I often refer to the book "The Psychiatric Interview" by Harry Stack Sullivan. (He uses "interview" to cover everything from a brief fact-finding session to long-term work.) The reason I do so is because it is very meaningful to me. Here are a few items from the first chapter of the book:

"To sum up, the psychiatric interview, as considered here, is primarily a two-group in which there is an expert-client relationship, the expert being defined by the culture... the interviewee expects the person who sits behind the desk to show a really expert grasp on the intricacies of interpersonal relationships; he expects the interviewer to show skill in conducting the interview. The greater this skill, other things being equal, the more easily will the purpose of the interview be achieved..."

"...the psychiatrist has an inescapable, inextricable involvement in all that goes on in the interview; and to the extent that he is unconscious or unwitting of his participation in the interview, to that extent he does not know what is happening..."

In other words, there are TWO people [directly] involved in the therapy. One is supposed to be "skilled" in interpersonal relationships. That does not happen automatically. It does not necessarily happen with "training." The course of the therapy depends not only on the pathology existing in the client, but to a large extent on the skill of the therapist -- that is, whether the therapist actually knows what he or she is doing -- how well the therapist knows his or her own mind. I think there are many who really do not -- and are largely unaware of that. Good intentions do not replace knowledge.

Off