Talk:Regression (psychology)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think consideration ought to be given to merging these two stubs/articles. They are both based on the same 'principles' although one is a description of a defence mechanism and the other is a pro-active use of the same idea. If the pro-active use of regression for therapeutic purposes is pseudoscientific (which would seem to be the case) then it still makes more sense to deal with them both on the same page so that people can see where such ideas arise from - ie the misapplication of psychological theories. Fainites ^barley 23:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hang on a bit, I'm working on some background material for this. Lots of psychoanalysts other then SF used the regression concept, and only a few people said, wait a minute, people can't really regress. Also, there's a difference between how regression functions and how it can be intentionally brought about for therapeutic purposes. I'm not too sure that merging is a good idea.

Got to have Hughlings Jackson in here too. Jean Mercer (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I know there's a difference between regression happening and deliberately bringing it about but I would imagine those who seek to bring it about based their ideas on those who describe how it functions. Isn't there also an inbetween where you don't seek to create it but use it therapeutically when it arises? I thought they should be merged as otherwise the section on what regression is would simply have to be repeated in an article which describes therapeutic use of regression. Whether or not therapeutic use is pseudoscientific doesn't seem to me to be relevent to the issue of having one article on the subject. I also understand psychoanalysts used to use it but now don't - or at least thats what they told me! Fainites ^barley 19:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)