Why should a disinterested third party, without firsthand experience, recommend these therapies over CBT given the relative lack of evidence?
E.g. Other than those who practice them and their clients, do they have any reputable backers? Has it been shown by disinterested parties to work better on certain types of people? Is there any other source of evidence that backs the notion that they are predictably superior for at least a subset of the population?
What evidence is there that any of these are more effective than CBT? If they are better, why haven’t they been more widely adopted by mainstream medicine?
Regarding bottleneck, some areas are massively funding constrained e.g. I’m not sure I could name a single mental EA mental health charity that is talent constrained. People who graduate with firsts from the world’s top 3 or so neuroscience/psychology departments, with a ton of work experience, are passionate enough to be willing to volunteer 20Hs per week but one can’t hire and train them up as there simply isn’t enough funding.
This advice is targeted at:
people who want to work for a funding constrained organisation
people who aren’t sure what they want to do yet and want to test out a wide range of different options without having to commit yourself to any given one for the length of the typical employment contract.
people who want to work directly but the salary is to low and they want to supplement it.
People who want to be able to work on whatever they feel is important without having to spend their time convincing people it’s worth paying them for. -Peoole earning to give in fields where you can make much more per hour as a freelancer (albeit perhaps less overall due to lower volume) who are considering transitioning to working directly.
people who aren’t sufficiently ‘elite’ to get paid to work on an area they care about in the role they want to work in.
etc
Hey John. Thanks for putting this together! I don’t think your post mentions where the coaching takes place. I’m guessing video conferencing?