fie theory of the Unconscious as developed by Freud some 39
and more years ago revolutionized psychological thought and psychiatric
practice. It was firmly resisted for many years; but today, no one
doubts the reality and importance of unconscious processes, least
of all biologists.

During that time, we have observed revolutionary advances in
other areas of general and of human biology, notably in genetics and
molecular biology, with ramifications in such areas as the evolution
of man and his biological relationship to other primates; hereditary
aspects of variation in man; the biochemistry and development of the
central nervous system. hiy main questions are mainly concerned with
the assimilation and use of this kind of information and insight in
psychiatric practice. Mx

May I state my prejudices as an interested onlooker? I have the
impression that while Freud himself was very well informed in the
knowledge of human biology available in the 1900's, and stressed
its importance, the very thrust of his own revolution isolated both
himself and his followers from the stream of new biological knowledge
that has emerged since then. This is easily understandable as a reac-
tion to the hostility that his ideas faced, and in the light of the
preoccupation and excitement elicited by the exploration of previously

forbidden territory. I am then moved to ask you to discuss:

1. Is contemporary training in and practice of psychiatry (and psyche-
analysis in particular) sufficiently aware of modern biology? In the
theoretical model of the human organism, is it relevant to know about
the chemistry of DNA and its function in development?

2. Many commentators believe that psychotherapy in practice deviates
widely from the theory taught by the various schools. One way to test

such a proposition is to ask whether the therapeutic behavior of different

 

(presumably eyually successful?) psychiatrists of different schools
does not converge to a degree that would hardly be predicted by

a review of their theoretical doctrines.

3. "Intelligence" (i.e. mewxes I.W. scores) is the only "quantifiable"
aspect of personality to have been extensively studied by geneticists,
who find "heritabilities" of the order of .5 to .7 from studies on

twins reared in separated, adoptive families. (These findings, I will
emphasize are quite irrelevant though often misapplied to WX5xNSESXENS
m& genetic differences in intelligence among races, which are confounded
by obvious, systematic differences in sociocultural environments. )

How does intelligence, and its biological variability, fit into your
model of the psyche? Is it modifiable by therapy? If so, is a sharpening
of intelligence a goal of practical thenapy? On the other hand, how do
differences in intelligence xxXfinuw among patients influence therapeutic
management?

4. This question is, in a way, a restaterent of all the others. To

what extent is the "psyche", which is the object of psychodynamic
models, transmitted through the sociocultural environment, to what
extent via biological inheritance (i.e. the DNA of the species)?

A better question is, how can we know?