One could hardly argue naivety in the case of such a cunning woman: we must assume that she was not really interested in the philosophy of science. The laws of evidence, the distinction between description, model, theory, and system of notation, the different kinds of defining propositions - none of this interested him. Partly out of modesty, because for her her work merely complemented and clarified Freud's, and she never recognized the enormous leap she had made in the method or model of the mind. She used to be offended and amazed by the hostility that she aroused, for she thought that it was only antagonism to her ideas, just as Freud felt in her initial isolation.