Talk:Countertransference

This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Psychology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Has an example of transference; needs an example of counter-transference. (But I'm not qualified to add it.) RJFJR 07:03, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Terrible article. Needs to better explain just what countertransference is, rather than delving into a history of it right away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.12.43 (talk) 22:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

a few words were used from an article in the www.moritherapy.com website, and permission to use them has been received.

This is an important topic whch needs to be expanded to include Freudian and object-relations ideas and needs extensive referencing --Anonymaus (talk) 09:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fear Jung may be turning in his grave with this one. Don't mix these modern definitions with Jung's very complex and elaborate explanation set forth in The Psychology of Transference. The definitions don't work together. First we've got this modern hokus-pokus which makes no logical sense (and isn't cited anyway), then we've got Jung, then we go back to the kooky crap that not only is over-simplified to the point it's wrong (wrong in the sense that what historical theory is this based on?), but it completely contradicts Jung's broad, and more plausible, definition. I don't claim to believe or disbelieve that Jung's ideas are correct, but I think the man deserves a little more respect than he is getting here. If you're going to give different interpretations, at least separate them somehow and, for the love of god, include citations. You've got to have them unless you're writing off the top of your head in which case--or in most cases--the article will have problems. It's nothing personal: reliance on memory is not good practice for encyclopedic articles just given the memory's imperfect nature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.12.208 (talk) 10:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i think the artical that involved jung and his theroy was much to harsh.  and the definition taht was given with it examlpes was very good. it  help me to write my paper on countertranference. and yes everyone is intitle to there opinion, but every thing is not going to be itrepreted the same. and calm down writer it is not that serious, save some of that passion to save some straving children in the world.

- Hmm.. where to start. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.97.42 (talk) 12:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope to have begun to address three issues highlighted so far in the Talk:

1. The article's need for extra citations.

2. The need for further input from object relations theory and other psychodynamic schools

3. The desirability of sidestepping Jung's Psychology of the Transference, a complex text considered wiki judgement of which would not necessarily seem called for in an article on countertransference.... Jacobisq (talk) 08:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am in my psych masters and I have managed so far without knowing what countertransference is -- in humanistic terms it is reflective listening, and is not about the treaters' emotions, but their experiences, or more importantly, symbolized (or processed) experiences. As neither humanistic humanism nor psychodynamics will go away, (though CBT might!) then it makes sense to introduce each camps' terminology. --John Bessa (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a reference to an online pdf of the study. From that the section to me reads like an unsubstantiated POV. IMO it needs to be reworded to reflect the study. LookingGlass (talk) 15:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's a specialist topic but this article has far too much jargon; it has one sentence in the lede that is understandable to a general audience. The rest of the article is just history; it barely delves into what countertransference actually is, and just says how its developed.

It feels like it assumes the reader's knowledge, which a WP article should never do. 213.105.99.162 (talk) 14:36, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I have read the article and I still don't actually know what it is! The opening paragraph is not clear enough, and the history of the concept is cool but probably not as valuable as the reader understanding the thing itself. --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 23:04, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- I've added the AI generated tag here based on this and other diffs; the one linked is described misleadingly in the edit summary as a "copyedit" but actually adds a substantial amount of new LLM-esque editorializing text. Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:28, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There were so few edits since the "copyedit" in 2023, and they were all minor things (adding a category, fixing punctuation, etc.) so I rolled the page back to right before that edit and readded the minor edits that had happened since then. This article does need improvement, but at least it isn't LLMed anymore. --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 23:06, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]