I found both to be exciting forms and would love to learn more about them. My first step is definitely picking up Man’s Search for Meaning as suggested!

In both cases, it was interesting to see how the takeaway for both forms of therapy strays from conventional therapeutic measurements and clinical evaluation. While existential therapy focuses on working on oneself and how we fit into the world, play therapy focuses on expression.

Additionally, I am unsure how to feel about his claims regarding what "statistically significant" means in research and clinical work. Although it is true that the difference may seem small clinically, I still believe that a small effect size at a population level can be meaningful.

Yet, at the same time, this approach seems to be prioritized and used to push traditional modes of therapy aside as being unscientific. I do think that his argument is unfair by not addressing other aspects of evidence-based therapy that are more specific, such as CBT for PTSD and ERP for OCD.

Although I agree with his overall claim that the evidence-based medicine research, such as in CBT, does not comprehensively and clearly show its effectiveness in clinical settings.

Shedler wrote a critical commentary, criticizing how the term "evidence-based" has been co-opted and misconstructed to push for the manualization of clinical therapy. I think the points he made were insightful, but perhaps unconventional and unfair in some aspects.

I liked that it brought up the language barrier between notes taken for other doctors, compared to communication with patients. It would be interesting to learn more about the ideal setting/population to implement this tool for transparency.

The process could allow patients to reflect on their sessions and increase participation/efforts. However, I liked that the article emphasizes the need to tread lightly on the process, as it could have harmful effects on different patients and care providers.