The author looks into the issue of interpretation and traces its evolution both from mere opinion, and from the point of view of the historical development of hermeneutics. In supervision interpretive dissonance may occur at several levels starting with the patient himself as well as his “gatekeepers,” and going up to the supervisor. The relationship between interpretation and supervision is examined in this context, taking into consideration the subjective and intersubjective levels of scientific inquiry. Supervision enhances the complexity of interpretation by introducing yet a third subjectivity that questions the supervisee's interpretation. This has advantages and shortcomings, as supervisors are not always aware that it is ultimately in the supervisee-patient situation where hypotheses are tested and confirmed. Theory alone cannot supersede the intersubjective situation. It is pointed out that psychoanalytic curricula should be reexamined in order to include semiotic science and its application to interpretation and supervision.