Scott’s thesis: Each of the therapy books on their own can be convincing. But they should be taken in the context of All Therapy Books, which as a category are pretty worrying.
Dodo Bird Verdict : All psychotherapies are about equally good, and the only things that matters are “nonspecific factors” like how much patients like their therapist.
Authors defend their [superior] therapy by claiming other authors unknowingly practice it. Although the [superior] therapy is not yet clinically tested, authors are confident it will pass clinical trials.
That’s a weak argument. Few go into a clinical trial hoping it will fail. The other psychotherapists whose theories failed probably said the same.
Scott’s hypotheses for new therapies claiming supremacy: only the best therapists come up with new therapies; placebo effect (before patients wise up to it); first practitioner of new therapies buy into all the hype.
I think college admissions counselling falls under the same? Past some baseline: stellar recommendations, good grades, extracurriculars and essays, the odds of getting in are a black box. Yet college prep programs will charge top dollar for their services. Looks more of a self-fulfilling prophecy: fancy programs are expensive -> rich kids pay for them -> rich kids more likely to be in good high schools with solid extracurriculars -> programs appropriate credit for getting them to prestiguous universities.