ABSTRACT
When I consider the issue of helping people become analytic collaborators I am impressed by the paramount importance of the factors of the analyst’s attitudes toward analysis and his interest in particular types of patients and problems. This no doubt influences analysts to modify the “standard” technique and their success in being able to begin analyses with subjects many colleagues might consider beyond their scope of collaborative potential. This perspective emphasizes that, particularly at the periphery of “the widening scope,” the match is at least as important as the assessment of the patient’s functioning and diagnosis. I believe this is what Stone (1954) had in mind when he stated “a therapist must be able to love a psychotic or a delinquent and be at least warmly interested in the ‘borderline’ patient” (p. 592), and “the therapist’s personal tendencies may profoundly influence the indications and prognosis” (p. 593).
