analysand

The analyst is, in their role as an analyst (and not a therapist), merely the secretary of the analysand.

This means that the analysand [the person being analyzed] projects their ideals onto the analyst during a process of questioning known as transference.

So what happens as the analysand comes to realize that the analyst does not, in fact, possess this knowledge?

Even if the analysand claims his/her life has changed because of an analysis (people also claim Jesus changed them, for example).

Insofar as therapists/psychologists/psychiatrists now fill that niche, it would seem right that they offer the analysand new/fruitful/exploratory possibilities, rather than mere regurgitation.

Every psychoanalyst of course has their theoretical meta-psychology, but every clinical psychoanalyst knows that they must fight to abandon it at the door as they confront every analysand anew.

• The analysand projects his or her ideals onto the analyst (transference) • When we analyze programming languages we are operating in the analyst's (i.e.

(And this is the forbidden evidence of this "evidence based therapy".) The analysand enters the analytical relationship supposing (as you have supposed) that the analyst knows something crucial that the analysand does not.

That if the analysand doesn’t show up to his session, the person will have to pay for it anyway.” And yes, as you know, psychoanalysis is not really popular on here!

But I've never been in a position where I could afford to engage in psychoanalysis, so maybe the Lacanian practitioners I know who tell me I won't really get "it" without actually practicing as an analysand or analyst are right.