You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
Though ( Journal, 16:3, 1988) considers a number of explanations in his paper on “Correspondences and Thought-Transference During Psychoanalysis,” he appears to favor the mechanism of telepathy. He also considers specific factors in the psychoanalytic situation that might facilitate the telepathic process. I would take issue with this view, since there is considerable evidence that so-called telepathic experiences do not adhere to any known electromagnetic rules. Dr. Silverman is obviously familiar with the writings published under the sponsorship of the Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal in the journal, The Skeptical Inquirer. There, such examples as described by Dr. Silverman are subjected to scrutiny and scientific examination, and alternate explanations are offered. Following Ockham's razor, there is no need for implicating mystical processes that cannot be verified.
Several issues are evoked by Dr. Silverman's paper. One is his need to raise the issue of thought transference and its similarity to the disturbed thought of the schizophrenic. Wishful thinking, magical thinking, paranoid ideation, thought broadcasting, and thought insertion are examples of the pathological thinking of our patients. In what ways are these a reflection of the same need of Dr. Silverman when he sought explanations for incidents that he found puzzling and curious? Why did he have difficulty accepting that these examples were coincidental, and well within the realm of statistical probability? Why did he reject the explanation of subliminal cues, which are accepted as part of any human interaction? I do think we need to examine why some cannot grasp the concept post hoc, sed non propter hoc.
Another question centers on what Dr. Silverman did about his experiences. Did he share them with the patient? Did he utilize them to explore the common problems and issues of patient and analyst? Unlike Carl Whitaker who wrote frequently about his sharing