Criteria for Interpretation

The question of the criteria by which we test the validity of our convictions in analytical work is one of great practical importance in the day to day carrying on of our work, as we reflect upon the progress and the resistance to progress of our patients. It enters into the discussion of controversial issues between analysts, since everyone who puts forward new contributions may and should expect to be challenged as to the basis of his views and the tests and verifications to which he has subjected them. Lastly it is of central importance in the statement of our theory for the non-analytic public, who have the right to challenge our premises and conclusions and to be shewn our methods of testing and verification.

It is my constant practice in training students of general psychology and child development to emphasize the key significance of method, and to shew that no hypotheses or conclusions can be evaluated except by reference to the methods upon which they are based. This is surely true with regard to analysis also, and not only analytic theory as a whole, but also the many detailed controversial issues in which we are all interested. In the last resort, differences of opinion as to fact and theory largely come down to differences of method, methods of discovery and methods of testing and verification.

II. THE MATERIAL OF OUR WORK

The psychological data upon which we form our judgements as to the patient's unconscious feeling, wish or intention, his forgotten history or repressed knowledge of present events, are not only very extensive but very varied in their nature. It is impossible to do justice to their variety and complexity in a brief summary. In outline they may be grouped as follows:—

• 1The facts of the patient's behaviour as he enters and leaves the room and while he is on the couch, including every detail of gesture and tone of voice, pace of speech and facial expression, any routine or any changes in behaviour and expression; every s