> I'm pretty skeptical of the premise that "All therapy books start with a claim that their form of therapy will change everything." Nicely spotted. This is ce

> I'm pretty skeptical of the premise that "All therapy books start with a claim that their form of therapy will change everything." Nicely spotted. This is certainly a good point to question. The article reads to me as (intentionally) hyperbolic, in a dry humor kind of way. Perhaps the author is frustrated with the state of things. Anyway, I feel like "change everything" can be considered a stand in for "effect any change more than other therapeutic methodology." With that reading, the main point that stands out to my eye is that CBT or any methodology is no more effective than the next. They are all the same basic process, just with different dressings. As an extreme example, even far-field woo like Dianetics can boast the kind of therapeutic help you describe. This makes it seem like the particulars of CBT are mere detail and the thing that is working is mostly the patient's earnest work toward some form of "better."