ABSTRACT
This chapter is based on a paper written jointly with John Steiner (Britton and Steiner 1994). We wanted to describe the use by the analyst of the intuitively selected fact in the evolution of his or her interpretations and to draw attention to its hazardous similarity to the crystallisation of delusional certainty from an overvalued idea. Overvalued ideas are likely to arise from overdetermined unconscious beliefs. In that paper we discussed the problem of distinguishing between the two clinically, and stressed the importance of monitoring the subsequent development in sessions following interpretations in order to try to do so. We agreed to look together at clinical material from our own work for suitable examples where we thought the selected fact crystallised the current analytic situation and where we thought an overvalued idea impeded analytic understanding. The case material we chose I have used in this chapter. By not disclosing whose work it was in either of the cases we wanted to emphasise that at times in any analyst’s work a selected fact is quite likely to be an overvalued idea. It also added some protection to confidentiality for the patients. For both these reasons I have written in this chapter as if I was the analyst in both cases.
