{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018983050847457626, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.678733031674208, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Patient-Therapist Match: Revelation or Resistance?

Patient-therapist match is a relatively new yet frequently invoked concept within psychoanalysis. Despite Freud's appreciation of the influence of the analyst's past to his or her work within the analytic setting, psychoanalysts have historically held varied opinions about the degree to which the analyst's personality and conflicts affect the analytic process. As analysis was reconfigured as a two-person system, attention focused on the fit between patient and analyst. The literature on patient-therapist match is reviewed, and the conclusion reached that this intuitively appealing concept suffers from a lack of rigorous definition and operationalization. Many authors invoke match in ways that imply that it is real, static, external to the domain of analytic inquiry, and unaffected by analytic process. In its present form, the concept of patient-therapist match obstructs rather than facilitates analytic exploration and obscures rather than clarifies what happens between analyst and analysand in psychoanalysis. By suggesting that match exists as a reality outside the domain of transference and countertransference, analysts may overlook the importance of psychoanalytic technique in creating a sense of match. Analysts may attribute stalemated or limited analyses to a bad match, rather than tenaciously exploring the transference-countertransference configurations that remain at the heart of analytic work.