Assessing Specific Effects of Inpatient Group Psychotherapy

Abstract

This article will examine how the psychoanalytic idea of containing can be used in group therapy to form a conceptual bridge such that the group dynamics are not simplistically reduced to individual dynamics, nor that the individual is lost in the “group–as–a–whole” concept. I take the concept of “containing” as versatile in the sense that Bion (1970) meant it to be—that is, the psychological phenomenon of containment is manifest at various system levels: intrapsychic, interpersonal, group, and societal. This article will explore how far this “bridging concept” can be pursued to understand groups theoretically. The article will review various forms of containing, following Bion’s ideas, and in particular a therapeutic, or flexible, form in contrast to rigid and fragile forms.     

Studies in the Peripheral Retina: I. The Purkinje After-Image

Maslow, A. H., Ed. New Knowledge in Human Values. New York: Harper, 1959. Pp. 268. Reviewed by Henry Winthrop.     

Secondary Revision: On Rethinking the Analytic Process and Analytic Technique

The author relates aspects of his own personal history and professional development in an effort to explain the changes in his way of thinking and working as an analyst that have evolved over the past thirty years. He also includes some of his current thinking on the questions of countertransference, the uses of memory, and contemporary analytic technique.     

On Unconscious Communications and Covert Enactments: Some Reflections on Their Role in the Analytic Situation

By means of an extended clinical example, this paper focuses on the impact that unconscious communications in the form of nonverbal behavior may have on the course and outcome of an analysis.

Responding to sudden catastrophic illnesses in their fathers, patient and analyst created enactments aimed at blinding them to hard truths about their relationships with this parent.

Serving as powerful resistances that led to a stalemate and all but ended treatment, these nonverbal enactments had to be recognized, confronted, and understood by both participants before analytic work could be resumed and progress achieved in this analysis.     

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.     

Probability logic and combining evidence

In Hailperin 1996 Hailperin, T. 1996. Sentential Probability Logic, Bethlehem and London: Lehigh University Press and Associated University Presses.  [Google Scholar], in addition to its formal development of Probability Logic, there are many sections devoted to historical origins, illustrative examples, and discussion of related work by other authors. Here selected portions of its formal treatment are summarized and then used as a basis for a probability logic treatment of combining evidence.     

Logic Semantics with the Potential Infinite

A form of quantification logic referred to by the author in earlier papers as being ‘ontologically neutral’ still made use of the actual infinite in its semantics. Here it is shown that one can have, if one desires, a formal logic that refers in its semantics only to the potential infinite. Included are two new quantifiers generalizing the sentential connectives, equivalence and non-equivalence. There are thus new avenues opening up for exploration in both quantification logic and semantics of the infinite.     

Other voices,other minds

I argue to a conclusion I find at once surprising and intuitive: although many considerations show trust useful, valuable, important, or required, these are not the reasons for which one trusts a particular person to do a particular thing. The reasons for which one trusts a particular person on a particular occasion concern, not the value, importance, or necessity of trust itself, but rather the trustworthiness of the person in question in the matter at hand. In fact, I will suggest that the degree to which you trust a particular person to do a particular thing will vary inversely with the degree to which you must rely, for the motivation or justification of your trusting response, on reasons that concern the importance, or value, or necessity of having such a response.