A Strategy for the Clinical Validation of Psychoanalytic Theory

The purpose of this paper is to explore an approach to the clinical testing of psychoanalytic theory less rigorous than the one proposed by Edelson (1985). I do not minimize the importance of rigor, but as Grünbaum says: “I do understand that recorded analyses can be, and are being, used in a ‘relatively rigorous testing’ of some kinds of psychoanalytic hypotheses, but I call attention to Holt's own stress on the very modest range of these particular hypotheses” (1986, p. 276). The principal advantage of a less rigorous approach is its capacity to shed some light on a more interesting set of ideas. An exaggerated emphasis on methodological rigor had had a restricting influence on the range of subjects studied by experimental psychologists. As Neisser puts it: “It is an example of a principle that is nearly as valid in 1978 as it was in 1878: If X is an interesting or socially significant aspect of memory, then psychologists have hardly ever studied X” (1982, p.4).