But the OP posted about it, asking for others' views. I was very interested in psychoanalysis when I first started therapy - why I chose a T who practiced it. I am fully aware that my mostly negative experience with that T was primarily related to that particular T and not so much psychoanalysis in general - I love to dissect and analyze my feelings and behavioral patterns myself, why I originally thought it could be great to do it with someone else who would be more objective. Unfortunately, that T was everything but objective. But I do not reject or have bad opinion on psychoanalysis in general, for those who find it relevant and beneficial, like you said. My problem with the quote in the OP was mainly about the tone, I can't help but imagine the T would likely talk to clients in a similar tone, and I just don't think it is necessary. Plus, that tone kinda makes claims that very few Ts might be able to stand up to and truly practice what they preach. It sounds like an idealized form of it. The actual authoritarian part of the tone (without ever earning a role of authority based on practice) is definitely something I know tends to irk me, and I know it is more my issue than anything else. Regardless, saying that the client does it wrong repeatedly if they do not conform does not have to be part of psychoanalysis, I more think it's that person's attitude. And if they claim that psychoanalysis is about free expression and reactions as the client wants, why does this one describe some strategies as wrong? Then, the claim that "your psychotherapist knows about your transference long before you..." - come on! Some things probably, but making this as a general claim is part of why it sounds condescending and way too strong, IMO.