The author argues that the patient's largely unconscious observations of the analyst's functioning are, at times, communicated in the patient's material and that this can impart a sense of clinical relevance to the countertransference. The concept of ‘understanding work’ is used to provide a psychoanalytical model of this phenomenon. This is illustrated in a clinical case and it is argued that a selective consideration of the patient's material can provide a proper discipline which steers the analyst between the twin dangers of megalomania, on the one hand, and involvement in a symmetrical, self-disclosing relationship, on the other. The author then applies these ideas to supervision and uses them to distinguish psychoanalytic supervision from a practice that also derives from an intersubjective paradigm but which, to the author's mind, is not distinct enough from personal analysis.