The article raises the question of the role of insight in psychotherapy. Various types of insight are distinguished—'neutral', 'emotional', 'dynamic', etc. 'It

is a naïve oversimplification of the tangled facts', the authors assert, 'to assume that it is the truth of a given interpretation, whether given to the patient by the therapist or arrived at by the patient independently, that determines its therapeutic efficacy'. It is all but impossible, they maintain, to prove either that an interpretation is true or that it is effective. The patient is responding at any moment not only to controlled verbal interventions but also to numerous other stimuli in the total situation. The aim of interpretation, in any case, should be not to communicate facts but to alter motor and affective attitudes. Such results are more likely to be achieved by 'minimum procedures' like expressions of interest in the patient and a wide variety of attitudes on the part of the therapist.