Strupp's paper is a clear, thought-provoking statement from an esteemed clinician and psychotherapy researcher. It acknowledges the limitations of our understanding of therapeutic change while endorsing the basic human process of psychotherapy. The paper's concluding statements are worded to reflect a broad psychotherapy research base rather than any particular school of therapy. These propositions reflect the vagueness of the field. They also instill the hope that the intensive study of significant therapy events will help clinicians understand how, when, and why people change. Personally, I share Strupp's hope that the intensive analysis approach (see Rice & Greenberg, 1984; Elliott, 1983) will make a significant contribution to our knowledge of the necessary elements in psychotherapy. In contrast to his position, however, I believe that discoveries related to the technical aspects of psychotherapy will serve to clarify the murky waters of behavior change. We need a greater understanding of these techniques, the skillfulness with which they are applied, and the therapy contexts in which they are powerful (Schaffer, 1982; Stiles, Shapiro & Elliott, 1986). By studying the therapist's techniques we will be studying his/her behavior and indirectly his/her conceptualization of the client's difficulties. Strupp's (1986) description of the therapeutic environment for change is compelling ". . . the therapist provides a benign interpersonal context in which the client, under favorable circumstances, can modify the products of previous learning and acquire somewhat different patterns of thinking, feeling, and behavior (sic)." It makes sense that people learn best under friendly conditions rather than hostile, critical, or other negative environments. I have trouble imagining how any theorist from cognitive, behavioral, or other models would reject the assertion that a positive environment is better for new learning than a negative one (see Goldfried & Davison, 1976). It also seems reasonable that a positive relationship with a therapist, or for that matter with anyone, may serve as an impetus for change. I see these conditions as necessary for therapeutic change most of the time but rarely sufficient in and of themselves. My divergence from Strupp begins with his discussion of how these therapeutic changes occur and particularly with his negation of the importance of the technical aspects of therapy. As is often the case, the definition or exposition of terms often impedes agreement. While I will try to stay away from nitpicking points, there are several substantive issues. The first concerns the "benign interpersonal content." Cognitive and behavior therapists may have tended to neglect writing about the therapeutic relationship but it is generally implied that this relationship is important. Beck et al. (1979) explicitly indicated the importance of the therapist having good psychotherapy skills prior to implementing their treatment. Ratings of competency in cognitive therapy have reflected an essential mix among interpersonal skills, conceptual skills and technical skills (Shaw, 1984). The second terminological issue concerns the "techniques" of psychotherapy. Because Strupp is so critical of a treatment consisting in part of a set of techniques I would like to press for a definition of these concepts. Before doing so, I want to agree that treatment cannot be extracted from the relationship between the participants. Treatment refers to a way of handling or behaving toward another person; specifically, the way the clinician manages the client's complaints, problems, or symptoms. The term technique refers to the expert method of execution or manner of performance. Certain interventions in psychotherapy have been described and can be identified (DeRubeis et al., 1982). These interventions are employed by the therapist guided by his/her conceptualization which, in turn, is typically based on theory. …