tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4979383311656141176.post4000367667272333497..comments2022-11-17T05:16:35.644-08:00Comments on Chimney Sweeping: Psychoanalytic Psychology and the APA: Part IBill MacGillivrayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13431263116759806092noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4979383311656141176.post-89345795353389096392011-10-27T13:36:44.018-07:002011-10-27T13:36:44.018-07:00For quite some time, I have thought that studies o...For quite some time, I have thought that studies of the efficacy of "psychoanalytic therapy" at this point in the profession's development do not make sense. Given the many schools of analysis, their different theories, few if any histories of scientific development and testing, and no current possibility of something standardizable, I think research efforts ought to return to something that was passed over years ago and has seemed to remain so: the creation of scientific clinical-research designs that separate theories that hold up to tests of prediction from those that do not, and enable the development of new ones that explain the unexplained phenomena of the domain. <br /><br />During my own 40-some years as a trained analyst, I have seen lttle interest in such and heard various unchecked assumptions that pronounced closure on the possibility without accompanying reasoning that led to them. (I was fortunate to have gone to analytic training with a "Why not?" question that was inpired by the scientists encountered during a medical education, and it led me to a number of unexpected discoveries that I am just beginning to describe and discuss. A brief example of some such assumptions and unexplained phenomena can be found on the blog on my recently establshed website - harryanderson.ca<br /><br />Thank you for the stimulus to write that your article provides.<br /><br />Harry Anderson MD D.psych FRCPHarry M. .Anderson MD D.Psych FRCPhttp://harryanderson.canoreply@blogger.com