Old school psychoanalytically informed therapy advocates the use of both neutrality and interpretation. This is how people were trained. And even your description of how she used interpretation seems to conform to this model. While people still do practice that way (and I had a therapist who did), there are tons of revisions and people saying that these things are actually harmful to many clients and do not promote change. Being non-responsive and trying to analyze to promote insight does nothing to promote change. That is simply not what works for most people.
Besides it feels bad as you have very clearly articulated.
When I had a therapist like this, I just felt dropped all the time and then bruised. I couldn't figure out why I wasn't feeling better. I sensed something was wrong but then I would say to myself, he knows what he is doing and does care so....
I found another therapist practicing much more contemporary analytic therapy and it was a world apart. He is empathic, active, responsive, does not jump to conclusions or dwell on his views of what he has interpreted about me. If he does offer his view, it is often because I have opened the door for that and in any case he is humble and provisional about it. He also makes it clear that understanding at that level doesn't really affect how I'm processing things so it may be helpful just as an overview but nothing more.
I have made so much more progress much more quickly than before. It really can happen. It just takes the right match for you.
__________________
“Our knowledge is a little island in a great ocean of nonknowledge.” – Isaac Bashevis Singer
|