3
Response to Joseph Schwartz Robert Langs and Anthony Badalamenti Once more, reluctantly, we respond to a discussion of our 1994 paper. In principle, and with considerable support from the literature in both mathematics and physics, we are convinced that the claims made by Dr Schwartz - that our methods, mathematical models and lines of thought are in error - are entirely unfounded. In this connection, we regret that Dr Schwartz did not take the trouble to read the many relevant original papers that specify our methods and their rationales - papers that were accepted by prestigious journals whose knowledgeable editors, trained in both physics and mathematics, had no quarrel with our methodology and the implications we drew from our results (for example, Badalamenti & Langs 1992a, 1992b; Langs & Badalamenti 1990). Had he done so, he might have better understood our approach and the ideas it generated. At the request of the editor of this Journal, we will respond to the specific arguments made by Schwartz in broad terms. The Poisson Process we unearthed for our speaker duration series clearly calls for a thesis of tension build-up in humans with intentionality. This is an idea that makes commonsense in that the longer a person is silent, the greater the likelihood that he or she will soon speak - a tendency we were able to characterize individually for each subject we studied using specific mathematical models. We stand by our claim to have measured the work done on the information particle whose values we traced, and we want to point out that the laws of physics hold for all natural processes. These laws are applicable to modern-day information theory and to studies of complex systems - including a wide range of biological phenomena. Further, our evidence for a communicative force field is comparable to what is accepted in physics, and the application of both mechanics and thermodynamics to our data is in keeping similar applications to one-particle systems and is supported by the link between work capacity and entropy - a relationship that we found in our data. And finally, models from physics have frequently been used to clarify and advance the understanding of biological phenomena, for example, membrane transport equations, brain imaging, optics, lung competence and much more. We will bypass the author's intemperate ad hominem comments except to note that his remarks about Langs's clinical work (which is not the subject of our paper) reflects Schwartz's unfamiliarity with trigger decoding and the means by which it defines a distinctive world of deep unconscious experience - the unique observational basis for Langs' s position. We do wish to indicate, however, that we are well aware of the social contexts of science and the uses of theory to fashion observations and results. Our Robert Langs MD and Anthony Badalamenti PhD belong to the Nathan S. Kline Institute for Psychiatric Research, Old Orangeburg Road, Orangeburg, New York 10962. Address for correspondence: Robert Langs MD, 133 West 72nd Street, Suite 304, New York, NY 10023, USA. British Journal of Psychotherapy, Vol 12(3), 1996 © The author

Response to Joseph Schwartz

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Response to Joseph Schwartz

Response to Joseph Schwartz

Robert Langs and Anthony Badalamenti

Once more, reluctantly, we respond to a discussion of our 1994 paper. In principle, and withconsiderable support from the literature in both mathematics and physics, we are convincedthat the claims made by Dr Schwartz - that our methods, mathematical models and lines ofthought are in error - are entirely unfounded. In this connection, we regret that Dr Schwartzdid not take the trouble to read the many relevant original papers that specify our methodsand their rationales - papers that were accepted by prestigious journals whoseknowledgeable editors, trained in both physics and mathematics, had no quarrel with ourmethodology and the implications we drew from our results (for example, Badalamenti &Langs 1992a, 1992b; Langs & Badalamenti 1990). Had he done so, he might have betterunderstood our approach and the ideas it generated.

At the request of the editor of this Journal, we will respond to the specific argumentsmade by Schwartz in broad terms. The Poisson Process we unearthed for our speakerduration series clearly calls for a thesis of tension build-up in humans with intentionality.This is an idea that makes commonsense in that the longer a person is silent, the greater thelikelihood that he or she will soon speak - a tendency we were able to characterizeindividually for each subject we studied using specific mathematical models.

We stand by our claim to have measured the work done on the information particlewhose values we traced, and we want to point out that the laws of physics hold for all naturalprocesses. These laws are applicable to modern-day information theory and to studies ofcomplex systems - including a wide range of biological phenomena. Further, our evidencefor a communicative force field is comparable to what is accepted in physics, and theapplication of both mechanics and thermodynamics to our data is in keeping similarapplications to one-particle systems and is supported by the link between work capacity andentropy - a relationship that we found in our data. And finally, models from physics havefrequently been used to clarify and advance the understanding of biological phenomena, forexample, membrane transport equations, brain imaging, optics, lung competence and muchmore.

We will bypass the author's intemperate ad hominem comments except to note that hisremarks about Langs's clinical work (which is not the subject of our paper) reflectsSchwartz's unfamiliarity with trigger decoding and the means by which it defines adistinctive world of deep unconscious experience - the unique observational basis for Langs's position. We do wish to indicate, however, that we are well aware of the social contexts ofscience and the uses of theory to fashion observations and results. Our

Robert Langs MD and Anthony Badalamenti PhD belong to the Nathan S. Kline Institute for PsychiatricResearch, Old Orangeburg Road, Orangeburg, New York 10962. Address for correspondence: RobertLangs MD, 133 West 72nd Street, Suite 304, New York, NY 10023, USA.

British Journal of Psychotherapy, Vol 12(3), 1996© The author

Page 2: Response to Joseph Schwartz

Robert Langs and Anthony Badalamenti 377

point was that quantified results are far more reliable than qualitative results, and that ourresearch was not biased by preformed hypotheses and preconceived ideas except for thethesis that narrative communication is a powerful mode of human expression - we didindeed let the chips fall where they would.

In any case, unexpected results that are powerful, consistent across settings andindividuals, and that meaningfully distinguish the work of six psychoanalysts, need to berespected and comprehended rather than dismissed. Even if there are flaws in our thinking,the compelling nature of our findings deserves serious consideration. Planck misappliedBoltzmann's equations and discovered quantum physics - we think it fair to attempt todetermine what we have discovered as well. As for Schwartz's statement that this kind ofscience cannot reveal more than direct observation (Descartes: sense impression is sensedeception), our results give lie to this unorthodox claim (for example, two differentmeasures of deep influence showed no deep effect between a patient and analyst in aconsultation that on the surface was highly interactive).

This brings us to our critic's claim that this work reflects a flight into physics and, forLangs, an escape from the clinical domain. During the period in which this research wascarried out and written about, Langs has written six books (Langs 1992a, 1992b, 1993,1994, 1995, in press). All these works attempt to illuminate the clinical situation, threeentirely so; one volume attempts to bring systems theory to psychoanalysis, anotherintroduces psychoanatomy or modelling of the emotion processing mind, and yet anotherbrings a detailed evolutionary science to the field.

In his most recent offering, Langs (in press) uses the communicative vantage point (hisversion of psychoanalysis) to fashion psychoanalysis into a hierarchical science. Heproposes at least 10 levels of investigation and theorizing (in order of power: formal science;stochastic science; evolutionary psychoanalysis; systems theory; psychoanatomy; rules,frames and boundaries; interactions, relating and relationships; psychodynamics; personalgenetics; and emotions and affects). The work summarized in our paper is, then, an attemptto begin to establish the laws and regularities that characterize the most powerful level ofthis hierarchy, formal science, and to present it as a bona fide and meaningful aspect ofpsychoanalysis. To propose that such efforts are a flight of any kind is quite off the mark.

Finally, Schwartz seems to have missed the critical distinction between trying to reducebiology to physics and borrowing models from physics to explore biological issues. ClaudeShannon did exactly that (Shannon 1948; Shannon & Weaver 1949) and producedinformation theory, a major modem-day science.

Where, oh where is the psychotherapist or psychoanalyst who deeply appreciates theprofound necessity that psychoanalysis become a valid and meaningful biological science,someone who feels compelled to examine these utterly surprising results and help usunderstand the implications of this first, however crude, effort to bring formal science to ourdesperately needy field? We repeat our deep conviction that, without quantification,psychoanalysis is doomed both as a science and as a mode of therapy.

References

Badalamenti, A. & Langs, R. (1992a) Stochastic analysis of the duration of the speaker role in thepsychotherapy of an AIDS patient. In American Journal of Psychotherapy 46: 207-25.

Badalamenti, A. & Langs, R. (1992b) Work and force in psychotherapy. In Journal of Mathematicaland Computer Modelling 16: 3-17.

Langs, R. (1992a) A Clinical Workbook for Psychotherapists. London: Karnac Books.

Page 3: Response to Joseph Schwartz

378 British Journal of Psychotherapy (1993) 12(3)

Langs, R. (1992b) Science, Systems and Psychoanalysis. London: Karnac Books.Langs, R. (1993) Empowered Psychotherapy. London: Karnac Books.Langs, R. (1994) Doing Supervision and Being Supervised. London: Karnac Books.Langs, R. (1995) Clinical Practice and the Architecture of the Mind. London: Karnac Books. Langs, R.

(in press) The Evolution of the Emotion Processing Min & With an Introduction to MentalDarwinism. London: Kamac Books.

Langs, R.J. & Badalamenti, A. F. (1990) Stochastic analysis of the duration of the speaker role inpsychotherapy. In Perceptual and Motor Skills 70: 675-89.

Shannon, C. (1948) A mathematical theory of communication. In Bell System Technical Journal 27:379-423, 623-56.

Shannon, C. & Weaver, W. (1949) The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana, Il: Universityof Illinois Press. Also in Bell System Technical Journal 27: 379-423, 623-56.