Vivona Jeanine M
The College of New Jersey, USA.
J Am Psychoanal Assoc. 2009 Jun;57(3):525-50. doi: 10.1177/0003065109336443.
In the current vigorous debate over the value of neuroscience to psychoanalysis, the epistemological status of the links between the data of brain research and the constructs of interest to psychoanalysts has rarely been examined. An inspection of recent discussions of mirror neuron research, particularly regarding countertransference, reveals gaps between psychoanalytic processes and the available brain activation data, and allows the evaluation of evidence for three implicit assumptions frequently made to bridge these gaps: (1) there is a straightforward correspondence between observed brain activity and mental activity; (2) similarity of localized brain activity across individuals signifies a shared interpersonal experience; (3) an automatic brain mechanism enables direct interpersonal sharing of experiences in the absence of inference and language. Examination of mirror neuron research findings reveals that these assumptions are either untested or questionable. Moreover, within neuroscience there are competing interpretations of mirror neuron findings, with diverse implications for psychoanalysis. The present state of mirror neuron research may offer us new hypotheses or metaphors, but does not provide empirical validation of the proposed models. More generally, as we attempt to learn from research findings generated outside psychoanalysis, we must strive to think scientifically, by minding the difference between data and interpretation.
在当前关于神经科学对精神分析价值的激烈辩论中，大脑研究数据与精神分析学家感兴趣的概念之间联系的认识论地位很少受到审视。对近期关于镜像神经元研究的讨论进行考察，尤其是关于反移情的讨论，揭示了精神分析过程与现有的大脑激活数据之间的差距，并使得我们能够评估为弥合这些差距而经常做出的三个隐含假设的证据：（1）观察到的大脑活动与心理活动之间存在直接对应关系；（2）个体间局部大脑活动的相似性意味着共享的人际体验；（3）一种自动的大脑机制能够在没有推理和语言的情况下实现人际间经验的直接共享。对镜像神经元研究结果的考察表明，这些假设要么未经检验，要么存在疑问。此外，在神经科学领域内，对镜像神经元研究结果存在相互竞争的解释，对精神分析有着不同的影响。镜像神经元研究的现状可能为我们提供新的假设或隐喻，但并未对所提出的模型提供实证验证。更普遍地说，当我们试图从精神分析之外产生的研究结果中学习时，我们必须努力进行科学思考，注意数据与解释之间的差异。
