I do speak from personal experience. I also refer to things in the field if a question comes up that needs to be clarified. There is a difference between a personal opinion and a professional set of standards for what is known at this point.

People may not experience attachment in therapy; I already said that. What I said is attachment is there regardless of whether it is the focus or not. If you don't know about attachment, are not interested in that focus, then of course you won't experience it. Does that mean it doesn't exist? To say attachment has been proven by research is not the same as saying it's absolute. There are no absolutes. In a sense, no universals. But that doesn't mean that nothing whatsoever holds across the board for therapy regardless of whether they are part of a person's experience. If I say the client's attitude counts for most of the change, yet a particular person feels that the T does the work, does that mean that what is known about therapy is wrong? It may not be experienced by that person. Just attachment might not. How does that mean it is not something known in the field? And how is referring to what is known in the field construed as "dogmatic"? These are not my opinions; they are readily available. To assert the opposite, "there are no universals" might be taken as "dogmatic" as well, especially when not exactly true. Someone's karma ran over someone's dogma, as the bumper sticker goes.