But why would I leave behind the bias of the source, the article author, and the book author? The article alone has a ton of clickbait red flags. It uses hyperb

But why would I leave behind the bias of the source, the article author, and the book author? The article alone has a ton of clickbait red flags. It uses hyperbolic phrases like “devastating picture” and “takes a sledgehammer” and “school regimes.” The only data source mentioned in the article is one that indicates that people are more unhappy now than ever. The argument here is that the reason for this is…therapy? So what is there to take issue with? It’s just opinions, and given the framing of both the article and the book itself - why should I entertain it more than I already have? Give me a data based critique and I’m happy to engage because I believe there is a valid critique of modern therapy. edit: This is a more nuanced and informed critique on the state of modern therapy, and while it doesn't directly address adolescents, they do discuss that group in relation to perpetual therapy: https://www.theatlantic.com/podcasts/archive/2024/02/how-we-became-addicted-therapy/677532/ https://www.theatlantic.com/podcasts/archive/2024/02/how-we-...