Commentary on Meehl

The classic article by Meehl (1978) raises fundamental issues regarding the viability of theorizing in the “soft” psychological sciences and the weakness of statistical significance testing in appraising the validity of the field’s theories. These concerns are as valid today as they were a quarter of a century ago. Despite the lack of clear progress that has been made in terms of theory building, I raise several examples from developmental psychopathology research that reveal progress in the field’s conceptual and methodologic rigor, including the testing of genotype by environment interactions, the statistical advances driving longitudinal research, and the use of intervention and prevention trials to address questions of etiology and mechanisms related to psychopathology.     

Commentary on Malevolent Creativity

In Malevolent creativity: A functional model of creativity in terrorism and crime, Cropley, Kaufman, and Cropley (this issue) insightfully highlight two important aspects of the creative process. First, although it may not be popular nor initially obvious to discuss negatively applied, malevolent creativity, or terrorism/crime as potentially creative acts, it is certainly to our detriment not to if we truly seek to understand the full-spectrum under which the creative process operates. The second issue examined is the process by which a creative product's novelty declines with the passing of time. Each are briefly discussed.     

Commentary on Jansen's Paper

Karl Jansen raises a fundamental and exciting question: Is humankind's consciousness the result of neuronal function, or are there extra-cerebral aspects as well? While his neurotransmitter model of near-death experiences (NDEs) is well described, I find his supporting evidence weak. Methodological differences between studies of ketamine hallucinations and near-death experiences (NDEs) raise doubts about how similar those experiences are phenomenologically. While Jansen's model has electrifying implications, the data required to support his conclusions do not yet exist.     

Commentary on Papers by Burton and Bonovitz

The author probes bastions in Noelle Burton’s and Christopher Bonovitz’s patients’ unsymbolized experience. Bonovitz and his patient were involved in a mutually created phallic collapse, one in which they are unable to use their minds aggressively and vitally to make sense of things together. Bonovitz gained purchase on a set of conspiratorial feelings he had held toward his two analysts, feelings that were enacted with his patient. For Burton and her patient there was a different kind of bastion in which Burton’s wish to know her patient couldn’t be experienced as something other than impingement. The author argues the value of our openness to reverie not only when patients’ have poorly developed capacities for verbalization and symbolization but more generally as a clinical sensibility to cultivate with all patients.     

Commentary

A critique and discussion of the six papers offered in this volume is provided. Links to prior traditions in outcome and process research from the past are made. In addition the author reviews the somewhat negative reception of clinicians to empirical research and indicates the opinion that such attitudes have been to the detriment of our scientific status and public trust.