Letter to the New York Times: Psychoanalysis and science
Adam Phillips, a British psychoanayst, today has an Op Ed in the New York Times [A Mind is a Terrible Thing to Measure] which argues that psychoanalysis and psychotherapy should keep themselves aloof from the scientific research endeavor. I penned a response that I’ve just sent to the Times:
To the Editor:
Adam Phillips, “A Mind is a Terrible Thing to Measure”, argues that psychoanalysis, and psychotherapy in general, represent a defense of humanistic values against the intrusions of the dominant trends in modern culture. He is correct that psychoanalysis and related therapies are based on values – of contemplation, of dialog, and the importance of the inner emotional life – that fly in the face of many modern trends.
As a psychoanalyst and researcher, I find it disturbing that Phillips has himself fallen victim of the modern dualistic view that separates science and objective knowledge from the world of spirit. He argues that psychotherapy should remain distinct from scientific understanding, “offering only an informed willingness to listen, and the possibility of helpful comment.” Yet, why should not this therapist be informed by the best scientific understanding of human psychological functioning, and why shouldn’t the frequency of helpful comment be evaluated?
The fact that much research on psychotherapy takes that which is currently measurable as the only things worth thinking about doesn’t mean that therapists shouldn’t use all available tools, scientific understanding and humanistic comprehension among them, to aid their patients and to improve their work. Like every other field, psychotherapists undoubtedly believe many things that are false and use many techniques that are ineffective. Scientific research, however imperfect, is the best technique humans have developed to gradually winnow truth from falsehood. Greater understanding will help reduce the number of those “casualties” that Phillips correctly reminds us will sometimes result from our therapeutic efforts. Our patients deserve that we use all available tools, science among them, to understand them and to improve our work.
Stephen Soldz
February 26th, 2006