Talk:Coherence therapy

Fair use rationale for Image:ColorCoc4Web.gif

Image:ColorCoc4Web.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 19:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

this wiki page is not the whole picture of coherence therapy

Coherence therapy is to see a symptom as a solution (or an attempt at solution) to a problem existing in the unconscious (emotional learning formed earlier in life.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nashoomoo (talk • contribs) 21:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Lack of criticism

This article is missing a section on criticism and effectiveness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianKovo (talk • contribs) 13:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@BrianKovo: On effectiveness, see the sources in the first footnote. It's just talk therapy, so as with all talk therapy there are various factors that contribute to effectiveness (or failure) and common principles: see Common factors theory. The theory of coherence therapy is just one way of describing processes that are common to various talk therapies, as explained in the book Unlocking the Emotional Brain by Ecker et al. For this reason, coherence therapy in itself is not controversial, which is why there's no criticism section, although it needs to be understood within the broad multi-theoretical context that all professional psychotherapists learn (see any major psychotherapy survey textbook for example); for criticisms of psychotherapy in general (applying to all talk therapy), see Psychotherapy § General critiques. For controversy about the exact mechanisms of memory reconsolidation, see Memory consolidation § Reconsolidation. Biogeographist (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@Biogeographist: But then how is it a model at all? Common factors suggests that coherence therapy may share components that prevail with other modes of therapy, right. Effectiveness may be residual but not criticism per se, insofar as this is an empirical model with a specific descriptive domain and that there should be reason to recommend this theory over any other. CBT has a "criticisms" section, DBT has an "efficacy" section, as does psychodynamic psychotherapy, ACT, etc etc. They are falsifiable theories, in which case they have need of critical assesement, or else they are not (e.g. EDMR), in which case they also need it.

There may also be other criticism concerning its capacity beyond the common domain, treating specific conditions, size of available research, and perhaps there should be reference provided to or concise criticism of the principles underlying Common factors theory, of all things, or memory consolidation. We do not expect this article to be merely understood by the broad multi-theoretical context that all professional psychotherapists learn. And I reckon it's good practice to link the reader to grounds for criticism or towards the broader context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianKovo (talk • contribs) 15:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@BrianKovo: To be clear, I was not arguing against sections on criticism and effectiveness. Those would be helpful if someone cares to add them. I was just trying to point you to relevant information, given the current absence of such sections.

Re: But then how is it a model at all? Because the creators labeled it "coherence therapy". There are hundreds of such "brand-name" psychotherapies. This is a sociological fact about the social organization of psychotherapists in the last 50–100 years, not based in any scientific need for hundreds of names, I would say. (For example, see: Stuart, J.; Levy, Raymond A.; Katzenstein, Tai (Summer 2006), "Beyond brand names of psychotherapy: identifying empirically supported change processes", Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 43 (2): 216–231, doi:10.1037/0033-3204.43.2.216: "Much like diagnoses, which in many instances do not guide treatment, brand names of orientations and therapies leave much to be desired when it comes to understanding what specifically promotes therapeutic change and likely often contribute to faulty assumptions about why patients got better.")

Note that the CBT, DBT, and ACT "brand names" are much more widely used and researched than coherence therapy: in the past 90 days, the Wikipedia article on CBT has 185,359 pageviews, DBT has 105,069 pageviews, ACT has 54,421 pageviews, and coherence therapy has 2,541 pageviews. Biogeographist (talk) 18:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC)