No. It’s one factor among many. The problem with the rat psychologists that Feynman talked about in his cargo cult speech is not that they looked at factors that produce no significant difference in outcome.
If you want to hire a computer programmer for a given task, then the programming language they use for the task can have a significant difference for the outcome. However, different computer programmers differ in very many aspects besides programming language so a study that just tests different computer programs with different languages against a given task without taking in account all the other factors that matters is what Feynman called cargo cult science.
Practically, I do think that having found a therapist who knew what LessWrong is, has enough meditation experience do not get weirded out when I speak about any significant experience in that realm and that has a good level of empathy was much more important than the particular form of therapy he practices.
Okay. I agree that it’s one factor among many, and that practitioner effectiveness varies widely. I didn’t discuss that in the post since it didn’t feel relevant for this question, aside for having the implication that people ought to try different practitioners, which I did recommend. (I mostly talked about matching on vibes and personal fit since it’s hard for a non-expert to evaluate expert competence, but at least they can evaluate how good of a rapport they have.)
Given the headline of the post, I think “therapy framework / therapist” match would be one reason why different therapists might think that different frameworks are better. It’s quite natural for therapists to believe that the framework with which they achieve bigger results are generally better.
If you ask either a surgeon or a physiotherapist about what should be done for a given patient, the surgeon is all things equal more likely to recommend surgery and the physiotherapist physiotherapy.
hard for a non-expert to evaluate expert competence
I’m not sure that in this fields experts have an ability to evaluate expert competence that’s better than judging report. As far as I remember there are studies that show that patient evaluated empathy (with is roughly rapport) correlates with treatment outcomes but I’m not aware of expert evaluations correlating with treatment outcomes.
Also, judging a coach or therapist about whether you get clear benefits in the first sessions seems another thing that’s doable by anyone and support by the literature.
To clarify, is your position that the form of therapy makes no significant difference for outcomes?
No. It’s one factor among many. The problem with the rat psychologists that Feynman talked about in his cargo cult speech is not that they looked at factors that produce no significant difference in outcome.
If you want to hire a computer programmer for a given task, then the programming language they use for the task can have a significant difference for the outcome. However, different computer programmers differ in very many aspects besides programming language so a study that just tests different computer programs with different languages against a given task without taking in account all the other factors that matters is what Feynman called cargo cult science.
Practically, I do think that having found a therapist who knew what LessWrong is, has enough meditation experience do not get weirded out when I speak about any significant experience in that realm and that has a good level of empathy was much more important than the particular form of therapy he practices.
Okay. I agree that it’s one factor among many, and that practitioner effectiveness varies widely. I didn’t discuss that in the post since it didn’t feel relevant for this question, aside for having the implication that people ought to try different practitioners, which I did recommend. (I mostly talked about matching on vibes and personal fit since it’s hard for a non-expert to evaluate expert competence, but at least they can evaluate how good of a rapport they have.)
Given the headline of the post, I think “therapy framework / therapist” match would be one reason why different therapists might think that different frameworks are better. It’s quite natural for therapists to believe that the framework with which they achieve bigger results are generally better.
If you ask either a surgeon or a physiotherapist about what should be done for a given patient, the surgeon is all things equal more likely to recommend surgery and the physiotherapist physiotherapy.
I’m not sure that in this fields experts have an ability to evaluate expert competence that’s better than judging report. As far as I remember there are studies that show that patient evaluated empathy (with is roughly rapport) correlates with treatment outcomes but I’m not aware of expert evaluations correlating with treatment outcomes.
Also, judging a coach or therapist about whether you get clear benefits in the first sessions seems another thing that’s doable by anyone and support by the literature.