Discussion

The invitation extended to me by Dr. Kelman to discuss his paper was accompanied by a copy of the text. This form of invitation strikes me as the very essence of good manners and consideration, for it leaves the invited guest complete freedom to say yes

or no after he has had the opportunity to read and think over the content of the paper. If, then, he either likes the writer but is in a violent opposition to his ideas, or dislikes the writer but admires his thinking, he is given plenty of time to respond in the negative, using whatever kind of white lie he may find least likely to convey the true reason for his refusal. If, however, he both likes the writer and admires his thinking he can respond with the readiness that it was my privilege to express.

Dr. Kelman begins his paper with some reference to the informal trial and error methods employed by Freud and his first disciples in arriving at a formula for training analyses. Dr. Rado, at a recent meeting of the faculty of the New York School of Psychiatry, related his own training experience under Ferenczi, which consisted of a discussion of his cases three times a week over the luncheon table. It is hard to realize that it was not until 1929 that a didactic analysis became a requisite for admission to the New York Psychoanalytic Institute. I am glad for one that I couldn't invoke the grandfather clause at that time: I was just two years late!

I find myself, however, in some disagreement with Dr. Kelman concerning certain tendencies current today in the direction of prolonging the experience to what seems to me to be an unjustifiable length of time, not to mention the excessive costs involved which can no longer be deducted from income as professional or educational expense. What greater irony could there be than the suggestion made by Freud who had treated the idea of training analysis for so long in such an informal fashion, that a second analysis would in most instances be desirable?

However, I find myself in fu