This is something that I finde so intriguing about this article. The blatant contradiction between the fact that the clients didn't get better, and that their core problems quite often weren't even touched. And yet they (the therapists) so strongly believed in their narratives, that therapy (ie themselves) was useful for the client.

Somehow they seemed to need this legend in order to hold on to their image of themselves as a 'competent' therapist.

But in fact, this self-image (or rather their adherance to it) seems to be part of the problem since the therapist don't seem to be able to question their approach and their conceptualisations of the case...