Customer Service | Help | FAQ | PEP-Easy | Report a Data Error | About
:
Login
Tip: To use the Information icon…

PEP-Web Tip of the Day

The Information icon (an i in a circle) will give you valuable information about PEP Web data and features. You can find it besides a PEP Web feature and the author’s name in every journal article. Simply move the mouse pointer over the icon and click on it for the information to appear.

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

Hofer, M.A. (2014). Response to commentaries. Neuropsychoanalysis, 16(1):53-56.

(2014). Neuropsychoanalysis, 16(1):53-56

Response to Commentaries

Response to commentaries

Myron A. Hofer

Introduction

I would like to thank my colleagues for making such interesting and insightful contributions to this target article format. Considering the open-ended nature of the word “commentary,” I thought I might have a difficult time finding one or two common themes for the group as a whole. But I can see two groups. Four of the commentators seem to have been stimulated to add new thoughts, research findings, and ideas from their own research and thinking. They each focused on a different segment of the paper and have thus contributed a great deal to the overall scope and direction of the “synthesis” I've tried to convey in my article; for this I am very grateful. The second group of two commentators drew from their own research and theoretical work to focus on something they felt I had missed and/or misconceived: the fundamental unity of animal and human minds and of brains and minds themselves. They represent an important point of view, I think, and I hope my description of my reasons for disagreeing with them, as well as the argument itself, may be of some interest to readers of both persuasions.

Individual replies

In the initial group of four, I will begin with Beatrice Beebe – not only as the earliest in the alphabet, but also because she gives a concise and yet inclusive summary of my paper that may be useful to readers who have long ago lost track of what I had written. One of the exciting aspects of Beatrice Beebe's commentary for me is her way of making seamless links between her own work studying human infants, their mothers, and the mental representations formed by their interactions, across what is often viewed as a chasm, to the biological/behavioral research presented in my paper.

[This is a summary excerpt from the full text of the journal article. The full text of the document is available to journal subscribers on the publisher's website here.]

Copyright © 2019, 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.