In his article “The Invasion of the Concept Snatchers: The Origins, Distortions, and Future of the Continuity Hypothesis,” Domhoff (2017) advocated a cognitive version of the continuity hypothesis. This commentary challenges his claim that his deviations from the original continuity hypothesis formulated by Hall and Nordby (1972) are the only way to advance the theoretical framework of the continuity hypothesis. Furthermore, Domhoff’s concepts are not well operationalized; that is, reliable instruments for measuring the occurrence, intensity, and time frame of personal concerns and preoccupations are lacking. As Domhoff selectively reported the empirical findings that support his notions, the commentary added further research that mostly favors the original version of the continuity hypothesis. The present article pleads for a multiplicity of theoretical and empirical approaches in dream research within the framework of the continuity hypothesis to further our understanding of the relationship between waking life and dreaming.

中文翻译：

---

关于醒来和做梦之间连续性的理论化：评论 Domhoff (2017)。

Domhoff (2017) 在他的文章“概念抢夺者的入侵：连续性假设的起源、扭曲和未来”中提倡了连续性假设的认知版本。这篇评论挑战了他的说法，即他对 Hall 和 Nordby (1972) 提出的原始连续性假设的偏离是推进连续性假设理论框架的唯一途径。此外，Domhoff 的概念没有很好的操作性；也就是说，缺乏衡量个人关注和关注的发生、强度和时间范围的可靠工具。由于 Domhoff 有选择地报告了支持他的观点的实证研究结果，评论增加了进一步的研究，主要支持连续性假设的原始版本。