As I have explained in other sections of this site, when I went from training in Medicine, Internal Medicine and Psychiatry to Psychoanalysis in 1968, I did so having had extensive exposure to a fundamental scientific method used in the former two professions and was much inspired by the histories of the researchers who had applied it. (As to the method, I refer to the process of objective observation of the phenomenon to be researched, the creation of logical multiple hypotheses to explain such, validation criteria for each that tests its predictive capability or otherwise, tests for predictive capability, hundreds of repetitions of tests of one hypothesis that holds up to the process, or going back to the drawing board if none are capable.) I then began my analytic training with the belief that psychoanalytic theories had been developed by similar means, and, Freud`s Metapsychology theories being central to them at the time, I studied them in detail. And, as some of the “hypotheses” (save “theories” for what has been proved) held up well in terms of logic while others did not, without knowing that I was on a different path from those of my colleagues I developed an application of the method for use by the analyst in the clinical situation.
As it evolved, I was able to test Freud`s theories for validity, many of which passed with flying colours while others did not, and at the end of my training analysis, having had a commonly-accepted “incomplete analysis”, I began wondering what was left and why, so applied the results of my research to date to my still-remaining symptoms. I was then led into a systematic ten-year self analysis that dismantled the conflicts responsible for them at bedrock level. The self work also interacted with the clinical work to add to the research, and many repeatedly-tested principles central to symptom formation and essential knowledge for the creation of a reliable, consciously and cognitively applicable theory of formulation (“The Metapsychological Formulation Method”) emerged from the effort.
Now to two main points and the invitation:
1: I presented widely on the specific causes of the many symptoms encountered in the analytic and psychotherapeutic clinical situations and on the specific clinical steps required for their dissolution, but there was little or no interest in such from analysts and critics. Then, when attempts to publish the papers were met with indifference or sourness on the one hand and extreme subjective bias plus remarkably-dismissive language (by anonymous reviewers) on the other, I gave up trying. I resigned from the organizational part of my profession and became an independent, and, after forty-some years of real scientific clinical research, I found myself in possession of extensive, genuinely-scientific basic and applied theories, the proofs of which others could replicate. I then wrote a large (1100 pages) book account of it all (with contrasts, comparisons and quotations) that no publishers would look at, so self-published a second book of 580 pages that describes my work and results only.
2: During my career and especially after its publication, I became very familiar with what I have called “The Resistance to a Science of Psychoanalysis”. Logic would have predicted that the work would have been welcomed and something of interest to analysts, psychotherapists and the critic of my field, but that has not been my experience to date. (With respect to the critics, I have not heard calls for a solution to the lack of science in Freud’s work and that of other theorists, nor have I found critics interested in my discoveries when introduced to them.) I have therefore become a psychosociologist interested in the cause(s) of that more-than-unfortunate problem, and I welcome input and discussion of any kind that throws light on it (them).
The situation I have outlined could become a very fruitful area of serious discussion in which I would happily participate with whatever clarifications, detailed clinical examples etc. were needed.
Comments in respone to this post can be made here and in a “Linked In” group, “A Study of the Resistance to a Science of Psychoanalysis”, that I have recently established.