The general idea here is that the “form of therapy” isn’t what’s important but rather the skill of the therapist.
David Burns claims that out of 50,000 people trained in his form of therapy around 0.2% have skills to achieve these kinds of results.
If Scott ten colleges were randomly picked out of those 50,000 people it would not be surprising if none of them would be at that high end of the skill level.
Then there’s the other argument about deliberate practice. On main feature of David Burns form of therapy is that it sees therapists engaging in deliberate practice as an important aspect of becoming a good therapist. Most schools of therapy don’t really go for deliberate practice. I think it’s plausible that the rate of people with high skill in a school of therapy that engages in deliberate practice is higher than elsewhere.
The general idea here is that the “form of therapy” isn’t what’s important but rather the skill of the therapist.
David Burns claims that out of 50,000 people trained in his form of therapy around 0.2% have skills to achieve these kinds of results.
If Scott ten colleges were randomly picked out of those 50,000 people it would not be surprising if none of them would be at that high end of the skill level.
Then there’s the other argument about deliberate practice. On main feature of David Burns form of therapy is that it sees therapists engaging in deliberate practice as an important aspect of becoming a good therapist. Most schools of therapy don’t really go for deliberate practice. I think it’s plausible that the rate of people with high skill in a school of therapy that engages in deliberate practice is higher than elsewhere.
I see, that all makes a lot of sense. I take back my objection then. It seems at least plausible that Burns is correct here.