The Vagaries of Psychoanalytic Interpretation: An Investigation into the Causes of the Consensus Problem in Psychoanalysis

Philosophia 42 (3):779-799 (2014)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Though the psychoanalytic method of interpretation is seen by psychoanalysts as a reliable scientific tool for investigating the unconscious mind, its reputation has long been marred by what’s known as the consensus problem: where different analysts fail to reach agreement when they interpret the same phenomena. This has long been thought, by both practitioners and observers of psychoanalysis, to undermine its claim to scientific status. The causes of this problem, however, are dimly understood. In this paper I attempt to illuminate one important cause of the consensus problem by investigating the role which reliance on ‘associative evidence’ has in generating consensus failures. Various options for overcoming the difficulties with this form of clinical evidence are then examined. It is argued that these problems can be mitigated by the notion of overall associative fit, though they are exacerbated by certain loose standards used for what counts as acceptable associative evidence. The possibility of using more rigorous standards is discussed.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Revision history
First archival date: 2014-09-13
Latest version: 4 (2016-04-09)
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
The Interpretation of Dreams.Freud, Sigmund & Brill, A. A.

View all 16 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Added to PP index

Total views
231 ( #15,500 of 43,752 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
37 ( #19,433 of 43,752 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.