabung, S., Rusalovska, S., & Crowe, E. (2014). Short-term psychodynamic psychotherapies for common mental disorders (review). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 7, 1-108.  doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004687.pub4

Baardseth, T. P., Goldberg, S. B., Pace, B. T., Wislocki, A. P., Frost, N. D., Siddiqui, J. R., Lindemann, A. M., Kivlighan III, D. M., Laska, K. M., Del Re, A. C., Minami, T., & Wampold, B. E. (2013). Cognitive-behavioral therapy versus other therapies: Redux. Clinical Psychology Review, 33, 395-405.

Bastos, A. G., Guimaraes, L. S. P., & Trentini, C. M. (2015). The efficacy of long-term psychodynamic psychotherapy, fluoxetine and their combination in the outpatient treatment of depression. Psychotherapy Research, 25(5), 612-624.

Britzman, D. P. (2012). What is the use of theory? A psychoanalytic discussion. Changing English: Studies in Culture and Education, 19(1), 43-56.

Buchheim, A., Viviani, R., Kessler, H., Kächele, H., Cierpka, M., et al. (2012). Changes in prefrontal-limbic function in major depression after 15 months of long-term psychotherapy. PLoS ONE, 7(3).

Busch, F. N. (2015). Discussion: Psychoanalytic research: Progress and questions. Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 35, 196-203.

Gazzillo, F., Waldron S., Gorman, B. S., Stukenberg, K. W., Genova, F., Ristucci, C., Faccini, F., & Mazza, C. (2017). The components of psychoanalysis: Factor analyses of process measures of 27 fully recorded psychoanalyses. Psychoanalytic Psychology, advance online publication, 1-12.

Grande, T., Dilg, R., Jakobsen, T., Keller, W., Krawietz, B., Langer, M., Oberbracht, C., Stehle, S., Stennes, M., & Rudolf, G. (2009). Structural change as a predictor of long-term follow-up outcome. Psychotherapy Research, 19(3), 344-357.

Johansson, P., Høglend, P., Ulberg, R., Amlo, S., Marble, A., Bøgwald, K.-P., Sørbye, Ø., Sjaastad, M. C., & Heyerdahl, O. (2010). The mediating role of insight for long-term improvements in psychodynamic therapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 78(3), 438-448.

Kallestad, H., Valen, J., McCullough, L., Svartberg, M., Høglend, P., & Stiles, T. C. (2010). The relationship between insight gained during therapy and long-term outcome in short-term dynamic psychotherapy and cognitive therapy for cluster C personality disorders. Psychotherapy Research, 20(5), 526-534.

Kandel, E. (1999). Biology and the future of psychoanalysis: New intellectural framework for psychiatry revisited. American Journal of Psychiatry, 156, 505-524.

Klug, G., Zimmermann, J., & Huber, D. (2016). Outcome trajectories and mediation in psychotherapeutic treatments of major depression. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 64(2), 307-343.

Laska, K. M., Gurman, A. S., & Wampold, B. E. (2014). Expanding the lens of evidence-based practice in psychotherapy: A common factors perspective. Psychotherapy, 51(4), 467-481.

Leichsenring, F., & Rabung, S. (2011). Long-term psychodynamic psychotherapy in complex mental disorders: Update of a meta-analysis. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 199, 15–22.

Midgley, N., & Kennedy, E. (2011). Psychodynamic psychotherapy for children and adolescents: A critical review of the evidence base. Journal of Child Psychotherapy, 37(3), 232-260.

Parker, B., & Turner, W. (2014). Psychoanalytic/psychodynamic psychotherapy for sexually abused children and adolescents: A systematic review. Research on Social Work Practice, 24(4), 389-399.

Rizeanu, S. (2016). Psychotherapy of borderline personality disorder. Romanian Journal of Experimental Applied Psychology, 7(3), 76-81. doi: 10.15303/rjeap.2016.v7i3.a7

Shedler, J. (2010). The efficacy of psychodynamic psychotherapy. American Psychologist, 65(2), 98-109. doi: 10.1037/a0018378,

Shepherd, C., & Beail, N. (2017). A systematic review of the effectiveness of psychoanalysis, psychoanalytic and psychodynamic psychotherapy with adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities: Progress and challenges. Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy, 31(1), 94-117.

Soares, M. C., Mondin, T. C., Silva, G. D. G. D., Barbosa, L. P., Molina, M. L., Jansen, K., Souza, L. D. M., & Silva, R. A. D. (2018). Comparison of clinical significance of cognitive-behavioral therapy and psychodynamic therapy for major depressive disorder: A randomized clinical trial. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 206(9), 686-693.

Waldron, S., Gazzillo, F., Genova, F., & Lingiardi, V. (2013). Relational and classical elements in psychoanalyses: An empirical study with case illustrations. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 30(4), 567-600. Waldron, S., Gazzillo, F., & Stukenberg, K. (2015). Do the processes of psychoanalytic work lead to benefit? Studies by the APS Research Group and the Psychoanalytic Research Consortium. Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 35, 169-184.

Jacques Lacan: A Real, Imaginary, and Symbolic Psychoanalyst

Jacques Lacan: A Real, Imaginary, and Symbolic Psychoanalyst 

Jacques LacanAs a practicing psychoanalyst for the past 30-plus years, I have sought to integrate the wisdom from many mentors. My supervisors and training analyst guided me through the collected works of Freud, Klein, Winnicott, and Spotnitz. While writing my doctoral dissertation on clinical psycholinguistics, I learned of the work of Jacques Lacan, a French psychoanalyst.

The more I read of Lacan’s ideas, the more fascinated I became with his unique take on the role of language for shaping the mind and the practice of psychoanalysis. Equally intriguing were the stories about Lacan, the man, who fought to promote a view of psychoanalysis that dared to challenge the prevailing orthodoxy of the psychoanalytic establishment.

Psychoanalysis has been fraught with in-fighting, exclusiveness, and dogmatism since its inception, which bears an embarrassing irony toward unresolved Oedipal feuds. Fortunately, my training had encouraged an appreciation for psychoanalysis as one of the humanities. Art, literature, religion, culture, philosophy, and music are all expressions of the human experience that are essential for venturing into a serious consideration of the psyche. Lacan’s masterpiece, simply titled, Écrits, included discussions of all of these topics and more.

Certainly his writing is dense and difficult; yet, I found it compelling as a source of provocative ideas and observations. A learned colleague once warned me that life is too short to read Lacan. In fact, most of my colleagues have shared similar negative biases, although they had never read his work themselves and relied, instead, on second- and third-hand critiques. Like most contemporary textbooks on psychology that summarily dismiss Freud out of ignorance or misinformation, these colleagues were content to preserve their allegiance to a particular school of thought.

Some Lacanian theorists have since become a somewhat esoteric group in the US, often adopting an obscure and cryptic style, perhaps in homage to the master. Whereas Lacan’s concepts are complex, both philosophically and logically, my reading of his work suggests that he sought to promote creative and relevant applications by clinicians, not to develop sycophants.

As an addition to Freud’s structural model of the mind consisting of the Id, Ego, and Superego, Lacan proposed that our subjective experience is contextualized with regard to how phenomena become registered in the mind. He identified three constituent contexts for the mind: the Real, the Imaginary, and the Symbolic. Broadly described, the Real is fundamentally a derivative of our senses, the Imaginary is derived from perceptual and fantasied mental processes, and the Symbolic is derived from culture and through language. These registers function as interlocking systems of knowing that collectively form one’s sense of awareness.

With the premise of these mental registers, I will attempt to describe Lacan himself. The Real Lacan was a man trained as a psychiatrist in the first half of the twentieth century. He appeared as an intellectual and scholar who studied philosophy, art, science, medicine, and politics, as well as psychoanalysis. His personality is described as intense, passionate, and charismatic. Reportedly, he successfully obtained the release of his wife from Nazi custody by charging into Gestapo offices and demanding her immediate release.

The Imaginary Lacan is the one we know as we read his words. The thoughts and questions that emerge as the reader forms associations to his ideas and through his playful use of words that tease us to push our thinking a bit further.

The Symbolic Lacan is a provocateur of psychological theory. The word “Lacanian” has come to represent courageous and radical commitment to understanding the depth and vastness of the human condition, with full acceptance of the impossibility and ineffability of that task.

Whereas Lacan is mostly known in the US in terms of applications to literary criticism and socio-political theory, he is considered one of the most influential psychoanalytic thinkers in Europe and South America. Regardless of the difficulty that some of his ideas pose, the questions he raises about self-authenticity and one’s capacity to retain sanity in a civilized society has never been more timely.

To learn more about Lacan’s theory in a reading, Jacques Lacan: Introductory Overview (4 CE Credits), provides an article written by an expert on his theory. For a briefer overview of his theory and a more practical discussion of how it may be applied in psychotherapy, see the video course, Lacan – Inspired Psychotherapy (4 CE Credits).

Are Ego Defenses Bad or Good?

Ego Defenses


Are Ego Defenses Bad or Good?
Are ego defenses bad?

Are ego defenses bad or good to have?  Is the goal of psychotherapy to remove defense mechanisms or strengthen them?  Can mental health be defined as the absence of ego defenses?  Or are some ego defenses better to have than others? Questions like these are posed frequently by graduate students, clinicians, and even psychotherapy patients who want to better understand this crucial topic.

Therapy’s view

For over 100 years, the psychoanalytic literature has explored and catalogued the various methods people use to manage their sanity.  Even psychoanalysis’s harshest critics have implicitly endorsed the importance of recognizing defenses, albeit, by renaming them as cognitive appraisals, thinking errors, or some other term for automatic mental gymnastics.  The point remains that how a person manages and “massages” thoughts and perceptions greatly influences how the world is known and how relationships are handled.

Pros of defense mechanisms

Breaking down or taking away a person’s ego defenses would leave the individual vulnerable and frightened.  The task of psychodynamic psychotherapy is to help the patient be more deliberate (conscious) and flexible (adaptive) to the demands of everyday life.  The capacity for tolerating anxiety makes the reflexive defense against fear and tension unnecessary.  Ego defenses, when conscious, can become effective coping processes.  Once understood, they can become cues that something is feeling threatening and needs attention.  When under one’s control, they can allow for a more realistic perspective on how to manage life’s challenges.

Cons of defense mechanisms

Ego defenses evolved because, at some point in a person’s life, they were helpful.  They can continue to provide emotional safety throughout one’s life as long as they don’t become overused or too rigid—overuse or rigidity cause problems themselves, interfering with a person’s ability to deal effectively with the world.  Minimizing the impact of a difficult situation, as in denial, may allow a child to function in an abusive home.  Continuing to deny unhappy realities as an adult, however, can stand in the way of resolving problems.  The cons of defense mechanisms come when they interfere with a person’s ability to work effectively with reality.

What is the verdict?

What is the verdict–are ego defenses bad or good?   Defense mechanisms can become problematic if they are rigid and overused.  If a person learns about the defenses they tend to use to manage internal or external stress—whether by seeking organization, wanting to hide under the covers, seeking others’ reassurances, etc.—they have a source of information they can use as a signal for constructive action.  “I see I’m spending a lot of time reorganizing things this week… Is something bothering me?”  Having insight into oneself is an invaluable resource.

You can find more information on psychoanalytic theory regarding ego defenses in the online courses, Classical Psychoanalytic Theory or Ego Psychology.

The Value of “Having Your Head Examined”


PsychotherapyThe profession of psychotherapy has been around for over 100 years, with less formal versions of personal consultation going back to biblical times.  So why is it that the voluntary seeking of psychotherapy can be such a polarizing issue?   

Skeptics of psychotherapy cast doubts on the effectiveness of “talk” to change anything in a substantive manner.  Human beings are talkative creatures, so what is so special about talking to a psychotherapist rather than to a hairdresser, bar tender, cab driver, or next-door neighbor?  “If all therapists do is talk, then I can get that anywhere, and for a lot less than $150 per hour!”  

But talking is only one part of the picture.  An even more significant aspect of psychotherapy is the therapist’s capacity to hear what is being said—not just with words, but also in a larger implicit sense—hearing the meaning of a person’s truth.

Some advocates of psychotherapy might argue that it has changed their lives, saved their marriages, or even freed them from a life of abuse.  

What does seem clear to me though is that many people are afraid of psychotherapy.  Considering how therapists get portrayed in movies or the embarrassing presentation of media psychologists, there seems to be good reason to fear them.  I am often asked if psychotherapists are motivated by their own deep-seated issues and if they are as “crazy” as the people that they portend to treat?  My answer is simply . . . of course!  Being human is, in itself, a crazy proposition.  We live in an artificial world of our own invention by rules we make up, and we kill ourselves needlessly in wars, with drugs, on highways, in airplanes, and sometimes for pleasure.  There is good reason to think humans are crazy!

Yes, we do good things too, and we invented science and ethics and laws.  But while it is easy to be seduced into exalting the remarkable advances produced by the human race, our fellow (nonhuman) creatures may have a profoundly different opinion of us—if we could only hear them speak!  Humans have one foot in a virtual world of seemingly limitless creativity that seems wonderful, if not artificial, and the other in a biological reality, with specific needs and limitations.  People need to be nurtured, for instance, by another person who will validate their existence and uniqueness.  (Think about how painful it can feel to be ignored, or have your feelings and thoughts dismissed and devalued).  

Perhaps the most valuable contribution made by the profession of psychotherapy has been to create an industry designed to help persons retain their connection to their humanity.  In spite of all we have invented, we remain fragile living organisms, clinging to each other for survival—a reminder that there is no substitute for real human contact.  

With dozens of forms of psychotherapy to choose from, what they all have in common is that they provide a private, protected space, where the challenge of being alive can be acknowledged and supported by another who respects and listens to the struggle for sanity.

A good resource for clinicians for more information on the complexities of the therapeutic relationship is the course Psychodynamics of the Therapeutic Relationship.

Why Can’t We Simply Choose Happiness?



HappinessAs a psychologist and psychotherapist, I’ve spent the last 30 years listening to people struggle with anxieties, depression, and loneliness, in search of ways to alleviate unhappiness.  And as a professor, I’ve spent as many years researching ways to build resilience—hoping to find ways to prevent people from “succumbing” to unhappiness.  The more I explore these issues, however, the more I’m convinced that Freud was on the right track.  We are extraordinarily complex creatures who, by nature, are probably not headed toward tranquility or happiness.  If we wish to build a happy life, we’ll have a darned hard fight on our hands.

Brain Research On Neurophysiology of Experiences

I keep returning to a delightful article by Hiss (2014) on the human brain published in the Reader’s Digest a couple of years ago.  Hiss reviews fascinating research on the neurophysiology of such experiences as love, procrastination, reactions to criticism, and road rage, and the basis for many of our emotional struggles. 

We like to think that our intellectual abilities accorded to us by the magnificent cortex provide us with the tools needed to control unpleasant emotions and primitive urges.  But why, then, do we feel our blood pressure rise and rage take over when someone “waves” to us with a single finger from their car?  What just happened?

As Hiss notes, the cortex is a relative newcomer to the brain party.  It’s built on a more primitive mammalian, emotional part of the brain, which is built on an even more primitive reptilian part.  How peaceful—or cooperative—a party should we expect? 

Our Expectations On Handling Life And Emotions

She draws an analogy to a speed boat that’s been built on a row boat base.  We expect to zip through life’s rough waters with ease—something our rickety base may not be able to manage.  It’s amazing that our brains aren’t out of service more often!

So when I hear patients question what’s wrong with them that they can’t seem to manage their emotions or just “choose” to be happy, I remind them that they’re not a Golden Retriever.  And some days, their lizard is active.


Hiss, K. (Sept. 2014). The beautiful life of your brain. Reader’s Digest.

Recent Posts




Subscribe to
Our Newsletter

Connect With Us