>This is a pretty big assertion that the piece casually drops without backing My understanding was that the results of the author's interviews were the backing

>This is a pretty big assertion that the piece casually drops without backing My understanding was that the results of the author's interviews were the backing for this assertion: >As the interviews made clear, people adopted the biogenetic account because they thought it was based in science. The interviews also show how this account undermines the kinds of introspection and self-examination that can lead to meaningful self-knowledge. >Mental health treatment needs to re-engage with the language of persons. This means suspending the detached, third-person stance toward patients, and attending to their actual experience and circumstances. And it means encouraging patients themselves to avoid this stance and draw on the normal ways that people make sense of their emotions and actions. Or do you mean that the conclusion the author reaches, that we should be attending to people's experiences instead of using "biogenetic causal language," isn't justified by the results of the interviews?