digpsy

I am a total amateur in psychotherapy and I only heard of the dodo bird thign a while back. I hope the below is helpful, no idea if its right though (all via Claude and my prompting skills). --------------------- The short version of what you're walking into on that X thread: both Shedler and @Curioslycinna2 are reading the same data correctly but drawing different conclusions. The dose-response curve is real and log-linear (negatively accelerating). Shedler emphasizes the area under the curve keeps growing — more sessions, more total improvement. @Curioslycinna2 emphasizes the slope flattens — each additional session yields less measurable gain. The fight is about what to do with a flattening curve, and whether current measurement instruments stop capturing what matters in longer therapy. The Dodo Bird verdict itself is more complicated than either side lets on. About 69-80% of the studies in Wampold's landmark 1997 meta-analysis involved comparisons between different forms of CBT Papelesdelpsicologo, which could mask real differences between genuinely distinct modalities. And a 2014 updated meta-analysis found evidence of treatment differences for primary outcomes at termination PubMed, contrary to the original verdict. Expert View: Shedler's argument has a structural weakness that neither he nor his interlocutor on X seems to notice: his entire case for longer therapy rests on observational data that cannot distinguish "more therapy causes more improvement" from "people who improve stay longer." The Consumer Reports survey, the Morrison/Westen clinician survey, and even Lambert's OQ-45 tracking are all confounded by self-selection. The one study design that could settle this — a prospective RCT randomizing patients to different treatment durations — has essentially never been done at adequate scale. This isn't an accident; it's because both camps are afraid of the answer. Meanwhile, Curioslycinna2's point about rumination risk is clinically real but unsupported by any study in this set — it's a clinical intuition being deployed as if it were evidence. The honest position is: we genuinely do not know whether year-two therapy is causally beneficial, and the field has arranged itself to avoid finding out.