When practitioners in a field disagree about X, people assume that means X is a critically important divide. But it's the other way around—disagreement about X is a sign that X doesn't matter. This is a deep and underappreciated pattern. Examples below. 1/6
Paleo, keto, Mediterranean diet all disagree on the ratio of protein, fat, grains, etc. But they are all endorsed by experts and world-class athletes. So which one is correct? 2/6
Most likely they all are. Their disagreement is a sign that all those diets are doing a core set of *right things*, and the little differences among them are irrelevant. @michaelpollan would call this set of right things: "eat real food." 3/6
Psychotherapy is another example of this. Academics have long claimed that Freudianism is pseudoscience—they claim cognitive-behavioral therapy is the only evidence-based form of therapy. But after many studies, it turns out all forms of therapy work about as well. Why? 4/6
See the Dodo Bird Verdict (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodo_bird…). It's the same principle at work. Expert practitioners disagree about schools of therapy, but they're all getting results. This is a sign that which school of therapy you believe is not the important thing at all. 5/6
The *core thing* in therapy is your relationship with a therapist (a nice person who helps you talk through your feelings). What they believe about how your mind works is irrelevant. Takeaway: don't pay too much attention to conflict. Often the common core is what really matters.
