On the Astonishing Clinical Irrelevance of Neuroscience

Abstract

The clinical work of psychoanalysts can be thought of in both a narrow and a broad sense. In the narrow sense, it refers to what is commonly thought of as psychoanalytic technique, the methods analysts use to understand their patients and to convey that understanding to them. In the broad sense, it refers to the entirety of their work as clinicians: the content of understanding, as well as such things as diagnosing, estimating analyzability, recommending therapy, and prescribing medication. The current enthusiastic expectation that neuroscience will have an immediate and direct impact on clinical work in the narrow sense is misguided, but neuroscientific discoveries, it is argued, will have a major impact on psychoanalytic theory in the not too distant future. The resulting changes in metapsychology will ultimately have reverberations on clinical work in the broad sense, although psychoanalytic technique, the analyst's basic approach to patients, will remain essentially the same.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 55 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.