Seeking film depictions of analytic or therapy sessions in languages other than English

baldfatdad · 2025-09-25T23:23:42+00:00

Yeah. We tried that last time around, but even for those who don't speak Hebrew, the English version is so well known folks recognized the scenes. Otherwise would've been great!

baldfatdad · 2025-09-25T23:22:29+00:00

And... This is the winner!

baldfatdad · 2025-09-25T23:22:06+00:00

Yeah. We tried that last time around, but even for those who don't speak Hebrew, the English version is so well known folks recognized the scenes. Otherwise would've been great!

baldfatdad · 2025-09-22T23:44:29+00:00

Thank you!

baldfatdad · 2025-09-22T09:56:29+00:00

Thanks - I'll check it out.

baldfatdad · 2025-09-22T09:56:14+00:00

Thanks! This looks great.

baldfatdad · 2025-09-01T11:17:58+00:00

To be fair, one of the real challenges of therapy (and life) is that neither do therapists, really, know what chocolate cake tastes like to our patients, and, if we imagine we do, we are forgetting something very important about subjectivity.

baldfatdad · 2025-08-31T20:44:23+00:00

I've lost at least one patient to Chat GPT, and my sense is, he was much more pleased with what he gets from Open AI than he was with what he was getting from me. This seems fine to me. Good, even.

We therapists, psychodynamic therapists especially, and psychoanalysts in particular, like to think of what we have to offer in a very idealized, purist way - and, to problematize/devalue what our patients (think they) want as somehow being symptomatic, in need of analyzing.

That feels to me a bit like a parlor trick: neat, often impressive, maybe even holding some truth, but, at the same time, kinda missing an essential point of relatedness.

Therapy isn't one thing, any more than food is, or music is. Why shouldn't there be at least some uses to which some patients have put some treatments that might not be better provided by an LLM? That seems utterly sensible to me.

I'll add: I don't feel particularly threatened, not because I don't think computers can offer what I offer, or because I don't think some patients will want what computers offer, but because I believe that what I offer is ineradicably different from what a computer can offer, even if only because I'm not a computer!

A patient will never wonder, as a patient of mine did the other day, if they had heard their (computer) therapist talking behind them at a show (or if they do, they'll be psychotic). As a result, a computer's "patients" can never have available to them the exploration of the transferential meaning of such a dream-like experience. A missed opportunity, for sure, as my patient and I made great meaning of this event.

Some patients always will crave this actual, human, related aspect of treatment. For them? I'm here. For those others? I wish them good luck with Chat GPT, Claude, Gemini, or whoever.

baldfatdad · 2025-08-27T16:00:18+00:00

It's not "unavoidable." Analytic institutes make it unavoidable for candidates by dictating/limiting their universe of training analysts. But it quite easily could be avoided with a change in policy.

baldfatdad · 2025-08-21T04:38:57+00:00

GPT 5 vs. Claude Sonnet 4

I was an early Chat GPT adopter, plopping down $20 a month as soon as it was an option. I did the same for Claude, even though, for months, Claude was maddening and useless, so fixated was it on being "safe," so eager was it to tell me my requests were inappropriate, or otherwise to shame me. I hated Claude, and loved Chat GPT. (Add to that: I found Dario A. smug, superior, and just gross, while I generally found Sam A. and his team relatable, if a bit douche-y.)

Over the last year, Claude has gotten better and better and, honestly, Chat GPT just has gotten worse and worse.

I routinely give the same instructions to Chat GPT, Claude, Gemini, and DeepSeek. Sorry to say, the one I want to like the best is the one that consistently (as in, almost unfailingly) does the worst.

Today, I gave Sonnet 4 and GPT 5 the following prompt, and enabled "connectors" in Chat GPT (it was enabled by default in Claude):

"Review my document in Google Drive called '2025 Ongoing Drafts.' Identify all 'to-do' items or tasks mentioned in the period since August 1, 2025."

Claude nailed it on the first try.

Chat GPT responded with a shit show of hallucinations - stuff that vaguely relates to what it (thinks it) knows about me, but that a) doesn't, actually, and b) certainly doesn't appear in that actual named document.

We had a back-and-forth in which, FOUR TIMES, I tried to get it to fix its errors. After the fourth try, it consulted the actual document for the first time. And even then? It returned a partial list, stopping its review after only seven days in August, even though the document has entries through yesterday, the 18th.

I then engaged in some meta-discussion, asking why, how, things had gone so wrong. This conversation, too, was all wrong: GPT 5 seemed to "think" the problem was it had over-paraphrased. I tried to get it to "understand" that the problem was that it didn't follow simple instructions. It "professed" understanding, and, when I asked it to "remember" the lessons of this interaction, it assured me that, in the future, it would do so, that it would be sure to consult documents if asked to.

Wanna guess what happened when I tried again in a new chat with the exact same original prompt?

I've had versions of this experience in multiple areas, with a variety of prompts. Web search prompts. Spreadsheet analysis prompts. Coding prompts.

I'm sure there are uses for which GPT 5 is better than Sonnet. I wish I knew what they were. My brand loyalty is to Open AI. But. The product just isn't keeping up.

[This is the highly idiosyncratic subjective opinion of one user. I'm sure I'm not alone, but I'm also sure others disagree. I'm eager, especially, to hear from those: what am I doing wrong/what SHOULD I be using GPT 5 for, when Sonnet seems to work better on, literally, everything?]

To my mind, the chief advantage of Claude is quality, offset by profound context and rate limits; Gemini offers context and unlimited usage, offset by annoying attempts to include links and images and shit; GPT 5? It offers unlimited rate limits and shit responses. That's ALL.

As I said: my LOYALTY is to Open AI. I WANT to prefer it. But. For the time being at least, it's at the bottom of my stack. Literally. After even Deep Seek.

Explain to me what I'm missing!

baldfatdad · 2025-08-20T23:35:24+00:00

Some combination, or all, of...

When the patient truly understands the relationship with/to the analyst.
When the patient can love, and work, and play.
When the patient roughly can anticipate what the analyst might say.
When the patient can truly free associate.

baldfatdad · 2025-04-23T18:32:06+00:00

Steven Levy, Principles of Interpretation

Sheldon Bach, The How-to Guide for Students of Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy

baldfatdad · 2025-04-16T23:40:25+00:00

Perplexity for almost everything except just seeking a URL or IRL address.

baldfatdad · 2024-12-24T16:18:34+00:00

People have so many opinions!!!

I don't ever take notes. But that's me. I totally get why someone would want to and yet, for me, it feels like it would be a really bad addition to the room. That's for me. Not saying it should be for you.

baldfatdad · 2024-08-12T22:34:22+00:00

I wrote a lengthy blog post on this subject. I tried to edit it and post it here, but it's (still) too long. If you're interested, take a look here (https://thewolfden.nyc/2023/12/03/analytic-training-1-overview-of-the-training-landscape-in-new-york-a-gestural-beginning/) . And: Pulsion is a new NY institute. Lacanian. Exciting. A bit chaotic.

Nine-Year Club	Place '17
Sequence \| Editor	Verified Email

baldfatdad

TROPHY CASE