www.crossingdialogues.com/journal.htm DIALOGUES Crossing Dialogues Association 87 NICOLO' GAJ Email: nicolo.gaj@gmail.com DIAL PHIL MENT NEURO SCI 2015; 8(2): 87-88 Recently on this journal, Alaqeel and Assalian reported a successful psychodynamic interpretation at the very beginning of a treatment of a 22-year-old male suffering from sexual dysfunction (delayed orgasm). In the critical analysis of the essay, Trafi mow (2015) maintains that several alternative explanations can be detected in order to account for Alaqeel and Assalian's positive outcomes. It is my opinion, as Gabbani (2015) already noted, that it is correct to say that this is a case of empirical underdetermination, that is, a case where many possible theoretical explanations can be provided, because many of them "fi t the facts". However, it can be noted that the relevance of Alaqeel and Assalian's contribution may rest on a different aspect emerging from the essay. In the conclusion of their article, the authors write that "Fear of impregnation is a crucial issue in both genders but, unfortunately, little light has been shed on it in the literature. We hope that our case example helps to attract more interest in the subject" (p.23). It is evident that one of the essay's aims is to draw attention to a possibly relevant factor in the therapy of sexual diseases, which was before unknown, underrated or simply ignored, as already noted by Gabbani (2015). Alaqeel and Assalian clearly follow a psychodynamic orientation in their profession. It is worth remembering that this theoretical tradition uses single case presentations in order to illustrate and justify hypotheses. Being interpretation one of the tenets of this approach, it is arguable that the validity of the use of interpretation is not the aim of the article, although the title could be misleading. In fact, the article's title highlights "the meaningfulness of short interpretation [...]", apparently drawing attention to this topic. This raises the following question: do the authors intend to focus their attention on the issue of interpretation or on a novel factor, which should be relevant to the treatment of sexual disorders? The fi rst option seems to point out that the authors' target is interpretation as a general process, i.e., a process whose validity exceeds the specifi c content, which can vary from case to case. Although this option is coherent with the title, Alaqeel and Assalian's brief case presentation is surely not appropriate in order to justify one of the central, and most controversial, tenets of the psychodynamic tradition. From this perspective, Trafi mow is completely right. There is another option. The authors' target can be the detection of a novel factor which is relevant to treatments of sexual disorders. If this is the case, Alaqeel and Assalian's brief case presentation would draw attention to a type of content which turns out to be relevant to general therapeutic goals. This is compatible with the conclusion of the essay, which states that "Fear of impregnation is a crucial issue in both genders" (p.23). This conclusion is drawn from the fact that this issue would be somehow relevant to symptoms remission in the treatment reported by the authors. However, it must be specifi ed that the relevance of this content (fear of impregnation) can be such because of the individual history, i.e., idiosyncratic, particular aspects pertaining the 22-year-old male treated. "Fear of impregnation is a crucial issue in both genders" (p.23) is evidently a general assumption, which stems from – or fi nd justifi cation in – the analysis of a single case presentation. Alaqeel and Assalian's paper doesn't explain why such a Dialogues in Philosophy, Mental and Neuro Sciences The scientifi c relevance of an individual factor needs more than a case presentation DIAL PHIL MENT NEURO SCI 2015; 8(2): 87-88 Gaj, 2015 content, whose individual character is quite evident from their presentation, could have a general relevance for the treatment of sexual disorders. In other words, the authors have drawn attention to a type of individual content whose general relevance is uncritically stated, without identifying the rationale which should link the (positive) treatment outcomes to a specifi c factor (fear of impregnation), being many other factors at disposal – e.g., the infl uence of father's divorce, his father telling him he himself wasted many years in unfruitful relationships, his mother telling him to be careful to commit himself to a relationship, the modes of his fi rst sexual experience – . In conclusion, let us briefl y consider the two options before highlighted. The fi rst option – the authors' aim is to justify the use of interpretation by means of a single case presentation – is not likely to refl ect Alaqeel and Assalian's purpose; it is anyway unacceptable, since interpretation is a process whose validity would exceed specifi c, individual contents. The second option seems to be more in line with the authors' aim. However, the reference to a specifi c content – fear of impregnation – as an important factor in the treatment of sexual disorder needs more than a case presentation. Indeed, any case presentation deals with individual, idiosyncratic material brought by the patient. This material is prima facie idiosyncratic, that is it pertains to the individual. We do not know if this material can be of general interest, that is, somehow relevant for many individuals. In fact, only the coming out of similar, apparently individual, contents in different individual treatments can highlights general aspects emerging from material which is prima facie idiosyncratic. Thus, only the repeated observation that some kind of (apparently) individual material is somehow connected to positive outcomes in many different cases would draw appropriately our attention to that kind of material, which will be worthy of further research. If these premises had occurred, Alaqeel and Assalian's paper would be an illuminating case presentation illustrating the relevance of a specifi c factor in the treatment of sexual disorders. Since it is not the case, it is my opinion that the authors' intuition needs more than the observation of a single case in order 88 to provide a sound index of the relevance of a novel, unknown factor in the treatment of sexual disorders. REFERENCES Alaqeel B, Assalian P (2014) The meaningfulness of short interpretation in brief clinical encounter. Dial Phil Ment Neuro Sci, 7:21-24. Gabbani C. (2015) Is it not the case? On epistemological signifi cance of a clinical case. Dial Phil Ment Neuro Sci, 8:36-38. Trafi mow D. (2015) Why case studies provide poor demonstrations of theoretical ideas. Dial Phil Ment Neuro Sci, 8:34-35.