The Pseudoscience of Psychotherapy

The Evidence Doesn’t Support the Superiority of Psychotherapy Schools or the Magical Therapeutic Relationship

The problem with psychotherapy is not that it fails to help—often it does, sometimes profoundly. The problem is the inflated branding around it. Much of what therapy offers occurs naturally in human relationships: listening, boundary-setting, feedback, encouragement, perspective-shifting. These are not inventions of psychology, but basic human competencies that long predate the professionalization of therapy. Yet the field wraps them in jargon, certification, and theoretical mystique, as though ordinary relational wisdom only becomes valid once it is licensed and billable.

In doing so, it devalues the idea that these same resources might be found in families, friendships, or marriages. The result is a cultural monopoly in which therapy is seen as the only legitimate source of help, to the point where confessing struggle to a friend often elicits the reflexive dismissal: “Maybe you should see someone.”

At its worst, psychotherapy becomes less a healing practice than a gatekeeping apparatus, repackaging what humans have always done for one another as something available only behind the paywall of professional expertise.

Which Therapy Method Wins?

For decades, every school of psychotherapy has claimed its own methods are the most effective—and conveniently, each has studies to prove it. But a closer look at the broader evidence tells a more humbling story.