I take it that Weston's article argues that it is eccentric to dispute
the existence of unconscious processes, on empirical grounds. And that
it is eccentric to treat the unconscious as one entity, since there are
multiple unconscious processes.

Bill Massicotte Ph.D.

Howard Eisman wrote:
>
> I will report criticisms of Westen's review and present my own ideas
> about how a psychodynamic psychology can be developed:
> The Drew Westen articles referred to in earlier messages have not been
> well received in my circles.
> I will describe the reasons:
>
> Westen's articles take the following form:
> 1. Freud has been declared dead. This is not true. Research is proving
> that he was correct about much, and. where Freud was wrong, modern
> psychoanalysis has corrected him
> 2  There is empirical psychological research shows that early family
> experiences influence later personality, that there is subconscious
> mental activity, and that memories can be tied to emotional states. All
> of this is what Freud claimed.
> 3. See, Freud isn't dead, after all, and psychoanalysis is headed to a
> new union with research psychology.
>
> These are the problems with Westen's reviews: he is selective about
> topics; he does not do a comprehensive review of all the salient
> research  issues..
>
> Westen's conclusions involve  BROAD GENERALIZATIONS. Yes, early
> experiences influence later behavior, but this is a truism which no
> approach to psychology would dispute. The particulars of Freudian ideas
> are not confirmed by such general results. Yes, there is subconscious
> mental activity (discovered years before Freud even got to medical
> school), but it is NOT the Freudian (or the psychoanalytic)
> subconscious.  So far, the influence of subconscious ideas has been
> shown to be weak and transitory. It is a "dumb" unconscious which does
> not have the devious and prodigious capacities which psychoanalysis
> ascribes to (a "smart") subconscious processes. Thus, the psychoanalytic
> idea about the operations of an unconscious mind is not at all
> confirmed. etc.
>
> Westen is too polemical to be seen as objective. So am I in my messages,
> but I am not writing a review article in a psychology journal (where an
> objective stance is expected).
>
> Westen hopes that research psychology would see that  "psychodynamic"
> mental operations are important parts of human functioning. Okay, but I
> think he has it backwards. Psychodynamic ideas should be developed from
> what is already empirically confirmed in psychology. It is possible to
> have a psychodynamic theory which could be inductive (from the data to
> generalizations). The present deductive approach (from theory to
> specific predictions) has not worked. It has resulted in wild theorizing
> (and dangerous theorizing, recently) and hypotheses which defy research
> (a theory predicts ALL possible outcomes from a particular hypothesized
> cause.)
>
> Hope all is well with everyone.
>
> Howard