Countertransference and therapy

Today I was thinking about something and I want to see what people here will say/their personal experienceoes every therapist have countertransference toward most clients who have transference for them?

Curiosity struck me. I mean, they are human too, don't they have to experience a reactional countertransference but just not let it affect the client?

Also, in my last session T wasn't acting super uncomfortable with my admission of feelings, and mentioned how I have never crossed boundaries with her and was giving me more positive reaction...how can someone be so "calm and cool" about this? Is it to save face as a therapist, I just don't understand it really

I'm sure they all have countertransference of some sort or another. For me, personally, I'm glad my T doesn't share it. I can barely tolerate my own emotions; I don't want to be overwhelmed by his.

I just don't understand how it works. I get that I am a very attractive girl outside therapy, so I don't mean how can she be so cool, but HOW? lol People seem to always let their emotions show in the real world

Personally I think countertransference is a concept marketed by therapeutic literature to convince clients that therapists can and do have emotional reactions to them, even though they usually don't.

More seriously, often when countertransference is mentioned around here the poster seems to want the therapist to have it. I'm not sure why, seems like it would just be messy.

Curiosity just struck me since they are humans too. Everyone reacts to their situation, whose to think therapy is different if some say they have had therapists who have admitted to countertransference?

I don't think therapy is "real world" though. I think they are "calm and cool" about this kind of stuff because they are so used to dealing with it all. Working with every kind of thought-feeling-emotion is the nature of their job. What kind of a reaction/response were you looking for from her?

Nothing particular, just something with emotion? lol I don't know...just a rather human one, where she accepts my feelings (she did) and gives back a response of some sort so I know how the admission affected her.

And what if it didn't affect her any more than letting her know more about you?

I don't get it either. My understanding is that countertransference is usually negative, which is why they don't like to admit it.

OP: I'm not clear what your question is? Are you surprised that someone can resist your good looks or that they can resist your good looks without appearing to struggle? It could just be that she sees you as a valued client and your attractiveness doesn't enter her mind in any kind of personal way. I mean, it's totally possible that this is not hard for her to do, so there's no how to it. If I've misunderstood, I apologize.

Then that is fine.

That's not been my experience. I've run into lots of people who present a pretty blank face. I, personally, am not very emotional with most people most of the time, even friends and family.

Still, I can see it being frustrating if you're wanting some kind of emotional reaction from your T that you're not getting. A lot of people don't do well with "blank slate" T's.

No, it's not about my appearance. I just thought most react (pos or neg or I guess neutralish) in some kind of way to another person who is stating they have feelings. Yes, my message was misunderstood. Sorry it wasn't very clear, I admit.

My Ex-T seemed to have countertransferance to some of my feelings but I was blamed and punished for it rather than him admitting to it. It hurt my therapy.

Thanks for explaining. I usually take no response to mean they are working overtime on the therapist front to not say or do the wrong thing and cause misunderstanding or confusion on the client's end of things. I would take this as her way of being supportive. I actually hate it and would prefer some reflection of judgement--good or bad--but they can be really good at the poker face (I know mine is).

Maybe that's the reaction then -- she is unaffected. She accepted your feelings which is ultimately what should happen so that's good.

Is this the therapist that doesn't want to get too involved in transference discussions?

I disagree with the statement. I've seen plenty of articles by therapists, academic writings and such, that are written specifically for therapists- not clients - talking about countertransference. Therapist & psychologist study this in school.

It makes perfect sense to me that a human being sitting in a room with another human being would eventually have their own triggers, and some of that stuff gets touched when a client is going through situations that they may have experienced for themselves.

Countertransference isn't just about romantic situations or erotic transference. Countertransference can refer to anytime the therapist has their own emotional response to a client that is more about their own stuff rather than the client.

and yes it's not a matter of if but when I therapist will supper or go through some amount of countertransference with a client that they've been seeing For a while.

I think this is just that they want have some sort of impact on a therapist because they want to be heard and seen and felt.

To the larger point, a therapist has been trained to deal with their own when they recognize their own issues coming up and being touched upon or triggered by a clients experience. They are trained to deal with that separately and not let it affect the client. So if a therapist is not reacting to this clients admission in a way that the client would expect them to it might be that they are trying to guard the client from their own feelings and that is their job to do so.

This doesn't mean that the therapist is having positive or negative or no emotions at all it means that they are well-trained

WNP - did you happen to note the phrase "more seriously" that began my second paragraph? Might that not suggest the first paragraph was not serious?

Incidentally, were I actually as serious as you seem to think me, your first paragraph does not refute mine at all. Simply because something is written about a lot does not mean that it exists or is verifiable. To wit, UFOs. Piltdown Man. Etc.

I'm sorry if I misrepresented your post and missed the humor :-)

But I'm confused by your by this reply. Are you seriously suggesting that no therapist is ever been emotionally affected by their clients issues? My point about the writings was only that Countertransference is something discussed and researched in a serious academic context within therapeutic circles and not just for the sake of A potential client audience.

Perhaps I am misreading or misunderstanding your point but it feels like you're saying that counter transference is it by real thing?
Forgive me if I belabor the point
I Say this is someone who knows people in the practice personally and I've heard them discuss their issues "behind the scenes" with certain clients. therapists Are not aliens exotic mythological creatures. I had a friend who fallen in love with his client. I knew another who cared a great deal about her clients and get teary-eyed when she thought about what they were going through. They all discussed how this affected them and what it touched within them, personally. I can trust that the same people would never allow that emotion or those feelings and issues to invade the space or affect the client. But the reality is that it is there and is the therapists job to understand it face it for themselves and handle it without letting it affect the client.

First of all I believe that all patients/clients elicit feelings from their therapists. If the therapy modality is some skill-based behavioural therapy then I guess these can go unnoticed by the therapist because they are not relevant, unless something very unusual happens. In therapies that work with transference, both transference and countertransference are important tools.

My understanding is that therapist feelings for the patient can go both under transference (projective identification) or countertransference (therapist own stuff). For instance, my T once told me when I asked how he perceived the first year of our work that initially there was a very strong ET. I was like "what do you mean?" because I had had zero sexual feelings for him. He explained that I had "put" those feelings on him, so that he felt them for me. I asked why does he call it transference when those feelings actually originated from him, that shouldn't it be countertransference. But he was convinced that it wasn't something that originated from him but rather that I somehow subconsciously seduced him very strongly.

Now, many of you might think that what a convenient explanation - put all the "blame" on the patient. But I must say that I think he had a point. First of all, I know I used to be very seductive in a strange way - by being mysteriously cold and withdrawing. It was not my conscious plan but that's the way it was and a certain type of men fell very easily to that. My H has explained me that he did too, that it created a sort of tension or fantasy that there is something very mysterious and interesting hidden in me. Not that it wouldn't be true but in reality, I was just a very schizoid and withdrawing, which I somehow subconsciously masked with seductiveness.

The second thing I should say that I only learned about my T's feelings when they more or less no longer existed. If I hadn't asked this question and he hadn't answered then it would have never occurred to me that anything like that happened. Whatever he was feeling in himself he dealt with it on his own without burdening me. When we had this discussion then I was a bit worried that he still might have those feelings but he told me that no, that now he mostly sees the very childish parts in me, which obviously stir a different set of feelings in him.

There have been moments when he clearly has had countertransference feelings. For instance, he has got angry to some people I've told him about and I have felt that this anger is foreign to me - that it's not mine. I mean, sometimes he has gotten angry to me but in those situations I have quite clearly put my anger on him because it is very difficult for me to feel it. In those cases I have felt his anger as something familiar. Anyway, in those first cases he has admitted that probably this anger is his countertransference feelings and not coming from me.

So, my understanding is that as long as therapists are human they have feelings in response to their patients. Those feelings can fall in the realm of transference or countertransference. I don't think there is any way to avoid them, nor should it be necessary. The most crucial thing is, is the therapist aware of what is going in himself and how does he manage those feelings, regardless of whether they arise from transference or countertransference.

I had the same thing going on for years. Men fell in love with me all the time, especially authority figures, and said there was 'just something about me' or that I was intriguing, but I usually didn't become involved with them.

I've recently told my therapist I think I'm sort of schizoid, but I don't think he sees me that way.

Feeling thankful for your post right now.

This I can relate to - telling my t something and her just basically ignoring that part of what was said and talking about something else in the larger conversation. And yes, a lot of what is ignored is my maternal transference fantasies. Often she'll ignore that part and grasp onto the nontransference comments around them.

There are times where I wish she would say something about it because well I just vomited (declared) all this stuff for her/about her - and nothing. Then again, what am I expecting her to do with it? Would I take any comment she made that was not feeding the fantasy in a good way? And do I really want her to feed the fantasy? Ok, in transference thinking.... H*ll, yes. In adult mind, no... really don't do that, it's weird enough as it is.

She's not a "blank slate" t most the time, that I wouldn't be able to deal with that.

One of my Ts admitted to counter-transference of the negative kind but apparently it was I that was the cause, making T frustrated and angry.

I don't understand counter-transference at all. To me, it's just normal feelings that people have towards one another in real life but in therapy, it's called "counter-transference" and it basically gives the therapist the right to blame the client fora T's feelings.

Hold on, what is it that therapists say? "Nobody can MAKE you feel ANYTHING. You CHOSE to let them make you feel that way."

I think in the OP's case, if your T isn't going to show a reaction to you admitting your feelings, that's a fair course of action for a T. It's remaining neutral and objective so the therapy is focused on your feelings, not hers/his. Have you told your T about your disappointment at the response you received? Because I think like others have said, it would be useful to explore why you wanted that particular reaction from T.

When I read therapist books and papers, I too wonder how often this concept is used to blame the client. It's very unbecoming to say the least!

I used to think projective identification where the concept entails a client 'putting the feeling inside the therapist' was just a way to describe existing phenomena, how one feels by being around different people. For example, I often use the analogy of herd mentality; mass panic. It's thought of to be contagious. One person's feelings incites many.

But what is the difference of feelings coming from him vs projective identification? So he feels seduced, and feels sexual feelings in part, because you don't feel them. But the next therapist might feel repulsed or intruded upon. So what is the criteria to determine that feelings are projective identification coming from you while countertransference would be coming from him?

Is it because he felt the sexual feelings that you disavowed, irregardless of your unconscious need to 'seduce'? Is it like this:

A) countertransference = if the therapist felt positively pulled in, influenced, by your seduction, but didn't feel your disavowed sexual feelings

B) feelings originating from the therapist = you had unconscious seduction stuff going on, but therapist feels repulsed; intruded upon; perhaps manipulated (or he felt the same as A sans the sexual feelings

C) projective identification = therapist feels seduced AND feels your disavowed sexual feelings

D) none of the above-please explain

Having trouble wrapping my mind around this. I truly want to understand. Partly because I thought I recently felt my therapist's disavowed feelings of helplessness during a major rupture and wondered if he was PI me. Is that possible? I mentioned it to him, and he didn't say anything. I felt bad about it. Maybe I was PI my feelings of helplessness into him, but they bounced back into my awareness, yet they I didn't feel them. I think there is a clinical term for this concept too, some sort of reverse PI.

My thinking so much into his is starting to sound silly to me. I really need to get on with my day.

It's basically a junk term. Everyone reacts to everyone else based on prior experiences. It's also obfuscating and disempowering jargon. And yes, it gives the therapist a path to client blaming.

I'm not arguing with your opinion that you think it's junk, and I do agree with you that everyone reacts to everyone else based on prior experiences.

I can see why people dismiss it, but I think the purpose/reason why these concepts exist and are studied are like quantum mechanics. Like transference is simply how people act based on past experiences, quantum mechanics just describes the nature of things as they already exist so that they can be studied and problems can be solved.

This analogy popped in mind not because it is the best comparison, but because I was recently discussing it with someone, and it I do find it to be an adequate analogy.