Response to Fonagy

Peter Fonagy's critical commentary entails a blend of, on one hand, misrepresentations of my views so that he argues against positions I do not hold and, on the other hand, real substantive differences. With respect to the latter, for example, when Fonagy equates "doublethinking" with...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Psychoanalytic dialogues 2013-01, Vol.23 (1), p.1236
Main Author: Hoffman, Irwin Z
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Cognition & reasoning
Psychoanalysis
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by
cites
container_end_page
container_issue 1
container_start_page 1236
container_title Psychoanalytic dialogues
container_volume 23
creator Hoffman, Irwin Z
description Peter Fonagy's critical commentary entails a blend of, on one hand, misrepresentations of my views so that he argues against positions I do not hold and, on the other hand, real substantive differences. With respect to the latter, for example, when Fonagy equates "doublethinking" with "recognition ... of the limitations of scientific methodology," he misses the way in which the articulated "limitations" often unequivocally undermine the privileging of systematic research relative to case studies, a privileging that I call upon Fonagy, Safran, Strenger, and others to repudiate. Embedded in the debate there is an interlude, in effect, of dialogue about a vignette in the "Doublethinking" plenary/essay, a dialogue that illustrates the way I believe understanding can advance in our field. Such progressive development of understanding involves reports of clinical experiences and discussion of those reports from various points of view. Associated "Nonlinear Constructivist Learning" yields heightened clinical sensibility that can have expression in unpredictable ways in the context of new clinical situations. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1285530331</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2888629911</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-proquest_journals_12855303313</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpjYuA0tDQx0LU0MjJiAbINTCx0DS0sTDkYuIqLswwMDC0MzI05GYSCUosL8vOKUxVK8hXc8vMS0yt5GFjTEnOKU3mhNDeDsptriLOHbkFRfmFpanFJfFZ-aVEeUCre0MjC1NTYwNjY0Jg4VQDufyju</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1285530331</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Response to Fonagy</title><source>Taylor &amp; Francis</source><creator>Hoffman, Irwin Z</creator><creatorcontrib>Hoffman, Irwin Z</creatorcontrib><description>Peter Fonagy's critical commentary entails a blend of, on one hand, misrepresentations of my views so that he argues against positions I do not hold and, on the other hand, real substantive differences. With respect to the latter, for example, when Fonagy equates "doublethinking" with "recognition ... of the limitations of scientific methodology," he misses the way in which the articulated "limitations" often unequivocally undermine the privileging of systematic research relative to case studies, a privileging that I call upon Fonagy, Safran, Strenger, and others to repudiate. Embedded in the debate there is an interlude, in effect, of dialogue about a vignette in the "Doublethinking" plenary/essay, a dialogue that illustrates the way I believe understanding can advance in our field. Such progressive development of understanding involves reports of clinical experiences and discussion of those reports from various points of view. Associated "Nonlinear Constructivist Learning" yields heightened clinical sensibility that can have expression in unpredictable ways in the context of new clinical situations. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]</description><identifier>ISSN: 1048-1885</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1940-9222</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Hillsdale: Taylor &amp; Francis Inc</publisher><subject>Cognition &amp; reasoning ; Psychoanalysis</subject><ispartof>Psychoanalytic dialogues, 2013-01, Vol.23 (1), p.1236</ispartof><rights>Copyright Taylor &amp; Francis Inc. 2013</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hoffman, Irwin Z</creatorcontrib><title>Response to Fonagy</title><title>Psychoanalytic dialogues</title><description>Peter Fonagy's critical commentary entails a blend of, on one hand, misrepresentations of my views so that he argues against positions I do not hold and, on the other hand, real substantive differences. With respect to the latter, for example, when Fonagy equates "doublethinking" with "recognition ... of the limitations of scientific methodology," he misses the way in which the articulated "limitations" often unequivocally undermine the privileging of systematic research relative to case studies, a privileging that I call upon Fonagy, Safran, Strenger, and others to repudiate. Embedded in the debate there is an interlude, in effect, of dialogue about a vignette in the "Doublethinking" plenary/essay, a dialogue that illustrates the way I believe understanding can advance in our field. Such progressive development of understanding involves reports of clinical experiences and discussion of those reports from various points of view. Associated "Nonlinear Constructivist Learning" yields heightened clinical sensibility that can have expression in unpredictable ways in the context of new clinical situations. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]</description><subject>Cognition &amp; reasoning</subject><subject>Psychoanalysis</subject><issn>1048-1885</issn><issn>1940-9222</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNpjYuA0tDQx0LU0MjJiAbINTCx0DS0sTDkYuIqLswwMDC0MzI05GYSCUosL8vOKUxVK8hXc8vMS0yt5GFjTEnOKU3mhNDeDsptriLOHbkFRfmFpanFJfFZ-aVEeUCre0MjC1NTYwNjY0Jg4VQDufyju</recordid><startdate>20130101</startdate><enddate>20130101</enddate><creator>Hoffman, Irwin Z</creator><general>Taylor &amp; Francis Inc</general><scope>K9.</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20130101</creationdate><title>Response to Fonagy</title><author>Hoffman, Irwin Z</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-proquest_journals_12855303313</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Cognition &amp; reasoning</topic><topic>Psychoanalysis</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hoffman, Irwin Z</creatorcontrib><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><jtitle>Psychoanalytic dialogues</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hoffman, Irwin Z</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Response to Fonagy</atitle><jtitle>Psychoanalytic dialogues</jtitle><date>2013-01-01</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>23</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>1236</spage><pages>1236-</pages><issn>1048-1885</issn><eissn>1940-9222</eissn><abstract>Peter Fonagy's critical commentary entails a blend of, on one hand, misrepresentations of my views so that he argues against positions I do not hold and, on the other hand, real substantive differences. With respect to the latter, for example, when Fonagy equates "doublethinking" with "recognition ... of the limitations of scientific methodology," he misses the way in which the articulated "limitations" often unequivocally undermine the privileging of systematic research relative to case studies, a privileging that I call upon Fonagy, Safran, Strenger, and others to repudiate. Embedded in the debate there is an interlude, in effect, of dialogue about a vignette in the "Doublethinking" plenary/essay, a dialogue that illustrates the way I believe understanding can advance in our field. Such progressive development of understanding involves reports of clinical experiences and discussion of those reports from various points of view. Associated "Nonlinear Constructivist Learning" yields heightened clinical sensibility that can have expression in unpredictable ways in the context of new clinical situations. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]</abstract><cop>Hillsdale</cop><pub>Taylor &amp; Francis Inc</pub></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1048-1885
ispartof Psychoanalytic dialogues, 2013-01, Vol.23 (1), p.1236
issn 1048-1885
1940-9222
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_1285530331
source Taylor & Francis
subjects Cognition & reasoning
Psychoanalysis
title Response to Fonagy
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-22T20%3A40%3A37IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Response%20to%20Fonagy&rft.jtitle=Psychoanalytic%20dialogues&rft.au=Hoffman,%20Irwin%20Z&rft.date=2013-01-01&rft.volume=23&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=1236&rft.pages=1236-&rft.issn=1048-1885&rft.eissn=1940-9222&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E2888629911%3C/proquest%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-proquest_journals_12855303313%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1285530331&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true