I read that book and came away feeling underwhelmed. She went into many patient interviews with her model in mind; did she instigate patient behavior through qu

I read that book and came away feeling underwhelmed. She went into many patient interviews with her model in mind; did she instigate patient behavior through questions? The book was often vague when it came to her interview methodology, and favored development of patient story, IMO to latch onto reader’s sympathy, while offering little detail of the authors methods. From the authors reference frame the patients appeared to linearly accept their fate. If we randomly time traveled to their room and interviewed them which state would we encounter? Is the progress static regardless of environmental inputs or variable? I have a hard time trusting past truth these days; editors and publishers want to sell books. There’s a huge labor market dedicated to PR and optics, tailored messaging. Sensibilities of the past were much more accepting that whatever made it on store shelves was absolutely correct and not a tailored product placement.