Abstract
In psychodynamic practice, irrational thought and action is explained within a framework that licenses a range of personal-level psychological attributions that are not ordinarily present in the quotidian interpretation of others. So, the thought goes, psychodynamic explanation is best construed as a theoretical extension of ordinary personal-level psychology, or folk psychology. If this view is correct, I argue, then it commits the psychodynamic explainer to some fairly weighty commitments with respect to the sub-personal explanation of folk psychological — or mindreading — capacities. For instance, it commits the psychodynamic explainer to the domain-generality and cognitive-extensibility of these capacities. Does the present state of affairs in the relevant sciences bear these commitments out? A discussion of dual-process theories of mindreading seems to show that although strong conclusions cannot be drawn at present, a complete model at the sub-personal level has the potential to add more epistemic detail to the standard philosophical story and even to epistemically vindicate key clinical phenomena (like counter-transference). On the other hand, it also has the potential to invalidate the commitments of the psychodynamic explainer, assuming she wishes to appeal to the “extension of folk psychology” argument that causal inference is warranted in the clinical setting.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
I will be using the terms “folk psychology,” “mindreading,” “commonsense psychology,” “social cognition,” and so on interchangeably. These are just different names for the capacity to ascribe mental states to others in order to explain and predict their behaviour.
- 2.
Freud also claims that self-analysis is not possible in the general case —“True self analysis is impossible; otherwise there would be no (neurotic) illness.” (Masson 1985, p. 281) Certainly it is correct to think that self-analysis is more prone to confusion through sorts of resistance and self-defense. But Freud must be wrong to rule out the possibility of some self-knowledge through third-person analysis so categorically. Not all authors in this area are so categorical (e.g., Horney 1999[1942]).
- 3.
Note however that this argument is ambiguous between two separate readings, a “partner-in-crime” and a “substantive” reading. I discuss this in Sect. 3.
- 4.
Pacification is a technical notion introduced by Hopkins (1995). A desire is pacified just in case it is extinguished without its satisfaction conditions being brought about, and this is caused by the belief that its satisfaction conditions obtain. In the dream of drinking the desire is pacified but it is not satisfied, because Freud is not really drinking.
- 5.
It may be objected that such knowledge is not available when the inference is about another person and not oneself. But the point successfully generalises to psychoanalysis in the ordinary case, where the analyst is not also the analysand, because this kind of contextual knowledge is built up over the course of the analysis and aids inference as it is acquired.
- 6.
A partner-in-crime argument links by entailment the rejection of some sort of fact whose existence is under dispute to the rejection of another sort of fact whose existence is much more credible. Cuneo (2007), for instance, argues that if we deny facts about moral normativity then we are committed to denying facts about epistemic normativity.
- 7.
Famously, Habermas (1986 [1968], ch. 11) argues that metapsychology is a relic of Freud’s scientific education and is irrelevant to the central activity of clinical interpretation. But this view and other views of this kind assume a strict difference of kind between rational and causal explanation, which makes psychoanalytic “causes” (and indeed, practical reason itself) epiphenomenal.
- 8.
There is room for the reader to demur on this point; explanation in cognitive science is a busy area of research. But it seems fair to say that the dominant framework for making sense of such explanation is the “systems” approach that I’ve just briefly described. Craver (2007) is essential reading in this area if one is interested in the details.
- 9.
- 10.
Some analysts prefer to define counter-transference as just those feelings that the analyst experiences in relation to the transferential love or hatred of the patient. See the entry in Laplanche and Pontalis (1973).
References
Apperley, I.A., and S.A. Butterfill. 2009. Do humans have two systems to track beliefs and belief-like states? Psychological Review 116: 953–970.
Beck, A.T., and B.A. Alford. 2009. Depression: Causes and treatment. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Butterfill, S.A., and I.A. Apperley. 2013. How to construct a minimal theory of mind. Mind & Language 28: 606–637.
Carruthers, P. 2008. Cartesian epistemology: Is the theory of the self-transparent mind innate. Journal of Consciousness Studies 15: 28–53.
———. 2013. Mindreading in infancy. Mind & Language 28: 141–172.
———. 2016. Two systems for mindreading? Review of Philosophy and Psychology 7: 141–162.
Churchland, P.M. 1981. Eliminative materialism and the propositional attitudes. Journal of Philosophy 78: 67–90.
Colace, C. 2014. Drug dreams: Clinical and research implications of dreams about drugs in drug-addicted patients. London: Karnac.
Craver, C.F. 2007. Explaining the brain: Mechanisms and the mosaic unity of neuroscience. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Cummins, R. 2000. “How does it work?” versus “what are the laws?”: Two conceptions of psychological explanation. In Explanation and cognition, ed. F. Keil and R.A. Wilson, 117–144. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Cuneo, T. 2007. The normative web: An argument for moral realism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Davidson, D. 1963. Actions, reasons, and causes. Journal of Philosophy 60 (23): 685–700.
Davidson, D. 1973. Radical interpretation. Dialectica 27: 313–328.
———. 1980 [1970]. Mental events. In Readings in the philosophy of psychology, ed. N. Block, vol. 1, 107–119. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Dennett, D.C. 1991. Real patterns. Journal of Philosophy 88: 27–51.
Fodor, J.A. 1983. The modularity of mind: An essay on faculty psychology. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Fodor, J. 1984. Observation reconsidered. Philosophy of Science 51: 23–43.
Freud, S. 1900. The interpretation of dreams (first part). In The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud, ed. J. Strachey, vol. 4. London: The Hogarth Press/The Institute of Psychoanalysis.
Freud, S. 1909. Notes upon a case of obsessional neurosis. In The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud, ed. J. Strachey, vol. 10, 151–318. London: The Hogarth Press and The Institute of Psychoanalysis.
———. 1910. The future prospects of psycho-analytic therapy. In The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud, ed. J. Strachey, vol. 11, 139–152. London: The Hogarth Press and The Institute of Psychoanalysis.
Gardner, S. 1993. Irrationality and the philosophy of psychoanalysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gawronski, B. 2004. Theory-based bias correction in dispositional inference: The fundamental attribution error is dead, long live the correspondence bias. European Review of Social Psychology 15: 183–217.
Grünbaum, A. 1984. The foundations of psychoanalysis: A philosophical critique. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Habermas, J. 1986 [1968]. Knowledge and Human Interests. Trans. J. J. Shapiro. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Heimann, P. 1950. On counter-transference. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis 31: 81–84.
Heyes, C. 2014. Submentalizing: I am not really reading your mind. Perspectives on Psychological Science 9: 131–143.
Hopkins, J. 1988. Epistemology and depth psychology: Critical notes on The Foundations of Psychoanalysis. In Mind, psychoanalysis and science, ed. P. Clark and C. Wright, 33–60. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
———. 1995. Irrationality, interpretation and division. In Philosophy of psychology, ed. C. McDonald and G. McDonald, 409–432. Oxford: Blackwell.
———. 2012. Psychoanalysis, representation, and neuroscience: The Freudian unconscious and the Bayesian brain. In From the couch to the lab: Trends in psychodynamic neuroscience, ed. A. Fotopoulou, D. Pfaff, and M.A. Conway, 230–265. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
———. 2015. The significance of consilience: Psychoanalysis, attachment, neuroscience and evolution. In Psychoanalysis and the philosophy of mind: Unconscious mentality in the twenty-first century, ed. S. Boag, L.A.W. Brakel, and V. Talvitie, 47–136. London: Karnac.
Horney, K. 1999/1942. Self-analysis. London: Routledge.
Hutto, D.D., M. Herschbach, and V. Southgate. 2011. Social cognition: Mindreading and alternatives. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 2 (375).
Kovács, A.M., E. Téglás, and A.D. Endress. 2010. The social sense: Susceptibility to others’ beliefs in human infants and adults. Science 330: 1830–1834.
Lacewing, M. 2012a. Inferring motives in psychology and psychoanalysis. Philosophy, Psychiatry & Psychology 19: 197–212.
———. 2012b. Statistics, desire and interdisciplinarity. Philosophy, Psychiatry & Psychology 19: 221–225.
Lacewing, M. 2018. The science of psychoanalysis. Philosophy, Psychiatry & Psychology 25: 95–111.
Laplanche, J., and J.B. Pontalis. 1973. The Language of Psycho-analysis, Trans. by D. Nicholson-Smith. London: Karnac.
Lewis, D. 1972. Psychophysical and theoretical identifications. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 50: 249–258.
Lipton, P. 1991. Inference to the best explanation. London: Routledge.
MacMillan, M. 1991. Freud evaluated: The completed arc. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing.
Marr, D. 1982. Vision. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
Masson, J.M. 1985. The complete letters of Sigmund Freud to Wilhelm Fliess, 1887–1904. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
McIntyre, A. 1958. The unconscious: A conceptual analysis. London: Routledge/Kegan Paul.
Onishi, K.H., and R. Baillargeon. 2005. Do 15-month-old infants understand false beliefs? Science 308: 255–258.
Panksepp, J., and L. Biven. 2012. The archaeology of mind: Neuroevolutionary origins of human emotion. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Pataki, T. 2014. Wish-fulfilment in philosophy and psychoanalysis: The tyranny of desire. London: Routledge.
Popper, K. 1962. Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. New York: Basic Books.
Rosenzweig, S. 1936. Some implicit common factors in diverse methods of psychotherapy. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 6: 412–415.
Russell, J.A. 1991. Culture and the categorization of the emotions. Psychological Bulletin 110: 426–450.
Skinner, B.F. 1956. Critique of psychoanalytic concepts and theories. In Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science, volume 1: The foundations of science and the concepts of psychology and psychoanalysis, ed. H. Feigl and M. Scriven, 77–87. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Stich, S. 1983. From folk psychology to cognitive science. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman. 1974. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science 185: 1124–1131.
Wellman, H., D. Cross, and J. Watson. 2001. Meta-analysis of theory of mind development: The truth about false-belief. Child Development 72: 655–684.
Winnicott, D.W. 1949. Hate in the counter-transference. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis 30: 69–74.
Wittgenstein, L. 1953. Philosophical investigations (trans: Anscombe, G.E.M.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sims, A. (2018). Causal Inference in the Clinical Setting: Why the Cognitive Science of Folk Psychology Matters. In: Pedrini, P., Kirsch, J. (eds) Third-Person Self-Knowledge, Self-Interpretation, and Narrative. Contributions To Phenomenology, vol 96. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98646-3_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98646-3_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-98644-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-98646-3
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)