Based on the theoretical assumption and clinical observation that projective identification is a natural, constant element in human psychology, clinical material is used to illustrate how projective identification centered transference states create situations where acting out of the patient's phantasies and conflicts by both patient and therapist is both common and unavoidable. Because they are more obvious, some forms of projective identification encountered in clinical practice are easier for the analyst to notice and interpret. Other forms are more subtle and therefore difficult to figure out. Finally, some forms, whether subtle or obvious, seem to create a stronger pull on the analyst to blindly act out. In some psychoanalytic treatments, one form of projective identification might embody the core transference. In other cases, the patient might shift or evolve from one level of this mechanism to another. Some patients attempt to permanently discharge their projective anxiety, phantasy, or conflict into the analyst. There is a patent resistance to re-own, examine, or recognize this projection. Some of these patients are narcissistic in functioning, others are borderline, and many attempt to find refuge behind a psychic barricade or retreat (Steiner 1993). In other forms of projective identification, the patient enlists the analyst to master their internal struggles for them. This occurs through the combination of interpersonal and intra-psychic object relational dynamics. This “do my dirty work for me” approach within the transference can evoke various degrees of counter-transference enactments and transference/counter-transference acting out. Another form of projective identification, common in the clinical setting, is when a patient wants to expand the way of relating internally, but is convinced the analyst needs to validate or coach the patient along. This is why such a patient may stimulate transference/counter-transference tests and conduct practice runs of new object relational phantasies within the therapeutic relationship. Over and over, the patient may gently engage the analyst in a test, to see if it is ok to change their core view of reality. Depending on how the analyst reacts or interprets, the patient may feel encouraged to or discouraged from continuing the new method of relating to self and object. The patient's view of the analyst's reactions is, of course, distorted by transference phantasies, so the analyst must be careful to investigate the patient's reasoning and feelings about the so-called encouragement or discouragement. This does not negate the possible counter-transference by the analyst in which he or she may indeed be seduced into becoming a discouraging or encouraging parental figure who actually voices suggestions and judgment. All these forms of projective identification surface with patients across the diagnostic spectrum, from higher functioning depressive persons to those who are more disturbed paranoid-schizoid cases. Whether immediately obvious or more submerged in the therapeutic relationship, projective identification almost always leads to some degree of acting out on the part of the analyst. Therefore, it is critical to monitor or use the analyst's counter-transference as a map towards understanding the patient's phantasies and conflicts that push them to engage in a particular form of projective identification.