Talk:Micropsychoanalysis

Beginning

I have started the free translation from the Spanish article Micropsicoanalisis. I will also take probably some material from the French version Micropsychanalyse. I am aware I will probably do a variety of mistakes as my command of English is not perfect, so please, correct any error you detect. Thanks!Thespanishdub (talk) 22:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could work with an English-speaker who understands the topic? Right now, there are several places which are unintelligible as English. For example:

metabolization and sedimentation of the classical psychoanalytical technic and practice

What is meant by "metabolization and sedimentation" here?

the establishment of a psychical and bodily homeostasis.

Probably better translated as "mental and physical". But it is still vague. How can psychoanalysis contribute to physical homeostatis? Is this referring to treatment of conversion disorders and conditions like anorexia?

Drafts of houses where the analysand has lived during childhood.

By 'drafts', do you mean 'blueprints'? 'drawings'?

to increase the associative dynamist

Do you mean the associative dynamic?

...reworked the freudian metapsychology on account of the energetic structure.

What does 'energetic structure' refer to here?

the pulsional dynamic surge from the energy, specifically from the tensional difference between energy and void

I can make no sense at all of this. What 'pulsional dynamic surge'? What 'energy'? What is a 'tensional difference'? etc.

Besides the English, there are some internal contradictions in the article. Points (1) and (2) talk of 5+ sessions per week of an average of 3 hours (i.e. 15+ hours/week); but the 'Long-lasting sessions' section talk of 3-7 hours a day for 6-7 days a week (18-49 hours a week).

completely occupied by the exteriorizations of his psychobiology

What does this mean?

Who can afford the time and money for this sort of treatment? It might be worth talking about the socio-economic milieu in which this practice is set.

--Macrakis (talk) 19:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

To Macrakis

Hi, first at all thank you very much for your comments and recommedations. I have going through all your points trying to correct the mistakes. I have done this by myself for the moment, but I intend to ask for help to a English speaker, so there will be more corrections soon.--Thespanishdub (talk) 11:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Article deleted

The following link may deserve your attention es:Wikipedia:Consultas_de_borrado/Micropsicoanálisis. This article has been deleted from es because of not being neutral and being a primary source instead.--Rapel (talk) 22:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Micropsychanalyse

Have nothing to see with psychoanalaysis. It's a sort of Guru therapy and no more Léon66 (talk) 13:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

This is your opinion. The references in the article show another point of view. Please provide some verifiable references and discuss before modifying the article. I saw the same controversy in the french version of the article, and the administrators already stated the same thing, so let's not start over. Thanks. Bluebird33 (talk) 10:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not a opinion but a fact. You can not prouve that Fanti was a psychoanalyst ! He was never member of an official psychoanalytical association (or other) and that is very simple to see. Ore prove it !! "Autoreferences" are not same as references! Then, Fanti was an original and genial gourou but nothing to see with psychoanalysis. The french and english article are promotion of micropsychoanalysis and nothing more. Do a mixture between micropsychoanalysis and psychoanalysis make a big "wiki-confusion" ! If you read a psychoanalytical book (normal one, for example Horacio Etchegoyen The Fundamentals of Psychoanalytic Technique(1991)[ Aperçu Karnac Books ed., New Ed, 2005, ISBN 185575455X) and micropsycychoanalytical book, you will see that in five minute !! Léon66 (talk) 10:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Look, first of all you can not prove the opposite. Anyway, it isn't about you or me or anybody else proving something. It's about providing verifiable external sources that say something.

Etchegoyen is a remarkable author, but as far as I know he didn't say a word about micropsychoanalysis.

Some other respectable psychoanalysts talk about micropsychoanalysis as a form of psychoanalysis, and they're in the references (english and french articles). That's it !

So, if you can provide some sources that say that micropsychoanalysis is not a psychoanalysis, they're welcome. But you must write "He or she says..."; what a Wikipedia user thinks, must stay out of Wikipedia.

If you don't agree with these Wikipedia basic rules, please call the administrators. Bluebird33 (talk) 19:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

"Look, first of all you can not prove the opposite." Wrong: the burden of evidence is on the editor that makes the claim. Please review WP:BRD; if there is debate as to whether the subject met certain criteria, then autobiographical references probably will not cut it. In any case, enough with the revert war, discuss here on the talk page rather than fighting in article space please. VQuakr (talk) 20:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks VQuakr for intervening and preventing a revert war.

I support the 5 March 2011 version of the article because third-party references I checked talk about micropsychoanalysis as a form of psychoanalysis:

• Jean-Pierre Chartier, « Micropsychanalyse », Le Journal des psychologues, n°259, Juillet-Août 2008
• Sylvain Michelet, « La micropsychanalyse », Psychologies magazine, n°272, 03/2008
• Vadim Frosio (dir.), « Panorama », Psychoscope - Fédération Suisse des Psychologues, vol.29, n°12, 2008, p.53
• (in Portuguese) Suely Mizumoto, « [Uma nova técnica para a psicanálise: a micropsicanálise de Silvio Fanti] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) », [Mudanças–Psicologia da Saúde] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help), 13(1), jan-jun 2005, p.223-245 Universidade Metodista de São Paulo · PDF
• Serge Tisseron, Le mystère de la chambre claire : photographie et inconscient, Les Belles Lettres/Archimbaud, Paris, 1996
• Serge Lebovici, « Freud et la Psychanalyse », Bibliothèque Laffont des grands thèmes, Editions Grammont, Lausanne, 1975

Of course I didn't consider autobiographical references.

I found no third-party references saying that micropsychoanalysis is not a psychoanalysis. Bluebird33 (talk) 23:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Just a question: can you prouve that Fanti was psychoanalyst, in witch society, in witch contry, when and when he keep away ? I have the answer ! He was never member of any psychanalytical society, he work with some psychiatrst who where psychoanalyst, as a lot of people. The don't say that they are psychoanalyst because of that. He made his one road and create his society, like a gourou and the micropsychoanalytic technique was never recognized as kind of psychotherapy anywhere!. Then it's a sort of personnal developement new-age, emanation and nothing more. Léon66 (talk) 07:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Come on, do you really think that an international medical congress like this (look at the scientific program) would host a symposium of a guru therapy?

Do you think Nervure - Journal of Psychiatry would publish a four pages article about a guru therapy?

Do you think former IPA president, S. Lebovici, was nuts? And what about another psychoanalyst, S. Tisseron, who wrote about the psychoanalytical method called micropsychoanalysis?

And so on...

Are all these people friends of a guru and gurus themselves? No, these are professionals who recognize micropsychoanalysis as a psychoanalysis, even if this isn't acceptable for you.

Do you think all the references provided, that say that micropsychoanalysis is a psychoanalytical method, are fake?

Should the article ignore them because your opinion is more valuable?

I only see that you have no references to support your ideas. --Bluebird33 (talk) 18:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

This article was created in Spanish while, at the same time, the community was discussing its deletion in French. It was translated into English by the same user (a clear example of crosswiki particular purpose account) from Spanish while its deletion was being discussed there, while Thespanishdub had been blocked once, and the article was in AfD for the second time. The article was finally deleted and the user, after many breaches of etiquette and respect, was expelled from the project. Léon66 is absolutely right. Micropsychoanalysis isn’t a school of psychoanalysis. Nor is it psychotherapy in the strict sense. We reviewed all references provided rigorously, but we could only verify the reports in two magazines for a variety freelance journalist. I did not want to intervene, nor did I wish to participate in this discussion again, but I feel it to be my duty to share the experience with a sister project. Regards Mar del Sur (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Please excuse me but I don't understand what you mean by "we could only verify the reports in two magazines for a variety freelance journalist". Why couldn't the references from Tisseron, Chartier, Lebovici and others be verified? Regards Bluebird33 (talk) 09:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

..

If you want...

If you want to make of the commercial publicity, there are the other paying means to make it... not wikipedia (french, english, spanish....Léon66 (talk) 12:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Support for Micropsychoanalysis

I support the 5 March 2011 version of the article because third-party references I checked talk about micropsychoanalysis as a form of psychoanalysis. The references are there, another problem is if somebody dont want to spent some time reading and ckecking them. --Thespanishdub (talk) 08:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Micropsychoanalysis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090717145417/http://www.metodista.br/ppc/mudancas/mudancas-13-1/uma-nova-tecnica-para-a-psicanalise-a-micropsicanalise-de-silvio-fanti to http://www.metodista.br/ppc/mudancas/mudancas-13-1/uma-nova-tecnica-para-a-psicanalise-a-micropsicanalise-de-silvio-fanti

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)