Author's Response

The discussants lead me to believe that the question about the influence of the analyst's personality on treatment may be less controversial than was formerly so, although there is no doubt that analysts still hold opposing views about it. Drs. Bacon, Greenson, Heimann, and Orr feel that the personality of the analyst has an effect on the treatment. Only Dr. Waldhorn thinks that treatment failures should be blamed entirely on faulty technique and on the analyst's neurotic traits; his discussion expresses an underlying uneasiness about the assumption that more than correct technique is demanded of an analyst.

These discussions also underscore the difficulty in distinguishing between conflict-free personality traits and residual neurotic manifestations. It is difficult at times to identify conflict-free personality traits of the analyst. Fortunately, self-analysis and supervision provide a means for increasing our understanding of ourselves and for promoting a continuous refinement of our skills.

There are two major reasons why it is so difficult to pick up personality traits of a candidate in supervision: (a) Some of the personality traits of a candidate are not only ego-syntonic but also have acquired a secondary autonomy, so that these traits are not easily involved in countertransference reactions; and (b) a candidate does not expect to discuss personality traits; he expects to discuss neurotic problems only.

I cannot share Dr. Waldhorn's optimism that “personality attitudes … become ego-dystonic when they lead (inevitably) to frustration of the analyst's professional aims. …” Unfortunately, in our experience this does not occur “inevitably.” More often, and particularly if the supervisor's attention is concentrated only on

technique to the exclusion of personality traits, these personality attitudes are not considered. In such a situation, supervisor and analyst may introduce unnecessary parameters, or they may conclude that the patient is not analyzable.

There is