>>158468>>158469>Psychology always loses me on the first idea that emotions have to root themselves in the same patterns for all peopleThat's a splendid point and the litmus test on whether a framework is to be taken seriously and not just used as a niche case utility module at best.
There is not a debunking to be done when the framework is at least partially built on observable basics. CBT and DBT became popular to treat normals, but people needing deeper therapy that would fare better than "just make yourself 'normal'-minded so that CBT/DBT would work on you!" aren't normals in the first place. It's why old style therapists still exist (whether they're competent is another question). Even Jung juggled Jungian, Adlerian, Freudian approaches in 33% each thorough his cases, because there's just no silver bullet approach; and if there is to be one, it'd circle back to recycling niches that were found out to work in the case of the therapee's subjectivity.
Besides, even modern "post-debunk" approaches will inevitably lead the therapee to the mental imprints of parental dynamics, sooner or later.
Of course it would be more of "you are not being a father and a mother to yourself, and so, your regulatory processes reach out to the external nodes that aren't there, instead of the internal ones you already have" and less of "as a child, you got slapped by the dark side of the titty..."
>>158465>>158453And thus, OP is to search up on all psychotherapy approaches until OP finds something very interesting to OP. Fancy an Orgone, perhaps?