Response to Commentaries

In replying to the commentaries, I continue to explore differences between a complexity model of the mind and an intrapsychic one, and elaborate aspects of the complex negotiation process that occurred between my patient, Kerri, and me. Taking up Chefetz's notion that a “change in self-state predicts observed fluctuations in the capacity to mentalize,” I consider ways that self-states in both the patient and analyst fluctuate, influence, and reorganize the unfolding process, including the systemic capacity to mentalize.     

Penetrating Subjectivity: Response to Commentaries

In response to the commentaries by Altman, Straker, and Suchet, the author considers the ways in which thirdness—in various manifestations—has aided in the continuing process of thinking about race. She responds to Straker’s invitation to interrogate further what it means to write from within and without a context, considering some of the defensive strategies that manifest when writing about race from a position of whiteness. Following Suchet’s lead, the paper looks too at the notion of the decolonization of the mind and how this is a project that unfolds in parallel with the decolonial moment being witnessed in broader socioeconomic contexts. In response to Altman’s commentary on the clinical aspects of the paper, the author engages with what it means to enter more fully into a process of mutual recognition when working in cross-racial dyads and considers, finally, the question of far she is able, as a white clinician and writer, to jeopardize the self in the process of unsettling whiteness.     

Metacognitive Experiences: Response to Commentaries

The stimulating commentaries by Huber (2004), Lee (2004), and Pham (2004) raised important questions. This response elaborates on some of their themes by addressing the assessment of naive theories, the role of expectations, the influence of metacognitive experiences on consumer choice, as well as parallels between different metacognitive experiences and moods. Receiving thoughtful and stimulating commentary from three of my favorite consumer researchers, whose work has influenced my own thinking, is a great privilege. In this response, I elaborate on some of the themes of their commentaries (Huber, 2004; Lee, 2004; Pham, 2004), although space constraints do not allow me to do full justice to their thoughts.     

Marriage at the Summit: Response to the Commentaries

This article serves as a response to the 13 commentaries on the target article, which introduced the suffocation model of marriage in America. This reply has four main sections. First, it presents an elaborated version of the suffocation model that was inspired by the commentaries. Second, it addresses three areas of significant disagreement that emerged as we digested the commentaries. Third, it examines the circumstances under which being instrumental for one's spouse's needs benefits the self. And fourth, it takes strides toward the development of a mathematically formal version of the suffocation model. It concludes with a discussion of the ways in which policymakers, clinicians, and individual Americans can capitalize upon the suffocation model to strengthen marriage and, in doing so, bolster personal well-being.     

A Meta-Commentary: Response to the Commentaries of Marks-Tarlow and Solow Glennon

In replying to the commentaries of Marks-Tarlow and Solow Glennon, I have provided some clarification and expansion on the epistemology of dynamic systems models. These models served as the basis for integrating neuroscientific research findings with the phenomena of self and identity. Some of the challenges offered by the commentators have been specifically addressed with reference to a clarification of a “linguistic system” and causality as it applies to nonlinear dynamics.     

Longitudinal Outcomes of Child Parent Psychotherapy: Response to Commentaries

Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology - In response to the commentaries provided by Chu et al. (2020), Harmon et al. (2020), and McMahon & Maxwell (2020) on our longitudinal...     

A Response to Carolyn Ellman and Meira Likierman: Reply to Commentaries

In my reply to Likierman and Ellman, I remark on the difficulty of responding accurately to written case material. I underline some problems resulting from the necessarily abbreviated information contained in even the most carefully constructed and detailed presentations. Using the responses to my Richard paper, I attempt to show that in the absence of complete information, respondents tend to substitute their own imaginative assumptions for missed or incomplete information. They also tend to borrow from preferred theory to organize these assumptions as well as the conclusions that follow. Like unmarked wind currents, these tendencies can carry discussions far off the author's intended course.     

Reclaiming the Boundary Concept from Forensic Discourse: Response to Commentaries

The author argues that sexual misconduct is better referred to as ethical or sexual misconduct rather than combining a fragile metaphoric construct—boundary—with forensic jargon. His argument rests on a few points that intersect. One objection to the term “boundary violation” involves a matter of scale in which the notion of exploring psychic boundaries, the essential context for psychoanalysis, is obliterated by sexual misconduct. The enormous scale of sexual misconduct is better labeled with behavioral referents rather than a moniker that combines forensic violation and the subtleties of analytic process. The author would reserve the term boundary difficulties for analytic process related to more subtle problems in analysis and the use of boundaries embedded in the work. Another objection relates to our responsibility to those outside our community to refrain from using our sophisticated understanding of the play of boundaries in analytic work in ways that are too often unintentionally confusing and mystifying.     

Response to Commentaries: Actions as Perceptual-Conceptual "Gestalts"

The author clarifies the objective and essence of the psychological, or perceptual-cognitive, approach to voluntary movement. According to that approach, voluntary movements are organized and performed as meaningful, perceptible events with bodily and environmental aspects. Body-oriented control is thus not neglected in the perceptual-cognitive approach but is actually an important issue. He further clarifies how material and psychological factors relate to each other in motor control and why they are not considered a coalition of constraints. The central importance of the sparse coding principle for the perceptual-cognitive approach is underlined. Finally, the author argues that the psychological information format is particularly suitable for motion control and stresses the power of the perceptual-cognitive approach to possibly provide a unifying framework for understanding human voluntary movements.     

Aboriginal Practitioners Offer Culturally Safe and Responsive CBT: Response to Commentaries

We appreciate the valuable commentaries that have been provided for our paper “Can CBT be effective for Aboriginal Australians? Perspectives of Aboriginal practitioners trained in CBT.” The international authors identify how CBT, with adaptations by culturally responsive practitioners can be of value for non‐Western and Indigenous peoples. The commentary by Australian psychologists Dudgeon and Kelly questions the value of CBT for Indigenous Australians, terming it a “Western therapy” that is “culturally unresponsive” and “culturally blind.” They also critique the methodology of the study. We argue that CBT can be adapted by culturally competent practitioners to be culturally safe in Australia, as elsewhere. Cultural safety is mostly a function of the therapist, not the therapy. In the Bennett‐Levy et al. (2014) study, CBT was delivered in a culturally responsive way by Aboriginal counsellors within their own communities. CBT is a particularly adaptable and versatile therapy, and embodies principles of empowerment and self‐determination that are central to Indigenous social and emotional well‐being. We are concerned that CBT, which has strong empirical support and has been adapted elsewhere for a range of cultures, including Indigenous cultures, may be being denied to Indigenous Australian clients. There is considerable opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness and versatility of CBT, and variations of its mode of delivery, for all Australians.