Greg, thank you for your kind note.  It does look though, both of you
are intent on getting me to write a book, or something (grin).... On a
more serious note, I enjoy this discussion and appreciate your
questions.  They are as probing as they are challenging.  In your last
post you clarified via the statement :
>...When I said that I had encountered psychotherapy as a consumer, I
>meant as an analysand.  My experience was that insight alone does not
>induce change....<
This suggests your intention to extend a valid call for reconsideration
of the relationship between "insight" and "change."  I have no problem
with this and perhaps I will comment upon it.  What I wonder about, is
if you have also attempted to imply that through your personal
experience it would appear that psychoanalyis was not an effective
modality.  To answer this would entail questioning a number of variables
such as reason for contact, length of analysis, weekly frequency,
analyst's training, etc.
Now with regards to your first point.  As we know there are two forms of
'insight' if you will; True or Automatic, and Critical or
Retrospective.  We also know that 'insight' is the end result of one's
capacity to include and incorporate all conceivable elements within a
given situation, including all relevant information whether past,
present, internal or external.  In True insight this process of
inclusion takes place concurrently on all levels of conscious -kind of
like what a quarterback does instictively just before he is to be
sacked.  In contrast, critical insight is the same, only it takes place
retropsectively, and more often than not, through the assistance of
another.
There are, as we can gather, varying levels of insight;
ranging from virtual absence -as in (presumably) the autistic, all the
way to the genious of Einstein, or Sigmund Freud and Milton Erikson.
However, Insight does not necessarily imply 'Judgement'.  That is, the
capacity to valuate all of the conceivable elements in a situation via
the assignmnet of a certain degree of significance to each one (element)
in relation to each other and to the whole.  An example can be derived
from our experience with alcoholics who may be willing to admit to their
addiction, but fail to recognize its significance and impact upon
themselves and others.  Another example can be drawn from the
'narcissist' who by definition presents with a serious defect in
automatic, and critical insight, and by default serious difficulties
with judgement.  So you are right when you state 'insight' alone is not
the vehicle to 'change'.  And now let me see if I can synthesize the
above in a coherent fashion exemplifying the concepts, constructs, and
basics of 'psychodynamic', 'psychoanalytic', 'psychotherapy', and
'Eriksonian'.  I will begin through a request for indulgence since
bravity will definitely result in a compromise of the complexity of
these principles.
In the works of Sullivan, Horney, and others, we discover the so-called
'dynamic' to stand for "in-depth" psychologies wherein environment,
culture, and the personal internalized structure have come to form a
perpetually interactive dynamic whole.  Within that view, the individual
is seen as concurrently reactive to their environment from the
sociological, biological, and psychological domains, as these have been
developmentally structuralized through internalization.  Based on this,
their attempt to treat is not based on the concept of reinforcement of
behavior (as in operant skinnerian), neither is it based on an RET
(Albert Ellis), or Milton Eriknson (MRI tools and constructs).
I believe the rationale for this is obvious.  Their therapeutic approach
is dynamic and environmental.  That is, it depends on the dynamic
interaction between patient and therapist;  one that is presumably more
benign, when compared to the one the patient emanates from, or returns
to, following our sessions.
Such a foundation has lead to the emergence and development of technical
(not necessarily dynamic) approaches that focus on correcting emotional
experience, emotional reeducation, interpersonal relations, systemic and
interactional, .. that is, techniques that have placed structuralization
through internalization in a seconadry, or tertiary position in relation
to the locus of the presenting as this may be seen and interpreted
through differing theoretical models.  The drawback, in my opinion, is
in the fact that increments in insight are selectively localized to the
presenting problem, while their relative position and significance to
the 'dynamic' is ignored at worse, or minimized in the least.  Such
approaches also fail in their needed focus to object relations, choosing
instead to theorize presumed benefits resultant from the emotional
correction, or symptom aleviation.
Once more, I find it necessary to state that these approaches are not
necessarily bad, ineffective, or ill advised.  They are exceptional
techniques in dealing with transient situational disturbances in
individuals with fairly adequate structures and well developed automatic
and and critical insight functions.  They focus and address 'judgement'
and assume a pre-existing unremarkable internalized capacity for
insight.  CNTND in Analytic vs MRI II