Further evidence for the case against neuropsychoanalysis: How Yovell,Solms, and Fotopoulou's response to our critique confirms the irrelevance and harmfulness to psychoanalysis of the contemporary neuroscientific trend

In their paper “The case for neuropsychoanalysis” Yovell, Solms, and Fotopoulou (2015) respond to our critique of neuropsychoanalysis (Blass & Carmeli, 2007), setting forth evidence and arguments which, they claim, demonstrate why neuroscience is relevant and important for psychoanalysis and hence why dialogue between the fields is necessary. In the present paper we carefully examine their evidence and arguments and demonstrate how and why their claim is completely mistaken. In fact, Yovell, Solms, and Fotopoulou's paper only confirms our position on the irrelevance and harmfulness to psychoanalysis of the contemporary neuroscientific trend. We show how this trend perverts the essential nature of psychoanalysis and of how it is practiced. The clinical impact and its detrimental nature is highlighted by discussion of clinical material presented by Yovell et al (2015). In the light of this we argue that the debate over neuropsychoanalysis should be of interest to all psychoanalysts, not only those concerned with biology or interdisciplinary dialogue.     

The case against neuropsychoanalysis: On fallacies underlying psychoanalysis' latest scientifi c trend and its negative impact on psychoanalytic discourse

The authors offer a critical examination of the claims of the proponents of the growing neuropsychoanalytic trend, that neuroscientifi c fi ndings are relevant and important for the development and justifi cation of psychoanalytic theory and practice. They bring to light some of the intuitions that have led to the popularity of the neuropsychoanalytic claims and the fallacies that underlie these claims and intuitions. They argue that it is crucial at this time to articulate the case against the neuropsychoanalytic trend because, underlying the debate over the relevance of neuroscience to psychoanalysis, there lies a struggle over the essential nature of psychoanalytic theory and practice. Relying on a biologistic perspective, whereby only what is biological is real, this new trend in effect offers a vision of psychoanalysis that limits the signifi cance of the unique psychoanalytic concern with the understanding of meanings and the role of discourse in discerning and justifying these meanings.     

心理学研究中的还原主义问题考察

还原主义是主导心理学研究的非常重要的理论原则。其核心思想是认为,世界是分层的梯级系统,可以通过已知的、低层级的事物或理论来解释与说明未知的、高层级的事物或理论。实证的科学心理学在自己的起步的阶段,曾经把物理学当成了自己的榜样,当成了自己的标准。心理学在解说人的心理行为的过程中,就把心理行为的规律归结为物理主义的规律。生物决定论观点认为人的心理或行为主要受人的生物因素所决定,人类的社会行为、人格乃至社会生活的基本方面都决定于这些个体、群体、种族或人种的生物因素。还原论与还原方法既有联系又存在着质的差别。还原论在心理学的研究中有其合理的地方。这也就可以区分出所谓的物理主义的还原,化学分析的还原、生物决定的还原、生理机制的还原、社会决定的还原、文化制约的还原,等等。在表面上看,心理学研究中的还原主义是一种简单化的或简约化的研究处理。但是,在深层上看,心理学研究却借助于还原论而形成了自己的研究框架。并且,这也是将各自不同学科的相关的探索转换成为了心理学的学术性资源。