Customer Service | Help | FAQ | PEP-Easy | Report a Data Error | About
:
Login
PEP-Easy Tip: To save PEP-Easy to the home screen

PEP-Web Tip of the Day

To start PEP-Easy without first opening your browser–just as you would start a mobile app, you can save a shortcut to your home screen.

First, in Chrome or Safari, depending on your platform, open PEP-Easy from pepeasy.pep-web.org. You want to be on the default start screen, so you have a clean workspace.

Then, depending on your mobile device…follow the instructions below:

On IOS:

  1. Tap on the share icon Action navigation bar and tab bar icon
  2. In the bottom list, tap on ‘Add to home screen’
  3. In the “Add to Home” confirmation “bubble”, tap “Add”

On Android:

  1. Tap on the Chrome menu (Vertical Ellipses)
  2. Select “Add to Home Screen” from the menu

 

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

Fotopoulou, A. Tsakiris, M. (2017). Mentalizing homeostasis: the social origins of interoceptive inference – replies to Commentaries. Neuropsychoanalysis, 19(1):71-76.

(2017). Neuropsychoanalysis, 19(1):71-76

Response

Mentalizing homeostasis: the social origins of interoceptive inference – replies to Commentaries

Aikaterini Fotopoulou and Manos Tsakiris

Our target article (“Mentalizing homeostasis: the social origins of interoceptive inference” – henceforth MH for short) drew a relatively large and varied set of responses from the invited commentators. These are a source of both delight and challenge. The delight stems from the fact that our interdisciplinary proposal regarding the social origins of interoception is met with wonderfully constructive, specifying and expansive responses across different fields, thus building a wider basis for a long-overdue dialogue between the fields. The challenge stems from the fact that to do justice to the variety and depth of some of the commentaries would require at least another, long and overloaded, interdisciplinary article. As our response cannot be as long, we selected three central facets of our proposal and discuss them in relation to the points raised by the commentators. In all three instances, we particularly focus on the following question: Does our proposal call for a reconsideration of existing concepts and findings as we and some commentators suggest, or are the phenomena we have highlighted best described by existing conceptualizations in the fields involved, as some other commentators claim? We will start from the most radical aspect of our proposal, namely the cognitive and emotional implications of caregiving at the time of the infant’s motor immaturity, before moving into the issue of embodied versus cognitive mentalization. We will conclude with somewhat lesser issues of terminology regarding the nature–nurture distinction and the self–other distinction.

[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 © 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.