I think the only issue I have with this article comes from the spiteful vibes it gives off towards CBT, and it seemingly poses CBT as some perpetrating entity that is ruining it for all the other theoretical orientations. For example, Stephen Hayes has written articles trying to reconcile ACT as a cognitive-behavioral model despite it’s subjectivity (the meaning making process of our relationship to the self, aka acceptance through metacognition), whereas some devout second-wave CBT theorists are actually reluctant to say that ACT is truly cognitive-behavioral in its philosophical roots – which is primarily an attempt at an objective understanding of reality. They don’t want it! This is contrary to what the article suggests, which is that CBT eagerly absorbs and intentionally takes credit for all these “innovative” breakthroughs, which have in fact been accounted for in other orientations and philosophies for hundreds/thousands of years. As the article suggests, the issue is more-so one of government, insurance companies, and our current scientific method which all put a premium on objective outcomes, which just so happens to lend itself to CBT. The issue is not CBT, but the dogmatic preference of CBT by powerful people outside the field who have little to no understanding of psychology and the subjectivity of what a positive outcome actually entails. The government/insurance companies do not want to hear, understand, or pay us because we helped a client achieve a more “cohesive sense of self” (whatever that means) because science can’t objectify it, or that we used “holding”, “containing”, and the “therapeutic relationship” to get there. It’s not only what actually creates the outcomes, but how should the outcomes even be defined? There are limits to objectivity such as the essence of experience, the meanings we make of experiences, “the self”, and simply the entirety of what it is to be a human that we likely will never be able to quantify, yet our governing system neglects these dialectically opposing truths that are incompatible with objectivism. Contrary to popular belief, subjectivity doesn’t have to negate objectivity, it’s just a matter of tolerating the paradoxical existence of both as true in their own way. Third-wave CBT is one of the few orientations that has lent itself to attempting to integrate the opposing subjective and objective philosophical foundations of the theories, in contrast to the decades long war between the orientations. CBT shouldn’t be slighted for its attempt and capacity to do so, albeit limited. The greater the certainty, the less the tolerance. However, as integration in theory continues to develop, I think it is going to have to account more and more for things like attachment, relationship, and factors that psychodynamic object relations has known for years as Allen Schore’s (The Science of the Art of Psychotherapy) research is suggesting. Ironically, science is showing that non-science, the “art” of psychotherapy is making the difference. When those things become more evident, the required outcomes and techniques that we get payed for will have to change, or at least that is my fantasy haha.