The assessment of their psychological “problem” (often too broad to even be considered a condition) is pseudoscientific: a qualitative evaluation.

The assessment of the success of CBT is also pseudoscientific: a qualitative evaluation.

The result is a field with 40% replicability of journal results.

And you share a meta analysis of these pseudo-scientific “studies”. Add another layer of abstraction to the nonsense.

Ahhhhh, all psychology is pseudoscience to you. That makes sense now.

That's completely fair, and I don't want to interact with that at all.

Have a nice day!

Why do you completely discount qualitative evaluations?

If I say I feel shitty all the time, and then I go to therapy, and I say that I feel less shitty all the time... why is that invalid data?