Customer Service | Help | FAQ | PEP-Easy | Report a Data Error | About
:
Login
Tip: To see author affiliation information in an article…

PEP-Web Tip of the Day

To see author affiliation and contact information (as available) in an article, simply click on the Information icon next to the author’s name in every journal article.

For the complete list of tips, see PEP-Web Tips on the PEP-Web support page.

Peterfreund, E. (1973). On Information-Processing Models for Mental Phenomena—A Reply to Lawrence Friedman's Critical Review of Information, Systems, and Psychoanalysis by Emanuel Peterfreund. Int. J. Psycho-Anal., 54:351-357.

(1973). International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 54:351-357

On Information-Processing Models for Mental Phenomena—A Reply to Lawrence Friedman's Critical Review of Information, Systems, and Psychoanalysis by Emanuel Peterfreund Related Papers

Emanuel Peterfreund

It may well be every author's nightmare that the book to which he has devoted years of thought, time, effort and energy will be greeted with stony silence by a deaf and oblivious world. Reviews and critical essays, even negative ones, are therefore welcome. I am grateful for and even flattered by Lawrence Friedman's critical review of my book which appeared in this Journal(Friedman, 1972).

Unfortunately, Friedman's summary and discussion of the book's contents are sufficiently misleading to call for a reply. I and others believe that psychoanalysis is now in serious trouble. I believe that the metapsychology that has sustained psychoanalysis for many years is fundamentally untenable and that information concepts and information-processing and systems models can provide the new paradigm that is urgently needed. I am replying to Friedman because I do not wish the readers of this Journal to learn about these new concepts and models only from his inaccurate presentation of them.

But replying to Friedman presents certain problems. First, his 'review' is not, to my mind, an adequate presentation of the nature, purpose, history and scope of my effort. Second, a reviewer has an obligation to present an author's ideas with reasonable accuracy. But I myself could hardly recognize most of my ideas as Friedman described them. Third, it is a prime requirement of a reviewer that he be informed about the subject under review. But Friedman does not appear to be well informed about the information sciences nor about contemporary scientific thought.

[This is a summary or excerpt from the full text of the book or article. The full text of the document is available to subscribers.]

Copyright © 2020, Psychoanalytic Electronic Publishing, ISSN 2472-6982 Customer Service | Help | FAQ | Download PEP Bibliography | Report a Data Error | About

WARNING! This text is printed for personal use. It is copyright to the journal in which it originally appeared. It is illegal to redistribute it in any form.