COMMON GROUND, UNCOMMON METHODS

The author, an American-trained psychoanalyst, currently a member of a theoretically heterogeneous European psychoanalytic society, reflects on his experiences with the different types of analysis practised in continental Europe and in the United States. Sharing some 'common grou nd' assumptions does not mean that analysts worldwide use comparable c linical methodology. Practitioners from disparate schools differ not o nly in their metatheoretical frameworks, but also in their theories of technique. Differences in clinical methods affect the scientific qual ity of clinical researches and, probably, influence therapeutic outcom e. The lack of commonality in psychoanalytic methods often seems relat ed to the disparate uses of logical fallacies in clinical reasoning; t his, in turn, may be a consequence of socio-historical determinants. S everal discussions of one clinical presentation are supplied as an ill ustration. It is suggested that efforts be made to further examine the relative validity of disparate inference-making models, and the pract ical results of applying different clinical methods.