Last year I developed a persistent fantasy which could produce euphoria. Despite years of rigorous training in psychoanalysis, my mind set had not rigidified. In the past I would occasionally dictate thoughts into a tape recorder. Now, 1 thought, I could better capture these precious thoughts in a creative way through using a personal computer. But what kind would I get, and how would it work?
As are all analysts, I am skilled in the vocal mode, so naturally I thought I would find out about computers by talking with “users.” This is where my trouble started. Some of these people were colleagues who had cheerfully agreed in other settings that when talking about professional or “technical” matters we should not use jargon. But when the subject was computers, I could not understand a thing they were talking about. Such terms as hardware, CPUs, DOS, software, word processors, all evoked images within me. Sometimes I thought I knew what the words meant, but as I became more anxious about their underlying meaning, other thoughts occurred.
Word processing made me think of food processing. Did the computer process a word by chewing it up and grinding it down to byte-size? In groups I would speak knowledgeably about the differences between hardware and software. But when alone, silly thoughts occurred to me, particularly after having visited the computer discount house where I was to make my purchase.
I found that, unlike salesmen for automobiles, my computer man really seemed to really want to understand what I wanted. He spent a great deal of time talking about hardware. I understood that this was the central part of the machine. I realized it was the most expensive and the part that determined what types of programs one would use. I began to think in terms of the hard sell. If he could sell this large, hard, expensive piece of equipment, the “software” would be a pushover. I was unaccustomed to thinking so concretely, but things got worse when it came time for me to choose a word processing program. I had purchased an IBM PC and now it was time to choose a word processor.
I narrowed the choice down to Micro Soft Word and Volks Writer. I inquired about the relative advantages of each of these word processing systems, but again my mind wandered off to other meanings, other associations. Referring to Micro Soft Word, a knowledgeable salesman corrected me: “You mean ‘The Word’.” Volks Writer reminded me of the many years that I had Volkswagen bugs. Apparently this program is similar, as it is easy to use but cannot accomplish as much as a more elegant model.
“The Word” is analagous to the fancier car. Some users who owned The Word said it was a better program, but that it took longer to learn than Volks Writer. I quickly linked The Word associatively with The Word of God or a Deus ex Machina. Obviously, this was the software for me. If it was in any way connected with the machine-like device that Euripedes used to rescue his heroes in the Greek dramas, so might this software rescue me.
Then it came time to buy a printer. When he found out I was an analyst, my salesman said that I probably would not want a dot matrix printer. Such a printer is fast, but not particularly neat, and the letters are not that well formed. He claimed I would surely prefer a letter quality printer, which performed more slowly but with quality. Of course. I am an analyst. I am not interested in the speed with which anything is produced, but in the quality of the production. But when he suggested a Diablo letter quality printer, which gave quality, but at a rapid speed, I became suspicious, concerned; this was a devilish, tricky proposition. How could something be fast and still have great quality?
After I vetoed the Diablo, he offered me a cheaper model, called a “Brother.” I wondered if I could rely on a Brother. Would a father not be better?
But back to my word processing program, The Word. If The Word was too elegant, too lofty at times, if one had to process words primitively, maybe a “Mouse” connected with The Word would be an excellent combination. This Mouse could be made to go around, in and out of windows on the computer screen, nibbling on this word and that in a more satisfying primitive way than the lofty, intellectual commands of the keyboard. One sophisticated programmer, however, eschewed The Mouse. He told me that it distracted his flow of thoughts, that it was too crude and gimmicky.
When it came time to actually use my computer, the nagging question returned. What could this computer actually do for me? I was told that The Word program was “user-friendly.” But apparently I was not friendly to my machine, because what I typed in often left the computer stubbornly unresponsive. I began to think of the computer and me as therapist and patient, respectively. As the time I designated for my study of the computer approached, I became anxious. Sometimes we would understand each other, but often we would not. I would type HELP on the COMMAND menu and then for the moment receive some helpful reassurances. But often my computer responded to my queries in jargon or stilted language. Just like a psychoanalyst?
A colleague informed me that he was going to write a paper, “Computer As Self-Object”. I speculated about his idea. He liked Kohutian concepts. Did he have such a relationship with his computer? If I were to accept the concept of self-object, could I relate to my computer as he did to his? I am still in the stage of trying to understand how to talk to my computer. My computer feels I need to spend more time in intensive treatment with him before I can become an accomplished user. The work continues.
Of some relief to me has been attending meetings of the Computer User Research Group at recent psychoanalytic meetings. George Klumpner presides over a group of interested computer user analysts. Their language is user-friendly to like-minded analysts. Many plans are being made to share information that various user analysts have developed in the form of programs.
Alice Brand reported, for example, that 35,000 volumes of their catalogue at the Menninger Clinic are being converted into a database with “Dial Up Access.” Vann Spruiell of New Orleans suggested establishing a private access by a special code. This could lend itself to research of another nature. There could be an attempt to share analytic data for review with input from participating members. The origin of the data and the responses to the data could be anonymous.
George Klumpner has involved other analysts in his project based upon the Concordance terms. He wishes to develop a project and test methods to work with large data bases. One of his collaborating analysts has found a way to convert data from the Kaypro computer to the Apple computer. Many other interesting avenues are being explored.
George Klumpner cordially invites interested analysts with or without computer anxieties to attend any of the Computer Forums which are regularly held at Association meetings. (There will be one at the upcoming Fall Meeting in New York.) I can heartily recommend them to any user—actual or potential—whatever might be their psychosexual stage of computer development.