Heinrich Racker contributed greatly to our understanding of counter-transference in a number of respects, including his distinction between concordant and complementary counter-transference identifications. Like Helene Deutsch, Racker was concerned mostly with the complementary counter-transference because he identified the concordant with empathy. But concordant counter-transference identification, when it is relatively unconscious, may disturb empathy as much as relatively unconscious complementary counter-transference. Both may enhance empathy and understanding when they are relatively conscious and the object of the analyst's self-reflection. Several clinical vignettes are discussed to illustrate this point. If, as I claim, Racker was mistaken in associating the concordant counter-transference with empathy, why has this oversimplification been perpetuated in our literature for half a century instead of being recognized and corrected?