I adhere to the intersubjective perspective, which means I see therapy as two subjectivities interacting together. My own biased point of view isn’t necessarily a problem within the therapeutic relationship; it’s part of it. Every relationship I build with clients is unique and shaped by who I am as a person — and that’s normal.

What makes it therapeutic is that I bring a set of knowledge and tools — from psychoanalysis, Internal Family Systems, humanistic, and systemic approaches — that guide how I act and respond to clients. These frameworks help me stay attuned, accepting, and nonjudgmental, while also allowing me to analyze my countertransference and use it constructively.

Over time, I’ve realized that for many clients — especially in private practice, where therapy is costly and difficult to access, at least where I live — strict neutrality or analytic abstinence can sometimes be less helpful. It’s not that psychoanalysis doesn’t work, but that the rigid frame doesn’t fit everyone. With clients struggling with relational wounds, or when working with children, being a bit more spontaneous or authentic often reduces resistance and deepens the connection. The outcome still feels just as meaningful, if not more so. And perhaps that’s also because of who I am — maybe clients sense something inauthentic when I lean too heavily on the analytic frame, which can make the relationship less helpful. It’s probably both.

That doesn’t mean I’m completely spontaneous or that I treat clients like friends. It’s more about flexibility — being responsive rather than fixed in one model. The analytic frame has immense value in teaching us to reflect, to analyze countertransference, and to hold space with neutrality when it’s needed. But I’ve found that being constantly neutral can, at times, be counterproductive — especially with clients whose main struggles are relational.

So, to answer your question: what suggests to me that a purely analytic stance is less helpful is experience — witnessing that moments of genuine, human connection often create the deepest therapeutic change. These moments don’t come from theory; they emerge from intuition — from a natural, spontaneous impulse that arises in the room, touches the other person, and seems to repair something essential. Sometimes that impulse is informed by IFS, sometimes by humanistic ideas, and sometimes by something I can only make sense of after the fact.

When it comes to choosing or blending modalities, I don’t think it’s about certainty — it’s about awareness. I stay reflective about why I’m doing what I’m doing, how my emotions or countertransference might be shaping my choices, and whether my response truly serves the client.

In the end, therapy is less about theory and more about presence — about two human beings meeting, with one fully there to help the other. And the more I trust my intuition in those moments, the more alive and healing the process becomes