The Neural Basis of the Dynamic Unconscious: Response to Commentaries

First and foremost, I would like to thank the commentators for their very insightful responses. Most of them suggested helpful enhancements and refinements of my arguments, which are very much appreciated. I will make some remarks on a few general themes that ran across many of the replies as well as address some specific points.

Morris Eagle highlighted the differences between the dynamic unconscious, which he describes as involving “unconscious emotional and motivational factors that can mold the unconscious mind,” and the descriptive (Freud) or cognitive unconscious. He claims that many of the studies I cite support the concept of ubiquitous unconscious processing, but do not test directly the “dynamic unconscious.” I appreciate this distinction, and while I do cite studies that show that unconscious affective and motivational factors can mold and shape cognition and behavior, it is harder to determine empirically how unconscious affective and motivational factors can mold and shape the unconscious mind, which is central to processes like repression. However, if everything is taking place outside of awareness—that is, both the input and output, or the independent and dependent variables—how can we measure these phenomena in the lab? Researchers can begin to resolve this conundrum by devising inventive paradigms to accurately test the neural basis of unconscious defense mechanisms experimentally. But they must also work together with analysts who can help to better define the concepts scientists are trying to quantify.

For example, Eagle points out that repression may not be a unitary process and may, in fact, be referring to a wide range of phenomena, each of which may involve different psychological processes and therefore different corresponding neural processes. Accordingly, there are mixed results and inconsistent findings with regard to the relationship between repressive style and psychological and physical stress