On Information-Processing Models for Mental Phenomena—A Reply to Lawrence Friedman's Critical Review of Information, Systems, and Psychoanalysis by Emanuel Peterfreund

It may well be every author's nightmare that the book to which he has devoted years of thought, time, effort and energy will be greeted with stony silence by a deaf and oblivious world. Reviews and critical essays, even negative ones, are therefore welcome. I am grateful for and even flattered by Lawrence Friedman's critical review of my book which appeared in this Journal(Friedman, 1972).

Unfortunately, Friedman's summary and discussion of the book's contents are sufficiently misleading to call for a reply. I and others believe that psychoanalysis is now in serious trouble. I believe that the metapsychology that has sustained psychoanalysis for many years is fundamentally untenable and that information concepts and information-processing and systems models can provide the new paradigm that is urgently needed. I am replying to Friedman because I do not wish the readers of this Journal to learn about these new concepts and models only from his inaccurate presentation of them.

But replying to Friedman presents certain problems. First, his 'review' is not, to my mind, an adequate presentation of the nature, purpose, history and scope of my effort. Second, a reviewer has an obligation to present an author's ideas with reasonable accuracy. But I myself could hardly recognize most of my ideas as Friedman described them. Third, it is a prime requirement of a reviewer that he be informed about the subject under review. But Friedman does not appear to be well informed about the information sciences nor about contemporary scientific thought. I believe that it is no accident that his essay is devoid of references to any authors other than Piaget and myself. Finally, Friedman's presentation of his own ideas and theories is, it seems to me, vague and often confused, with hardly a single, concrete example from any branch of science to illustrate them.

In such circumstances how can I reply? A point-for-point refutation would require a book-length essay. I decided to do