Okay. So the CBT thing has been mentioned a few times here and I was curious so I waded (as much as I could stand) through a scholarly article about ruptures comparing several different modalities, one of which was CBT.

Here is what I think I gathered (maybe):

It isn't that there aren't ruptures in CBT. The difference is that CBT therapists work from a very collaborative focus with a goal of working to find agreement whereas the other modalities they studied (more psychoanalytical but I can't remember exactly what they called them -- sorry) had a focus on analyzing disagreement/discord as a way to understanding. So, from what I gathered, ruptures in CBT were statistically reported less often but that with the caveat that the different modalities are approaching intentionally from different angles. The more psychoanalytical modalities "love" a good rupture (I'm heavily paraphrasing here so excuse my informality) as a starting point for the "work" while behavioral modalities approach from the angle of preventing ruptures in the first place through constant collaboration. It is a difference in the angle of approach to a great extent -- neither necessarily being better than the other -- simply being very different about the approach to and/or philosophy behind the therapeutic necessity and utilization of ruptures.

That was my quick and very dirty paraphrase of a very long and heavily statistically-laden scientific journal/study.

Oh, here is the link if you have the patience to try to wade through this: http://www.safranlab.net/uploads/7/6...t_al_20091.pdf