I don't know a ton about Burns or his work, but for things in the class of stuff like psychotherapy, meditation, and other ways to work with your problems and (hopefully) improve your life so you more live the life you want to live, two claims can be simultaneously true:
The trouble is we don't do a great job of making these two competing claims clear, nor do we often make clear for any particular intervention, technique, practice, etc. whether it is intended for acute or chronic use.
My guess is that some versions of psychotherapy are a scam if you have to pay for more than 5 sessions, and some versions are doing exactly what they should be if you are paying to go every week, and that's because they are serving different purposes. Alas, we don't make this clear, and I think sadly there are enough unscrupulous providers who profit from the ambiguity that there's not a strong push to clear this point up with the general public.
Exactly right. However, I am extremely doubtful about anyone who claims that all their patients are cured within a few sessions. That sounds very unlikely unless they screen out people with anything more than minor hang-ups. Sure, in many cases, the root cause of the psychological problem can be identified and the patient can learn a few techniques and then they no longer need further therapy. However, lots of people in therapy are dealing with negative mental processes that were baked into them by a difficult childhood or a traumatic experience. Those sorts of issues can require on-going therapy to keep the patient on track and in a positive mindspace. One quick tricks don't work on someone with severe codependency or agoraphobia or anorexia. Maybe, with time, they can work through these issues and no longer need therapy, but this could take years.
I think anorexia is in a different category because the patient often doesn't want to get better. David Burns talks about it a little on https://feelinggood.com/2019/11/25/168-ask-david-the-blushing-cure-how-to-heal-a-broken-heart-treating-anorexia-and-more/, where he mentions that some sort of therapy with a 50% success rate is good.
The rapid cure stuff is mainly about depression and anxiety disorders, I guess agoraphobia should count (with the caveat that the patient has to be well enough to reach the therapist's office). Certainly whether it "could take years" is the crux of the matter; David Burns very much denies it should ever take nearly that long.
I am extremely skeptical for reasons described in Book Review: All Therapy Books.
All therapy books start with a claim that their form of therapy will change everything. Previous forms of therapy have required years or even decades to produce ambiguous results. Our form of therapy can produce total transformation in five to ten sessions! Previous forms of therapy have only helped ameliorate the stress of symptoms. Our form of therapy destroys symptoms at the root!
...
Previous forms of therapy have failed because they were ungrounded. They were ridiculous mental castles built in the clouds by armchair speculators. But our form of therapy is based on hard science! For example, it probably acts on synapses or the hippocampus or something. Here are three neuroscience papers which vaguely remind us of our form of therapy. One day, neuroscience will catch up to us and realize that the principles of our form of therapy are the principles that govern the organization of the entire brain – if not all of multicellular life.
...
But my basic confusion is this: I work in a clinic with about ten therapists. Some are better than others, but all of them are competent. I send my patients to them. In a few hundred patients I’ve worked with, zero have had the sudden, extraordinary, long-lasting change that the therapy books promise. Many have benefited a little. A few would say that, over the course of years, their lives have been turned around. But sudden complete transformations? Not that much.
The general idea here is that the "form of therapy" isn't what's important but rather the skill of the therapist.
David Burns claims that out of 50,000 people trained in his form of therapy around 0.2% have skills to achieve these kinds of results.
If Scott ten colleges were randomly picked out of those 50,000 people it would not be surprising if none of them would be at that high end of the skill level.
Then there's the other argument about deliberate practice. On main feature of David Burns form of therapy is that it sees therapists engaging in deliberate practice as an important aspect of becoming a good therapist. Most schools of therapy don't really go for deliberate practice. I think it's plausible that the rate of people with high skill in a school of therapy that engages in deliberate practice is higher than elsewhere.
I see, that all makes a lot of sense. I take back my objection then. It seems at least plausible that Burns is correct here.
In my experience, academically trained clinicians tend to think of everything they are trying to do as an intervention. Like, thinking of teaching as an intervention, where you want to get the participants to certain behavioral standards, and you are ultimately responsible for the efficacy of this intervention (especially if you can also define the expected outcomes). Imagine if you teach a class. After the final exam, you notice that there are a bunch of questions that no one got right. This is nothing to be proud of because either your measurement instrument (i.e., exam) is very off, or your intervention protocol (i.e., lesson plan) is very off. Similarly, clinical scientists would not be very proud of saying, “Yeah, I taught a course to 50,000 people and only 10 or 15 of them got an A, and this shows how much of a genius I am.” They would go back and revise their lesson plan. What if the students are just not very motivated, you say? Well, then we need to figure out a way to improve motivation, or adjust the measurement for the fact that most students are not very motivated, or adjust the intervention protocol so motivation matters less, or maybe all of the above.
Based on the excerpt, what David Burns is suggesting is not very new stuff. I’d be very surprised if the episode was recorded recently because the claim that “nobody’s measuring anything” is simply not true—it’s called routine outcome monitoring. For me, that was one of the first things to learn in a graduate-level clinical psychology class. Of course, there is a lot of research about it, so there is nothing mysterious about pre- and post-session measurements. Sounds almost like pointing at a large language model and saying, “Look at this massive linguistic network! It is really good!”
This claim really bothers me: “And the 40,000 hours of patients I had, I don't think more than eight or ten ever contacted me for tune-ups.” My friend recently went to visit a physical therapist for a muscle pain issue. Over the course of the treatment, her pain got worse, but the therapist kept telling her that it was totally normal. But… the pain was really bad, and she felt like the therapist didn’t really understand how bad it was. She finished all 10 sessions as planned and never reached out to the therapist again. Plus, the sessions were expensive.
Believe it or not, humans can overfit too. Focusing on “challenging patients” (how do you operationally define challenging anyway?), especially with the examples provided, sounds like a pretty bad idea. Responding to direct confrontation or insult with open acceptance is not even something I had to take a class to find out. These archetypical challenges are so saturated in the professional literature and dialogues, you kind of just pick them up at some point far earlier than receiving any practical training. I’ve seen quite a few first or second-year psychology undergrads quickly overfit to an elaborate but empty “you are right and your feelings are valid, so tell me more” response to a lot of minor confrontation or when someone expresses their feelings about anything. This kind of practice is not very informative if you want to have an empathetic yet helpful conversation about someone’s drinking problem when they have just recovered from a heart surgery. And, patients can get stuck or even deteriorate without verbally challenging the clinician.
As for the app: “Change over time is not ‘treatment response’,” but feel free to prove me wrong with RCT.
After thinking about the podcast some more one interesting aspect was:
And if you have any trouble, just call me and you can come in for a tune up. I give I give lifetime guarantees on my work. I'll give you three unlimited tune ups for the rest of your life if you ever need me again. And I hope you will because if you don't relapse and need me, I'll never see you again. And I've really come to like you and feel very proud of you and affection towards you. And I'm sad to lose you now, but I wouldn't have it any other way because you're feeling joy now. And that's that's the greatest greatest thing for me to have you recover really rapidly. And the 40,000 hours of patience I had, I don't think more than eight or ten ever contacted me for for tune ups.
David Burns seems to count this as evidence that his treatments are long-term effective. If only so few people contacted him again, to me that doesn't seem to be evidence of long-term effectiveness but evidence that the people did not feel like contacting him again was a straightforward thing to do.
Given how much of a deal David Burns makes about the importance of measurement, this seems strange. He could easily send all his patients after a year a follow-up email to let them fill out a form of his depression scale but seems not to.
Sometimes they wish I could call them and say hello. Do you remember me? Especially like if they treated them when they were a suicidal teenager or something like that, who really tough. You know, I grew so fond of all the patience that I ever had. But you have to let them go. You can't be, you know, calling them on the telephone. It would be like unethical or something.
It's completely unclear to me why telephoning a past patient to check up on whether they are doing well would be unethical.
Yes, I also found that fishy. I tried finding negative reviews from patients online, but had a hard time with queries, because I didn't know how to exclude reviews of his book properly.
And on the empathy scale goes from zero to 20. And a score of 12 would be like what Hitler could get. Like that's a bet, that would be a horrible score. Unbelievably bad. Well, I think she gave me a zero on empathy and a zero on healthfulness.
Does anyone know more about this scale and the question it uses?
David Burns also has his own podcast, many episodes of which are example live sessions of this rapid cure (see https://feelinggood.com/list-of-feeling-good-podcasts/ and search for "live therapy", or https://feelinggood.com/podcast-database/ which has a fancy Javascript interface allowing filtering on tags).
He does often make the explicit claim on his podcast, that 90% of patients can be cured in one or two sessions (plus one more for "relapse prevention"). It's a bit hard to know how much of this is from a selection effect on the patients though. I'm pretty sure I recall him also mentioning that he only treats (people studying to be) therapists for liability reasons now that he doesn't have an active clinical practice with insurance. And I think when he had on one of the app developers, they mentioned in passing that they had discussed some social anxiety issues, but it sounded like there wasn't any dramatic breakthrough on that.
Anyone knows a psychologist like that?
I don't personally, but you could check out https://www.feelinggoodinstitute.com/, they say "Expect meaningful change within five therapy sessions"; I assume that means five 1 hour sessions and probably one 2 hour session is more effective than two 1 hour sessions (due to time wasted on recalling previous context, breaking flow, etc).
I want to be in the community where we're all expected to become swole in both bayesian epistemology and CBT skills. If I had to choose one or the other communal competencies I think being able to CBT each other is probably a better starting point.
I wonder if I should go out and look for psychotherapist cultures that see a convergence between mental health and rationalist epistemology, or whether they'll have already found us via ssc/tlp.
If you listen to David Burns, then learning these skills needs deliberate practice with explicit feedback on skills like empathy. Most psychotherapist cultures just don't have that. Copying psychologist culture doesn't get you the those kind of skills.
If we would want to follow what Burns says, it would make more sense to have a culture where after you meet with another rationalists both of you fill out feedback forms where they rate each other empathy in the conversation and maybe a few other metrics.
fill out feedback forms
I don't see what's difficult about having a norm of just telling people when they're not understanding you/not seemingly trying, and caring about that?
Rather than this Feeling Good app for patients, I'd be more interested in an app that let people practice applying CBT techniques to patient case studies(or maybe even LLMs with specified traits), in order to improve their empathy and help them better understand people. If this could actually develop good therapists with great track records, then that would prove the claims made in this article and help produce better people.
Interacting with a case study and interacting with a real person are quite different as far as empathy goes. If you train on making LLM feel understood that might not make a person feel understood if you do the same thing.
These ideas and techniques don’t sound particularly original, from what I have experienced with CBT. Maybe I am missing something important, but this just sounds too good to be true. I find it more likely that the patients that didn’t return because the magic bullet turned out to just be a chunk of lead, and they didn’t want to throw good money after bad.
Aliefs can’t be changed by just believing harder. They take time and practice to be ease and change. Those changes can be scary too. I expect that most people would need support as they go through that process.
Now, that doesn’t mean that the tools that he’s talking about aren’t effective over time. CBT, as I understand, has a good track record, so if you find parts that are helpful to you, stick with it! Just don’t expect such quick success.
Aliefs can’t be changed by just believing harder.
Nothing that David Burns advocates is about just trying to believe harder.
His basic thesis is that someone who has a lot of deliberate practice can facilitate techniques in a way that's a lot more effective.
Epistemic status: I listened to this, and I found these statements surprising in a “big if true” way. It didn't seem obviously false, but I am very much relying on him here. If someone thinks his claims are completely made up, please let me know in the comments.
TLDR
David Burns claims in this podcast episode, with deliberate practice, he and a few of his students got to the point to learn to cure patients in a single or just a few sessions. David Burns is known for popularizing CBT through his book “Feeling Good”.
The quote in the next section is most important. The rest of the post contains other quotes I found interesting. Some of them are pretty long. Feel free to skip things. The transcript was generated with whisper, so there might be mistakes. You can find the whole transcript here.
David Burns on Teaching CBT
Example of the Mood Survey
Relapse Prevention Training
Empathy Training in Tuesday Session
Deliberate practice sessions, in which they meet every Tuesday and role-play an interaction with their most challenging patients:
Performance of His Colleagues and the Feeling Good App
I applied for beta-testing, but it is currently only available on iOS.
Conclusion
It seems pretty clear that David Burns is probably exaggerating a bit. But even if just a weak version of his claims is true, it seems like getting a really skilled psychologist would be worth it, even for a high price premium. Anyone knows a psychologist like that? Thank you in advance for your comments!