@Gareth, thanks for that contribution, enjoyed that.

@Phil, I concur and think you made the points I was thinking far better than I can and did! Very much appreciated 🙂

In my view, it’s too often the case that:

A scientist is someone who is competent, and can explain how and why they are competent.

An artist is someone who is competent, but cannot explain how or why they are competent.

Yes, of course it’s difficult to take something as complex as a therapeutic relationship and break down all the different variables that affect it. But I see no proof that it is impossible – that somehow the nature of the relationship renders it beyond the reach of objectie measurement. We can make practical and meaningful measurements of all sorts of psychological factors nowadays – including happiness, depression and so forth. It takes time and effort to do that of course, but why give up before you’ve even started?

An art is inherently less valuable than a science, because it is harder to reproduce. If it’s an art, then therapists either have ‘it’ or they don’t. If therapy is a science, then we have a model we can train and teach, and that leads to better quality therapy across the board.