I thank the editors for the invitation to contribute a commentary on Anne Erreich’s use of my work in her article. In these remarks I focus on the errors in Erreich’s account of the theory of unformulated experience. I do not engage in a dialogue about the issues of development that are the subject of Erreich’s essay, nor do I take up Erreich’s use of the work of Howard Levine, the other writer whose work serves as a foil in her argument about the infantile mind.

I actually agree with most of Erreich’s portrayal of “the competent infant,” a fact that, given Erreich’s understanding of my views, probably comes as a surprise to her. She believes that my work contradicts her views, and her argument with what she believes I have said figures prominently in the case she makes for the nature of the infant mind. But her understanding of my work is simply incorrect—and not just in its details. Although I recognize Erreich’s presentation of some particular points as restatements of what I have said, the whole is wrong.