You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
A two-person perspective on the clinical psychoanalytic situation suggests that the analyst's character will inevitably affect the patient and contribute to the nature of transference. If one assumes that the training analysis cannot eliminate this sort of influence of the analyst on the patient, do you believe that clinical training, aside from personal analysis, ought to help candidates learn how to make good analytic use of the way their characters affect their patients? If so, how might such training be accomplished?
It has been suggested that, in the face of the current diversity of theory in psychoanalysis, candidates ought to be trained in how to evalute theories. For example, candidates might be trained to consider what the implications of a given perspective are for: the nature of pathology, the mechanisms of therapeutic action, the nature of transference and countertransference, technique, and so on. (Please feel free to add your own ideas about implications.) Candidates might be trained in how one evaluates such implications of a theoretical point of view both in general terms, and in the light of one's treatment goals with a particular patient. Do you think such training ought to be incorporated into the curriculum, and if so, how?