I'm reluctant to comment. Not sure what I've said has been taken in or understood because I just am not that familiar with all of it yet.

I do want to say that there are "universals" in a sense for therapy. Once again, look at the common factors and see that most of change happens due to client factors (what the client brings in, has going on, and random things). Second is the relationship, the very issue here that is being scrutinized or denied. The relationship has a powerful effect. The method is small and almost not important. There are other factors, social, economic, racial, ethnic, cultural, spiritual, etc. Then there is placebo, random and so on.

So there are what the field at least considers universals: the client and the relationship. The 2 together about 70% of what makes for change.

Think about it. If the therapy is centered on the relationship, say as its method or orientation then the extra 10-15% that is attributed to theory, orientation, method is then added to the 70% to account for most of the therapeutic effects.

I don't want to pick individual fights, but I do disagree with many posts in this thread. I see a relational analyst. I know about how that works, how it is different from traditional psychoanalysis, and relational means both relationship with the T and attachment, which I will say again is scientifically proven, part of all T's understandings. You can be the homework problem solving logical no feelings type of T and still cannot ignore attachment. Not possible, did not happen in the founding of those schools of therapy, and doesn't happen in practice.

So I guess another universal is attachment. I'm tired of posting about it. I don't understand how it works here and am feeling frustrated. I think it is time for me to quit.

Good luck. I am very sorry to hear of how you were treated, have tried to suggest things to do or what are the codes, but feel that I'm not understood so need to just leave it.