Stumbled upon this paper which was just released today. I thought it was interesting as an example of how open systems or non-linear concepts from physics are permeating all other sciences including psychology. It also reminds me in a sense the brain's tendency towards laziness because it wants to avoid "brain pain" and how "shocks" can disrupt this pattern and open up non linear possibilities. It tries to put psychoanalytic theory as an outdated model (it could have done better in this regard). Here are some relevant excerpts:
Psychoanalytic Theory and Psychotherapy: A Dynamic Systems View of Change
Trop, Jeffrey L.; Burke, Melanie L.; et. al. pp. 34-42
Clinical Social Work Journal
Volume: 41, Issue: 1
March, 2013
Abstract
This paper explores the application of nonlinear dynamic systems theory and concepts to the investigation of the psychotherapeutic situation. Although dynamic systems theory was originally applied in the study of chemistry, mathematics, and physics—not initially for its application to psychotherapy—its emphasis on contextualization provides a rich platform for the reconsideration of how change occurs in the therapeutic dyad. This paper first reviews some tenets of dynamic systems theory, in particular the general processes of system change including the introduction of novelty and perturbation. It then examines some psychoanalytic theories from a dynamic systems vantage point. This is followed by the presentation of two cases that illustrate the application of systems concepts to clinical work. This paper concludes that psychoanalytic psychotherapy from the perspective of dynamic systems theory views moments of change as unpredictable, soft assembled, and emergent in the dialogue and context created mutually by therapist and patient.
The central claim of this paper is that any viable theory of psychotherapeutic change be regulated by the rules that
govern living systems. This statement, however, takes the form of a paradox once one recognizes that no such rules exist. Instead of rules governing behavior and development, there are adaptive solutions to task-driven contexts that result in unconscious and conscious experiential patterns that pull us to act and think in certain ways.
This approach to cognition, psychology, and behavior is known as a nonlinear dynamic systems approach and is
also referred to as complexity theory[...]
Stern (2007) summarizes recent developments in the theory of psychotherapy as follows:
Over the last decades we have seen the application of
chaos and complexity theory along with dynamic
systems theory open up our clinical eyes to various
features of the clinical situation, such as the emphasis
on process; the approximate equality of the contribution
of patient and therapist, that is, the notion of
cocreativity: the unpredictability of what happens in a
session from moment to moment, including the
expectance of emergent properties; a focus on the
present moment of interaction; and the need for
spontaneity and authenticity in such a process. (p.
101)
Developmental biologists Thelen and Smith (1994) summarize the logic of dynamic systems as follows:
Although behavior and development appear structured,
there are no structures. Although behavior and
development appear rule-driven, there are no rules.
There is complexity. There is a multiple, parallel, and
continuously dynamic interplay of perception and
action, and a system that, by its thermodynamic
nature, seeks certain stable solutions. These solutions
emerge from relation, not from design. When the
elements of such complex systems cooperate, they
give rise to behavior with a unitary character, and
thus to the illusion of structure. (p. xix)[...]
One of the most basic and fundamental elements of dynamic systems is the repetition of behavioral, cognitive,
and physiological patterns. A person is faced with a context or set of contexts that provides the person with specific tasks and incline him or her toward certain actions. In the process of performing these tasks, learning takes place. The person learns that certain behavioral patterns, and certain cognitive attitudes and ways of thinking, are associated with or appropriate to certain contexts. Through the repetition of behavioral and cognitive responses within these contexts, the person develops preferred patterns that emerge because of the coordinated history between internal and external contexts.[...]
Dynamic systems theory does not do away with biological motivations. Thelen (2005) describes multiple biological
givens, such as babies being drawn to look at complex displays, mouthing, and grasping. In addition, she describes
how the infant has an inbuilt capacity for experiencing pleasure in acting to influence the environment. She privileges
the importance of this capacity and asserts: ‘‘The ability to derive pleasurable sensations from one’s action on
the world appears to be one of the basic tendencies in human infants. It is the critical step in establishing the developmental cascade for all subsequent skills’’ (p. 274). The presence of biological givens and the importance genetic capacities of each infant combine with the child’s unique complex environmental context to dictate that ‘‘the course of development is impossible to predict’’ (p. 279). This reinforces the central importance in psychotherapy of individualizing and particularizing developmental themes for each individual rather than imposing stage-driven templates [...]
As a person develops, she or he may exhibit pathological patterns of thinking, feeling, and behaving. The repetition of these patterns often pulls a person to process experience or act in accordance with her or his prior patterning activity. The goal of psychotherapy is to disrupt the pull of these unhealthy or pathological patterns and instigate the development of new ‘‘healthy’’ patterns. In order to accomplish this goal, a dynamic systems conceptualization offers a potential methodology of perturbation through the introduction of novelty into a system of pathological patterns. As Thelen and Smith (1994) state, there exist ‘‘attractors of such strength and stability that only the most severe perturbations can disrupt them’’ (p. 61). They emphasize that ‘‘developing systems must be in [an] unstable or quasistable mode to explore new cooperative patterns (or strategies) and select those that provide a functional match’’ (p. 65). A system must be unstable in order to pave the way for the development of novel patterns, and cocreating the experience of instability and perturbation is the therapist’s most important function. Perturbing the system is not necessarily, however, tantamount to producing a shock effect; creating the proper form of perturbation depends on the unique interactive and dynamic contexts between patient and therapist. For example, for some patients the experience of being understood and listened to in a new way can be viewed as a perturbation to the anticipated mode of interaction. This could become a significant factor in altering a patient’s subjectivity and disrupt the manifestation of pathological patterns. It may be necessary, however, to introduce analytic observations that create considerable anxiety and disruption. Changing a patient’s pathological patterns is therefore a matter of cocreating a context in which novelty can occur.
Opportunities to provide input to illuminate and alter entrenched patterns may reflect a deliberate or conscious
intent by the therapist or it may occur accidently or unconsciously. Piers (2005) describes the properties of
change in nonlinear situations such as psychotherapy. He states that ‘‘under certain conditions, nonlinear systems change in sudden, abrupt, and discontinuous ways…. In other words, there is not always a clear and proportional link between cause and effect: small changes often have a profound effect’’ (p. 231). An inadvertent misunderstanding and missed appointment time may provoke intense and unpredictable reactions, and provide for an understanding of the depth of a patient’s affective state. Thus, often system perturbations in psychotherapy occur without plan or intent, are unforeseen, and can only be understood and processed in retrospect [...]
‘‘Patterns of repeated activity over time become stable attractors’’ (p. 180, emphasis added). One can thus alter patterns of activity in order to change dynamically stable experiential states. Often, patients acquire reflective self-knowledge through introspection and must consciously change their pathological ways of viewing or behaving in the world. In addition, change can proceed as aspects of the therapeutic interaction are elaborated unconsciously within patients. Subtle changes in self-definition, changed expectations, and longings in outside-
life situations can emerge unconsciously from the interactive properties of the therapeutic dyad. Dynamic systems theory opens up alternative avenues of exploration. Introspection and self-reflection can provide insight that leads to changes in behavior, but, in addition, changing patterns of behavior and activity can provide opportunities for insight. A dynamic systems account of psychotherapy detaches psychoanalytic methodology from the absolute necessity of seeking an explanation for all aspects of pathological behavior. The emphasis is placed more upon forming a relationship or bond with a patient that will help disrupt his or her pathological patterns, Explanation and interpretation are important as they provide opportunities to form new, dynamically stable patterns of experience. The value of explanation and interpretation lies primarily in the power to provide narratives that facilitate the patient’s capacity to tolerate the affective experience of change. For most patients, explanation is very helpful in providing inspiration for change; however, it is not the end of therapeutic inquiry itself.
Everything the therapist does in the clinical context can be regarded as input into a system. In order for a patient to
change and to develop novel patterns of behavior, there must be input into the interdynamic system between patient and therapist. This input can take the form of empathic listening, it can take the form of inquiry directed toward understanding, or it can take numerous other forms— including confrontations, questioning, or silence.
[...] Conclusion
We consider psychotherapy as a process to assist people in changing undesirable patterns of thought and interaction. These patterns are identified mutually by both therapist and patient, and take place within an interdynamic system geared toward consensus. Here we must be purposefully vague, for we are attempting to define an interaction that cannot have any predetermined strategic or methodological content. By forming certain relationships, adopting certain attitudes, and employing certain strategic interventions, including interpretation, states and pulls toward maladaptive solutions emerge that formerly operated unconsciously for the patient. In the psychotherapeutic situation, both patient and therapist devise and cocreate strategies of perturbing the system in order to change undesirable patterns of thought, behavior, and experience. The outcome of such a therapeutic stance leads to a heightened sensibility regarding the parameters of change in the self-definition of the therapist.
The framework of dynamic systems theory has significant implications for psychoanalytic theory and the technique of psychotherapy[...]
The function of the therapist is to identify unconscious and conscious patterns of thinking and feeling that pull patients to maladaptive solutions. These patterns originated as valuable adaptations to earlier contexts but have now become constricting and limiting. As these patterns become mutually discerned, the therapist and patient collaborate to destabilize the pull of these patterns and offer other possibilities that the patient has not been able to consider.
In terms of disturbing the patient’s attraction to these dysfunctional interactions, any intervention such as humor,
irony, or silence is available for intervention. Memory in a dynamic system is not fixed but subject to constant alteration by contextual events. As Edelman (1998) states ‘‘Every act of memory is to some degree an act of imagination. Biological memory is creative and not strictly replicative’’ (p. 56). Memory is thus an act of dynamic
creation and not a retrieval of coded information; the function of interpretation can be highlighted from a dynamic perspective. We view the value of interpretation as the provision of a coherent narrative that provides inspiration that helps a patient tolerate the affective disruption and anxiety of change. In particular, many patients feel the anxiety and apprehension that often accompanies change as an indication of something gone wrong as opposed to an inevitable byproduct of dynamic instability. It is our hope to have provided an enhanced framework for the application of system concepts to the practice of psychotherapy. Introducing the methodological implications of dynamic systems into the therapeutic session opens many possible avenues of exploration for both patient and therapist. It also raises many concerns of an ethical nature that we are unable to fully address here. A theory that emphasizes the introduction of novelty and perturbation as key elements has the potential to reinforce the possibility of dramatic therapeutic enactments in the service of pattern change. It is our intent to emphasize the wide range and potential subtlety of interactions that provide opportunities for transformation. We do not wish to be understood as advocating an ‘‘anything goes’’ philosophy regarding therapeutic strategies. On the contrary, dynamic systems dictate great caution precisely because forming new patterns occurs amidst great instability. Dynamic systems theory does not propose to solve the ethical issues inherent in psychotherapeutic activity, but rather highlights these issues to an even greater extent in the attempt to fashion their dynamically stable solutions.
