{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022086824067022087, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.287081339712919, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Interdisciplinary Studies and Our Practice

Why should psychoanalysts learn about neighboring disciplines? It is often argued that, although information from neuroscience, neuro-psychology, evolutionary psychology, and other fields may be of interest to analysts, it has no real effect on their practice: on the way they listen, the way they react, or the way they treat their patients. A corollary of this position is that there is no reason to include such information in a psychoanalytic curriculum, since it does not help candidates become better analysts. Against this view, two reasons are advanced for the importance of interdisciplinary study. The more general reason is that it grounds psychoanalysis in the broader scientific world, reducing its isolation and inbred parochialism. This can help justify the discipline intellectually, possibly in advance of and independently of supportive research from within the field (e.g., outcome studies). The second reason is that our own minds, and particularly those of the generation now entering training, have been altered by changes in the scientific zeitgeist and we need to have some grasp of these changes. Finally, six examples of findings from other disciplines are presented that even now may be contributing to thinking about psychoanalytic practice.