One cannot learn if one can't see the need to learn.
Do you remember Mr. Sapir's "40% more" teaching?
It is amazingly accurate.
He teaches that when the same statement is analyzed by you, later in time (after emotional connection is broken...perhaps even forgotten), the same statement will yield up to 40% more information.
I have found this to be true, time and time again.
It is also why group analysis is such a blessing, though only if you are among others familiar with the language of humility.
It works especially well in doing anonymous letters, as the analyst must possess the temperament to say:
"Here, I am sure it is a white female" after 2 lines.
"Now, on line 7, I see that it is a male, not a female..."
"I change my mind yet again, as this is someone who is not educated..."
This type of openness and 'willingness to be wrong' allows for the analyst to be at the mercy of the statement:
Exactly where the analyst belongs.
We must be at the mercy of the statement. The statement should not be at the mercy of our opinion or theory.
We put 'total faith' into the subject to guide us, unless something tells us otherwise. This is the norm. This is the "expected" in analysis.
Signing one's name means signing one's reputation "on the line" for all to see, saying "Deception Indicated" with one's own name, written clearly for the record.
No anonymous stones thrown.
More about the 40% Factor to come...