That sound like as if archetypes are very much similar to what Schema Therapy calls "Schema Modes". Or maybe "Schema Modes" would be something more like complexes?
I’m not very familiar with Schema Therapy. But what CBT refers to a core belief can be easily understood as a complex since it’s usually explained in terms of an image that elicit highly emotional responses, and drives someone’s behaviors. You can learn more about complexes here - www.rafaelkruger.com/the-definitive-shadow-work-guide/ Then, If you have the time, I'd love to know how Schema Therapy and Jung converge or differ :)
@@therafaelkruger Thank you for your response. Based on the content of your article I think complexes are corresponding to what Schema Therapy is about but I started wondering whether they are closer to schema modes or to the schemas themselves. I must explain that I'm not a specialist in CBT nor Schema Therapy. I'm mostly interested in ACT (contextual-behavioral therapy) but I also explore different modalities to get broader, more general view. It is partially for self-help (ACT is very open for integration with other things) but also a research for a decision about whether I want psychology to become my professional or scientific interest. I read on IFS forum that what IFS calls "parts" tends to overlap with Ego States in Transactional Analysis and Schema Modes in Schema Therapy. I also read IFS parts are synonymous or even equal to complexes in Jungian approach - that lead me to my question. I believe simplified explaination of Ego States and Schema Modes would be that these are objects or parts of our psyche that store feelings and worldview we had while being children - including some of them storing how we perceived our parents. I believe Ego States and Schema Modes are maybe a little closer to Kleinian perspective than Jungian one. But I see similarities with how you described complexes. It seems that I'm not allowed to provide a link here, but if you want, you can Google: "Schema Mode Listing". One clear difference between Schema Therapy and Jung seem to be that in Schema Therapy there is a list of modes, and from what I understand it is a closed list (although some discussions exist about details of it).
That sound like as if archetypes are very much similar to what Schema Therapy calls "Schema Modes".
Or maybe "Schema Modes" would be something more like complexes?
I’m not very familiar with Schema Therapy. But what CBT refers to a core belief can be easily understood as a complex since it’s usually explained in terms of an image that elicit highly emotional responses, and drives someone’s behaviors.
You can learn more about complexes here - www.rafaelkruger.com/the-definitive-shadow-work-guide/
Then, If you have the time, I'd love to know how Schema Therapy and Jung converge or differ :)
@@therafaelkruger
Thank you for your response. Based on the content of your article I think complexes are corresponding to what Schema Therapy is about but I started wondering whether they are closer to schema modes or to the schemas themselves.
I must explain that I'm not a specialist in CBT nor Schema Therapy. I'm mostly interested in ACT (contextual-behavioral therapy) but I also explore different modalities to get broader, more general view. It is partially for self-help (ACT is very open for integration with other things) but also a research for a decision about whether I want psychology to become my professional or scientific interest.
I read on IFS forum that what IFS calls "parts" tends to overlap with Ego States in Transactional Analysis and Schema Modes in Schema Therapy. I also read IFS parts are synonymous or even equal to complexes in Jungian approach - that lead me to my question.
I believe simplified explaination of Ego States and Schema Modes would be that these are objects or parts of our psyche that store feelings and worldview we had while being children - including some of them storing how we perceived our parents. I believe Ego States and Schema Modes are maybe a little closer to Kleinian perspective than Jungian one. But I see similarities with how you described complexes.
It seems that I'm not allowed to provide a link here, but if you want, you can Google: "Schema Mode Listing". One clear difference between Schema Therapy and Jung seem to be that in Schema Therapy there is a list of modes, and from what I understand it is a closed list (although some discussions exist about details of it).