Do I need to mention my transference in therapy if I’m managing it on my own?

I read this question on Quora.com a therapist answered with this:

"Firstly, if you are managing your transference you are doing it wrong: you pay a psychotherapist to manage it for you, your job is just to fall in love and speak in free association.

Secondly, your psychotherapist knows about your transference long before you and even provoked it so the treatment could begin. But this does not exempt you from talking about it - again, if you are not talking about your transference you are doing it wrong, as huge part of clinics is experiencing things under transference and letting it show - but again, it is the job of your psychotherapist to lead you to talk about that, that is why you pay them for!

Thirdly, issues of your treatment should be addressed in your sessions, and in your sessions only - not here with random unpaid strangers…

The part I was drawn to was therapist provoke transference. Do they actually deliberately manipulate you to bring up these transference feelings?

My T told me some of that is psychoanalytic , but that many T's now are not trained that way and don't focus as much on transference(?) .

It's not about manipulation, or at least it definitely shouldn't be. It's that in psychoanalytic/psychodynamic therapy, things are often designed to allow transference (of all kinds, not just loving or erotic or positive transference) to develop and be explored unhindered, so that it can be worked with therapeutically if/when it shows up.

With a bad therapist, that could be manipulative. With a good one, it's more about following the client's lead with whatever develops, including transference, and using all of what shows up in therapy as a window into the client's world and a tool for moving therapy forward.

I asked how and this is the answer I got:
Through subjective rectification on the patient, that is one of the outcomes of interpretation that implies the psychoanalisand as a co-author of the suffering they complain about and to which they are victims - this leads them to suppose that the clinician knows something about them that they do not.

Also by listening in floating attention, which is the counterpart and the condition for free association.

This person seems like they want to explain things in the most convoluted way possible with as much jargon as possible, and/or like English is not their clearest language.

"Firstly, if you are managing your transference you are doing it wrong: you pay a psychotherapist to manage it for you, your job is just to fall in love and speak in free association."

Good lord, that last part freaks me out!

I don't think my therapist tried to bring on transference. That would require, I imagine, a kind of mothering me or being especially thoughtful/caring. She doesn't do thoughtful/caring. I think I created the environment for transference by picking her as my therapist, though. She was the first therapist I've ever "picked," and I knew it was bound to happen unfortunately.

That Quora quote made me angry just reading it, I find it extremely superficial and condescending. Unfortunately, it seems like a good example of how some therapists think/work and relate to clients. I do think that the whole setting of therapy and how it is conducted can be manipulative and provoke clients to develop these feelings - quite a few people spoke about experiences like that here on PC. I personally decided not to buy into it and fall into that trap, and my psychoanalyst called that resistance, in a negative way. He also tended to interpret almost every negative reaction to him transference, even when it was clearly specifically a response to his wrongdoings, just to avoid taking responsibility.

On the question of sharing transference feelings with the T or not - my view is that it may be useful to first think carefully what one might want to achieve sharing it. What could be the possible benefits. If it is not easy to come up with potential positive outcomes, and especially if the client has strong reservations, I would think twice before sharing anything. Especially if you know the T thinks like the one quoted in the OP. S/he even contradicts their own post: "Thirdly, issues of your treatment should be addressed in your sessions, and in your sessions only - not here with random unpaid strangers…" Why does s/he talk about it in a public forum then?

One way to encourage transference is to say little to nothing and to refrain from showing reactions, emotions, and body language.

In the abscence of information, people often project.

Personally I do not care for psychoanalysis and this is one reason why. It seems very outdated and I believe it would be unhelpful for me. I know some people love it but I do not share the opinion. It reminds me of the old methods used by Kellog to cure women of the "vapors".

Sorry if this sounds harsh and again it is just my opinion of the method. I have no bad judgments if it works for you. Just not my cup of tea. I can't stomach tea or coffee btw either.

I think you should bare in mind that the responder is a psychoanalyst from Brazil (or some other country but at least in South America) where psychoanalysis is very popular. His answer would be appropriate in the context where psychoanalysis is the treatment of choice but it's not appropriate in the context of typical psychotherapy offered in US.

Thus, if someone not interested in psychoanalytic treatment wants to find a reason to get upset then analysing this response is a very good way, otherwise it would be better to just ignore this response as something irrelevant.

For me personally this response is not upsetting. Although I don't fully like its tone, I don't see anything essentially wrong with the content. This is the way psychoanalysis works and for those people, who find it suitable, it is a very powerful therapeutic method (in fact, most powerful to my mind). But the emphasis is on who find it suitable.

Psychoanalysis is unfortunately super huge in large parts of the world, South America and several European countries (mine in particular). Dismissing that insanely creepy and condescending comment from Quora by claiming that it's because of a different context is laughable. Convoluted explanations don't hide the fact that it's manipulative and creepy to claim that a client (or "patient" as these people love to call it) is there to fall in love. Also if psychoanalysis is outdated in the US, why all the mentions of "transference" then ?(just on this forum for instance). One thing that always strikes me with clients who have drunk the kool-aid is their smug satisfaction: "well I'm not like those losers for whom therapy isn't working, it works because I'm a good client and I work hard!" LOL I guess one thing therapy doesn't teach is self-awareness.

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.

I understood that OP's question was about whether "they" deliberately manipulate patient's feelings. So the question is who are "they". I thought that in this context "they" does not refer to an average US therapist/councelor, regardless whether this therapist talks about transference or not. This response was coming from a person who seems to be very deeply rooted in the psychoanalytic world and thus, "they" can only be psychoanalysts.

Also, it seems to me that the cited person does not express himself very well in English and at the same time, he doesn't seem to put much effort into been liked by an average psychotherapy patient, for whom his tone is probably way too direct and strong. But so what? This is quora and anyone can answer in the way they see fit.

Also, I would like to remind that in order to become an analyst, this person had to go through his own full analysis, hence those words he wrote applied not only to his patients to himself as well. Considering that, I don't see the tone being authoritative because essentially all are equal - in psychoanalysis everyone is a patient too.

I would just say that according to my understanding psychoanalysis is such a complicated matter and trying to explain it in simple words will not explain anything. It is just so different from regular psychotherapy. The only way to learn about it is to experience it itself (hence the requirement for full training analysis). And I'm absolutely not implying that everyone or anyone should want to learn about it.

In the context of analysis the suggestion to talk about those problems in session with the analyst is very relevant and the most right thing to do. The only problem is probably that the person asking the question asked it from the viewpoint of regular (person-centered?) psychotherapy where transference is to some extent acknowledged but not worked with in depth as in psychoanalysis. Thus, this answer is just probably not very useful but rather confusing to the person who asked this question.

Any professional of any kind who can't explain their craft in terms understandable to others is full of it. Although to this person's credit, they do tell you not to listen to strangers on the internet who tell you how to do therapy, or how not to do therapy.

I think you can trust yourself that you are fine. You only need to bring to therapy what you need and want. The only thing that might be helpful to you is to talk about talking about a nameless thing with your T, as in having a more abstract conversation about "what is important to bring to therapy? what if it's a common topic that many people do raise in therapy, but you don't feel you need to?"

One thing I do find in the psychoanalytic field more often than in other modalities is a sort of elitism, which is often explained by what feileacan said, that these Ts go through a specific kind of, usually quite lengthy, training. Then they often claim it provides them with perceptions and abilities other Ts (and other people in general) don't have, cannot have by definition. I do believe it can achieve that (in a good case) but why to use a skill set to make exaggerated claims? That's exactly what turns many people away from this modality and gives it an even more ambiguous reputation than just therapy in general. For me, it is simply a specific interest and skill set like in any specialist or expert in any professional field. Of course there are many arrogant people in any profession, but I doubt it is ever warranted and helps anyone. And it inevitably provokes a sense of being manipulated in the targets. I often see very similar tendencies in specialist doctors as well - it can attract certain consumers initially but rarely generates loyal followers, especially if the quality/outcome of the actual treatment will not stand up to the claims.

Going back to Ts, I do not think that working with transference needs to come with exaggerated claims and waving one's superior training and skills. Degrees usually speak for themselves about training but "show me in reality, in practice" is what I always react. For me, it applies to everyone, not just analysts or therapists in general. But then these days many people exaggerate/oversell, especially online (where it can sell better in the absence of solid reality checks), as part of a marketing strategy. That is certainly manipulation but it is so ingrained in today's culture.

Hmm, a lot of very interesting stuff in that quote. I disagree that the job of the client is to fall in love and free associate. I appreciate the kind of "clean," "simplistic" aphorism the guy's going for, but... it sounds a little too much like romantic partnership, and I don't pay people to simulate that.

I disagree that the therapist always knows about transference before you do. That assumes therapy clients are less emotionally intelligent than I'm sure most of us are. And I bet many therapists project just as much as the clients do and think the client is in love with them when that isn't at all the case. That's a classic example of therapist arrogance that I find frustrating and off-putting.

I also disagree that treatment should only be discussed in therapy! Wow! Reading stuff on these forums makes it so clear how helpful a supplemental support space like this can be. Random unpaid strangers do good work every day.

As my kids say, it's "very lol." And to answer the very original question-- I think managing transference on one's own is possible and good, though I also think it's helpful to discuss it with your therapist if s/he's a good therapist. Sometimes bringing awkward things out in the open makes everything a little less awkward--much like coming out, if I may draw such a parallel!

That's the thing. If someone tries to explain such things with simple words then it sounds like an elitism. And I agree that it sounds like this. But that's not the point. The point is something else. However, if I would try to explain it according to my understanding with more simple words then it would sound as more elitism (although the intention is something else). I guess one has to accept that.

I am personally deeply interested in psychoanalysis (and lots of the time deeply confused by it) and I understand how it can facilitate very powerful transformations in a person. I did not choose it because of elitism, I chose it because I was desperate and I figured that no other modality can actually help me (I'm still confident in that).

This was the original question. I forgot to post it.

"Do I need to mention my transference in therapy if I’m managing it on my own? I find it embarrassing to talk about."

This quote bothers me on so many levels. It makes the assumption that the therapist has extra sensory perceptions ('they know before you do'), insists that the client needs to divulge certain information (infantilizing the client instead of helping them become more autonomous), and tells the client they must fall in love with the therapist (narcissistic much?). So I wouldn't take any of it seriously.

I absolutely hate the emphasis many therapists put on 'transference'. I think it's often used by therapists as a way to absolve themselves for bad behaviour, or to deny a client's feelings as real. It's also a way to shut down a client's own instincts.

For example, telling a client they're experiencing negative transference when they got annoyed that a therapist was 20 minutes late (completely valid reaction). Or telling a client their romantic feelings are not real and just a projection. (You might not be attracted to a therapist if you saw their outside-of-work self, but you're attracted to whatever they're giving off in the room with you.)

I think it's more useful to go into therapy knowing that you carry patterns of relating into EVERY relationship you have, and some of those will probably play out with your therapist. It might be useful to discuss those. I know it is for me.

But you need a therapist who can recognise that 'transference' doesn't mean they get off the hook when they've messed up. They also need to recognise that even the blankest of blank slate therapists project something of themselves, and sometimes the client is reacting to THAT, not something else.

The author of the quote doesn't seem to recognise any of this, which scares me.

I also find psychoanalytic theory deeply interesting and valuable, and while I'm not in analysis my therapist is a psychoanalyst and my therapy takes a psychoanalytic approach, which I believe has been and continues to be transformative for me in ways that other modalities never could have been. I still think this quote comes off incredibly poorly and makes psychoanalysis sound more manipulative and inaccessible than it really is in most cases, partially because of the writer's overreliance on jargon and glib oversimplification of the process.

Whether the issue is that the writer is an arrogant douchebag or just someone with a language barrier or both, it's a shame that this answer is giving people the impression that psychoanalysis is an inflexible and old-fashioned modality that relies on manipulation, when that really isn't accurate to how so many skilled and ethical analysts practice today (there are of course variations in rigidity of approach, and there are unskilled unethical analysts just like any other field). Those stereotypes are already so prevalent in the US, and they scare many people away from psychoanalysis and psychoanalytic therapy who might otherwise find that it's a powerful useful tool.

I also don't think simple jargon-free language makes psychoanalysis sound more elitist than jargon does--quite the opposite.

For me the real problem isn't about elitism or the opposite of it. For me the real problem is about how to convey at all what psychoanalysis is all about. I rarely talk/write/discuss my therapy experiences precisely because I don't have simple words to explain with enough precision what goes on. When I read the session notes from this forum for instance, then I just understand that what goes on in my therapy/analysis is something completely different, the goals are different, the methods are different, the general ideas are different. If I would try to explain them in simple terms then it might sound incredibly arrogant and I thus, I don't find it useful.

I'm taking some psychology classes in my university where I work and here the psychoanalytic ideas are completely taboo - there is an extreme CBT hype. When I listen to what people know about psychoanalysis then they only know the most stereotypical things and it seems to me that they really believe that in psychoanalytic sessions analysts urge the patients to give up their resistances, or talk endlessly about random association while sleeping behind the couch, or whatever else Freud wrote in the beginning of the last century. They take all those things concretely and literally, without understanding the meaning behind those things. I am not sure it is possible to grasp the meaning behind these things without really experiencing analysis yourself.

I also sometimes read the reddit sub of psychoanalysis and there seem to be many people who do not have any clinical experience themselves but approach from the philosophical point of view. They seem to be fascinated about all sorts of ideas but again, reading them I'm not sure they truly grasp the meaning of these ideas because they haven't experienced this stuff on the couch themselves.

So, unfortunately I don't agree your optimism about explaining the essence of psychoanalysis meaningfully with simple words. Although I definitely agree that jargon doesn't help here either.

Not gonna comment on the quote as a whole, I'll just answer your question.

I don't think a T goes into their first session and thinks 'okay, this one looks like parental transference to me, let's do that one' and then manipulates their client to feel parental transference. I do think that most Ts that work with psychodynamic or psychoanalytic styles of therapy think that transference will happen at some point. I also think that they do manipulate clients sometimes (not in a bad way necessarily, they can use that to help too). Due to this manipulation, I think it could be that transference happens more often than it normally does.

For example: I can give some examples of experiencing transference throughout my life with teachers, friends and so on. The situations in which these experiences happened were very specific, it didn't happen with every teacher, every friend. My T, however, can manipulate me such that IF I experience transference of a certain kind a whole lot with other people, it's more probable that I also experience it with him.

But I don't think Ts deliberately manipulate you in order to get that reaction, it's more the overall structure of therapy that will naturally lead to such feelings, in my opinion.