There are people who take something in themselves for a defect that is, in truth, their greatest strength. They look for the cause of their suffering in the wrong place - in themselves, in some supposed lack - and overlook the fact that the friction chafing them arises not from a deficit but from a surplus.
The subject here is gifted people who suffer from their own giftedness without knowing that they are gifted.
This is no paradox but the rule. The gifted person senses only that he is different, that he functions differently from those around him; the cause of this difference, however, remains hidden from him. He experiences the symptom - the estrangement, the anxiety, the depressive exhaustion - and reads it as personal failure. The message of this text is simple and can be stated in a single sentence: if you are gifted and you suffer, it need not be your fault. And there is a way out, one that does not begin with the giftedness itself, but with what the gifted person has made of it.
What Giftedness Is — and What It Is Not
The first cognitive error stands at the door before there is any talk of illness: the confusion of giftedness with a number, the intelligence quotient (IQ). An encyclopedia of human behavior defines giftedness soberly as “outstanding performance or capability in comparison with others of the same age, environment, or experience”1 — that is, as a potential, not a merit. To be gifted is not a title one earns but an endowment one is born with. A gifted person has contributed as much to his giftedness as to the color of his eyes.
From this follows the first distinction, the one on which the whole argument rests: giftedness is not achievement. The potential guarantees nothing. The most striking proof was furnished by the very man who founded the study of giftedness. Lewis Terman followed, over decades, some 1,500 Californian children with very high IQ scores (mostly 135 or above), his famous “Termites.” On average they became capable, successful adults — but no epochal minds.2 Two boys, by contrast, whom Terman sorted out of his study as not gifted enough, later received the Nobel Prize in Physics: William Shockley and Luis Alvarez.3,4 A better argument against the fetish of the number is hard to find. The measurement says what a person could do; it says nothing about what he will do, and less still about whether he will be happy.
With that the guiding figure of this text is won, and one should keep it in mind, for everything that follows hangs on it: giftedness is an amplifier, not a trophy. It magnifies what it is tied to — for good and for ill. Where thinking is sound, it drives toward peak achievement; where thinking is distorted, into an all the more artful misery.
Before we survey that misery, an honesty is due, without which the whole article would be dishonest. It would be false and sentimental to claim that the gifted suffer as a rule. Empirical research says the opposite: Detlef Rost's Marburg Giftedness Project showed that the gifted are, on the statistical average, socially and emotionally inconspicuous, often above-average in stability and adjustment.5 Whoever infers from the spectacular individual case to the whole group commits a cognitive error himself — overgeneralization. The real problem sits not in the middle of the distribution but at its extreme edge, and where the environment holds no fit in readiness. Leta Hollingworth, the pioneer of the field, already observed that social difficulties above an “optimal” range of intelligence do not decrease but increase.6 We are speaking, then, not of a melodrama that would concern all the gifted, but of a precise mechanism that strikes some — and strikes them all the harder.
How Giftedness Becomes a Handicap
The mechanism begins early and quietly. The development of the gifted child runs out of step: the French psychologist Jean-Charles Terrassier coined for it the term “dyssynchrony.”7 The intellect races ahead while feeling and body remain in the rhythm of chronological age. Thus arises the child who at five ponders death yet cannot tie his shoes — a being torn between an understanding that reaches too far and a soul that is still small. To those around him he is simply exceptional.
This distinctiveness has a name that the world around him, however, seldom knows. The Polish psychiatrist Kazimierz Dabrowski described the “overexcitabilities” of the gifted as a heightened responsiveness in the intellectual, sensual, imaginational, psychomotor, and emotional spheres — a more intense way of perceiving, thinking, feeling, or experiencing the world.8 What appears here as the signature of giftedness regularly falls under suspicion in a system calibrated to the average: intellectual restlessness is labeled an attention disorder, emotional depth a behavioral problem, otherness itself a deficit. Here the greatest diagnostic care is called for, for the twice-exceptional case does exist - the gifted person who at the same time bears a genuine disorder - and it must be strictly distinguished from the mere mislabeling of giftedness. Not every peculiarity of the gifted is an illness; but not every one is harmless.
The actual handicap, however, arises not from the giftedness itself but from the thoughts with which the gifted person surrounds it. Here cognitive psychotherapy earns its name, for here lies its object. Four cognitive errors are especially characteristic of giftedness.
The first is the false consensus: the tacit assumption that everything comes as easily to others as to oneself. The gifted person long fails to notice how different he is, because he reasons from himself to all mankind. When this assumption topples - when he strikes against the limits of others, which he first takes for ill will - it turns into a sense of betrayal: why is everyone playing dumb?
The second is the burden of unrealized potential, the most insidious of the four. “With my endowment I ought to achieve great things” — this sentence turns every real accomplishment into evidence of failure, for the measure is taken not against what is attained but against the infinite yardstick of the possible. The gifted person who thinks this way can never suffice; he has issued himself a debt that can never be discharged.
The third is dichotomous, all-or-nothing thinking in the categories of genius or failure — an either/or that makes every middle position, that is, the normal human condition, uninhabitable.
The fourth is the impostor phenomenon, described by Pauline Clance and Suzanne Imes in 1978:9 the tormenting conviction that one's own success is fraudulently obtained and that one will at any moment be exposed as a fraud. It is precisely the gifted person, to whom much comes easily, who distrusts what has come easily and holds it undeserved.
These cognitive errors are not without consequence. Where the gifted person senses that his otherness is devalued, he spends a considerable part of his mental energy on concealing that otherness — and precisely the processing capacity he musters for hiding is the capacity he then lacks for actual achievement. Research describes the outcome unmistakably: those who must combat the anxiety that accompanies stereotype threat shy away from challenging themselves, and such circumstances “can cast a pathway for a lifelong, self-fulfilling prophecy of underachievement or failure.”10 Giftedness does not turn into peak achievement but into its opposite — into underachievement, the chronic below-worth living of one who dwells beneath himself.
At the end of this chain stands, in the serious cases, clinical illness. A recent handbook on giftedness formulates the apparent contradiction with welcome clarity: it is counterintuitive that precisely those who excel academically, who are curious, ambitious, and goal-directed, should be susceptible to depression and suicidal ideation — and yet the literature suggests that it is “these very gifted characteristics that provide gifted students with amazing educational experiences that act as the catalysts for their social and emotional battles.”11 Perfectionism, the higher demand, the greater sensitivity that feeds self-doubt: the same traits that enable the gifted person make him vulnerable. Anxiety disorders, social phobias, and depression are therefore not rare among the gifted — only they are concealed with all the artistry of the superior mind, so that neither the environment nor the sufferer himself recognizes the treatable illness behind them.
And over all of this lies a burden that belongs to none of these categories, because it is not a cognitive error but a truth: the burden of clear sight. Whoever thinks further and more intricately than the majority sees through its consoling illusions as well — and thereby stands alone. But we shall come to that burden only at the end, for it demands an answer of its own.
Giftedness Between Cultivation and Mismatch — A Historical Aside
That giftedness can become a handicap at all is no law of nature but depends on the environment into which it falls. The domains in which a society recognizes talent mirror its values and are, as research holds, “subject to historical influences”; a person may accordingly “be born with the potential to be gifted” without ever becoming so, because to be gifted means to be gifted at something the given society prizes.12 Giftedness is thus not only a property of the gifted person but always also a relation between him and his age.
Earlier ages held institutions in readiness for this relation. Talent could unfold through deliberate cultivation, not seldom borne by men of means whose patronage first made art, science, and culture possible. One need not romanticize that past to observe that it gave the exceptional a place. The present has a harder time of it — not out of malice, but out of a structure built toward the average, which holds as little fit in readiness for the great deviation upward as for the one downward. One need see no culture war in this; the clinical observation suffices, that a gift becomes a burden where the environment offers it no connection.
The economic price of this mismatch is considerable. In his book Wettkampf um die Klugen (roughly, “The Contest for the Clever”), the military demographer Gunnar Heinsohn has described the damage a society takes when it fails to bring its few truly gifted to fruition.13 What is a personal misfortune for the individual is, for the community, a loss of the very talents it actually needs. Friedrich Schiller compressed the core of this thankless constellation, in which the number decides over the mind, into a single line of his Demetrius:
“Majority is the folly of the world; good sense has ever dwelt with the few alone.”
Friedrich Schiller: Demetrius.14
Two Gifted Men, Two Paths — Thinking as the Switch
If it is not giftedness itself that decides over fortune or misfortune, then what? The answer of cognitive psychotherapy runs: the thinking that inserts itself between the experience and the feeling it produces. This connection is so fundamental that it must be intelligible here to every reader, gifted or not, for it is the key to nearly everything that follows.
Between what befalls us and how we feel about it there always stands a third thing: our evaluation. It is not things that disturb us, as the ancient philosopher Epictetus knew nearly two millennia ago, but our judgments about things.15 Cognitive psychotherapy has cast this thought into a simple schema: between the event - call it A - and the feeling that follows from it - call it C - there always stands the evaluation B. It is not A that causes C, but B.16 Two people to whom the same thing happens can therefore end up entirely differently — depending on what they think about it. And because thoughts can be changed, the feeling that follows from them can be changed as well. Therein lies the whole power of cognitive psychotherapy.
How great that power is no textbook example shows so vividly as a natural experiment that history itself has staged. In the mid-1970s, two supremely gifted men arrived, independently of each other, at one and the same diagnosis: technical civilization, both recognized, threatens something essential in man — his autonomy, his unmediated access to reality. The same A, the same clear sight, the same burden of seeing through. And then their paths diverged as radically as paths can diverge.
The one was Theodore Kaczynski, a mathematical prodigy, at sixteen at Harvard, a mind of rare sharpness. In him, perception curdles into paranoid grandiosity. He universalizes his own estrangement into a total theory, dehumanizes everyone who does not share his sight, and arrogates to himself the right to kill in the name of his insight. It is the mental figure of Raskolnikov in Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment — the “extraordinary man” who believes that whoever sees more may transgress the rules of the ordinary.17 His manifesto is by no means deranged but meticulously argued; that is precisely what makes it instructive. The giftedness is not absent here — it is the motor. It drives a dichotomous thinking that knows only system or freedom and nothing in between, a catastrophizing raised to metaphysics, and a false consensus turned negative, whose formula runs: everyone is deluded — except me.
The other was Joseph Weizenbaum, a computer scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, equally clear-sighted as to the dangers of the calculating machine. He had every reason to be alarmed, for he had observed, in his own work, how readily people ascribed human understanding to an utterly simple computer program - his chatbot ELIZA - indeed how ordinary people developed strong delusions in their interaction with a few lines of code.18 The same insight into the threat that drove Kaczynski into terror, Weizenbaum processed as a humane, self-critical warning. In 1976 he wrote his work Computer Power and Human Reason — not as an indictment of mankind but as a careful distinction between what the machine can do and what one may entrust to it: “from judgment to calculation.” He remained within the circle of reason, addressed his professional colleagues, endured the loneliness of the dissenter in his own field — and did not turn that loneliness into hatred.
Consider the symmetry of this experiment, for it is flawless. The same A — the perceived technical threat. Radically different B — here the paranoid, there the honest system of evaluation. And radically different C — here a series of letter bombs, there a canonical work of humane reflection. Giftedness is innocent at both outcomes. It was present in both, in rare measure; it was the amplifier, not the cause. Joined to distorted thinking, it produced Kaczynski. Joined to sound thinking, it produced Weizenbaum. What separates the two is not the gift but what they thought with it — and precisely here, at the system of evaluation B, is where cognitive psychotherapy sets to work.
Between these two poles - the bomber and the honest admonisher - lies a broad field known to clinical experience. Not everyone who misuses his giftedness reaches for violence. Far more common is the gifted person who makes his gift not a weapon but an instrument of self-elevation — who carries it before him like a medal and distills from his otherness a superiority. In associations that define themselves chiefly by the measured value of intelligence, one meets this type, in my experience, more often than the quiet, doubting thinker. This too is a cognitive error — only with the opposite sign: where the sufferer reads his otherness as proof of his defect, the narcissist reads it as proof of his greatness. Both have committed the same error; they have chained their worth to a number.
What Cognitive Psychotherapy Can Do for the Gifted
Whoever has followed this far has already grasped the essential: if thinking alone separates the two paths, then thinking is the place where something can be changed. That is precisely the work of cognitive psychotherapy. It does not touch the giftedness - it would be foolish to want to “cure” a gift - but corrects the system of evaluation that has made a burden of the gift. It removes the sickening cognitive errors, and by changing the thinking it puts the gifted person in a position to rehearse his experience and behavior anew himself.
The central operation in this is the decoupling of self-worth from the gift. So long as the gifted person fastens his worth to his measured ability, he is lost — whether he takes himself for a failure because he does not meet the standard, or for a superior because he exceeds it. Both distortions, the deflation of the sufferer and the inflation of the narcissist, are the same cognitive error in two directions, and cognitive psychotherapy resolves both with the same cut: it separates what a person is from what he can do. Only when this chain is severed does giftedness become again what it ought to be — a tool in the hand of a person who no longer has to define himself through that tool.
For this work the gifted person brings a rare precondition: the same quick grasp and steep learning curve that otherwise distinguish him make him, in cognitive psychotherapy, the ideal collaborator in his own cause. What is offered here is therefore not a protracted treatment but a psychological guidance toward self-help — an accompaniment on the way from sick to sound thinking, a way that the gifted person, once set on the right track, travels himself with remarkable speed.
How swiftly this way can be traveled, once the diagnosis is finally correct, is shown by the report of a physician who had wandered ten years through the health-care system before he recognized the true cause of his suffering. The psychoanalysts had certified him with a “narcissistic personality disorder” - a “grotesque misjudgment,” as he later wrote. Only cognitive psychotherapy connected with his symptoms what no one had seen for a decade: his giftedness.
“Rather, I had to recognize that my principal problems were typical of highly gifted people — never before had a psychotherapist connected my membership in this group with my symptoms. ‘The giftedness handicap’ and ‘social phobia’ were the terms Mr. Luchmann used, with caution, to describe my difficulties.”
Record of a Misdiagnosis — A Physician Experiences Psychotherapists and Psychotherapy. Psychotherapie. March 11, 2003.19
In two therapy blocks of a single weekend he accomplished the turn that had been denied him for ten years — not because someone treated him, but because he had learned to think differently. It is the way from the bookkeeping of grievance - “the world owes me recognition” - to responsibility for oneself: to the sober insight that it lies with oneself to make something of one's own gift. Immanuel Kant called this the “emergence from one's self-incurred immaturity.”20
The Limit of Psychotherapy — and the Dignity of Clear Sight
One thing, however, even the best cognitive psychotherapy cannot do: it cannot abolish the loneliness of clear sight. Whoever sees further than the majority will always remain, to some degree, alone with what he sees — that is no illness and no cognitive error, but the price of clarity. Yet here a precise distinction is needed. The loneliness itself, which is a fact, must be separated from the suffering that the gifted person adds to it: from the judgment that his estrangement proves his defect, from self-contempt, from depressive self-surrender. The first, psychotherapy cannot remove from the world. The second, it can dissolve entirely.
And in this distinction lies the real turn. It is not the loneliness that torments, but the judgment about it. Cognitive psychotherapy transforms the loneliness from a wound into a price — into the price of a clarity that no gifted person, had he the choice, would trade for the consoling blindness of the majority. Whoever has grasped this carries his loneliness no longer as a punishment but as a dignity. And then the sentence that stood over everything can at last be borne:
Whoever sees through the consoling illusions of the majority pays for it in loneliness.
Frequently Asked Questions About Giftedness and Psychotherapy
Can Giftedness Make You Mentally Ill?
It is not giftedness itself that makes you ill, but the cognitive errors with which the gifted person evaluates his otherness. Giftedness is an amplifier: joined to distorted thinking, it can favor anxiety disorders, social phobias, and depression. Cognitive psychotherapy removes these cognitive errors.
Why Do Many Gifted People Not Know That They Are Gifted?
The gifted person reasons from himself to others and takes his quick grasp for granted - the false consensus. He experiences only the friction with his environment, not its cause. So he reads the consequences of his giftedness as personal failure and looks for the cause in the wrong place.
Does Giftedness Lead to Anxiety Disorders, Social Phobia, or Depression?
On the statistical average, the gifted are socially and emotionally inconspicuous. At the extreme edge, and where there is no fit between giftedness and environment, the risk of anxiety, social phobia, and depression rises. The gifted often conceal these disorders artfully, which is why they go unrecognized.
How Does Cognitive Psychotherapy Help with the Giftedness Handicap?
It does not touch the giftedness but corrects the system of evaluation that has made a burden of the gift. Its central operation is the decoupling of self-worth from measured ability. The steep learning curve of the gifted makes this work quick and effective.
Can Psychotherapy Remove the Loneliness of Gifted People?
The loneliness of clear sight is not an illness and cannot be abolished. What cognitive psychotherapy dissolves is the suffering the gifted person adds to that loneliness — for example self-contempt and depressive self-surrender.
Written Cognitive Psychotherapy (WCP) by Dr. Dietmar Luchmann, LLC, provides assistance for self-help to enable the self-healing of psychological disorders:
1. Discover WCP
2. Take Suitability Assessment
3. Start Self-Therapy
1 Davidson, J.E.: Genius, Eminence, and Giftedness. In: Ramachandran, V.S. (Editor-in-Chief), Encyclopedia of Human Behavior. Second Edition. Volume 2: E-O. London: Academic Press, 2012, 221-227. [Original, p. 221: “Giftedness: Outstanding performance or capability in comparison with others of the same age, environment, or experience. Areas of high performance or potential include general intelligence, specific academic disciplines, leadership, creative, and/or artistic.”]
2 Terman, L.M.: Genetic Studies of Genius. 5 vols. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1925-1959.
3 Shurkin, J.N.: Terman's Kids. The Groundbreaking Study of How the Gifted Grow Up. Boston: Little, Brown, 1992.
4 Leslie, M.: The Vexing Legacy of Lewis Terman. Stanford Magazine, July/August 2000.
5 Rost, D.H. (ed.): Hochbegabte und hochleistende Jugendliche. Befunde aus dem Marburger Hochbegabtenprojekt. 2nd ed. Pädagogische Psychologie und Entwicklungspsychologie, vol. 72. Münster: Waxmann, 2009.
6 Hollingworth, L.S.: Children Above 180 IQ Stanford-Binet. Origin and Development. Yonkers-on-Hudson, N.Y.: World Book Company, 1942.
7 Terrassier, J.-C.: Les enfants surdoués ou La précocité embarrassante. Paris: Éditions ESF, 1981.
8 Dabrowski, K.: Positive Disintegration. Boston: Little, Brown, 1964. [Original, p. XVIII: “psychological examination of normal children in Warsaw public schools who were judged by their teachers to be above average in intelligence and well adapted has shown that about 80 per cent have different symptoms of nervousness and slight neurosis such as mild anxiety, phobias, inhibitions, slight tics, and various forms of overexcitability.” P. 6: “Loosening of structure occurs particularly during the period of puberty and in states of nervousness, such as emotional, psychomotor, sensory, imaginative, and intellectual overexcitability.”]
9 Clance, P.R.; Imes, S.A.: The Impostor Phenomenon in High Achieving Women. Dynamics and Therapeutic Intervention. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 1978, 15(3), 241-247.
10 Olenchak, R.; Jacobs, L.T.; Hussain, M.; Lee, K.; Gaa, J.: Giftedness Plus Talent Plus Disabilities. In: Ambrose, D.; Sternberg, R.J. (Eds.), Giftedness and Talent in the 21st Century. Advances in Creativity and Giftedness, Vol. 10. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, 2016, 255-279. [Original, p. 260: “Students who have to combat the anxiety that accompanies stereotype threat often shy away from challenging themselves academically, and such circumstances can cast a pathway for a lifelong, self-fulfilling prophecy of underachievement or failure ... When people are made aware of any negative stereotype (... giftedness, disabilities etc.) that could apply to them, they exert cognitive energy to ensure that the traits associated with that stereotype are suppressed ... Unfortunately, the executive processing functions being utilized to suppress stereotypical traits are the very functions needed to complete higher-level cognitive tasks. The ongoing navigation of a social landscape that devalues specific groups places a cumulative affective burden on gifted students who differ from the norm that shapes their social behavior and individual identity development.”]
11 Mueller, C.E.; Winsor, D.L.: Depression, Suicide, and Giftedness: Disentangling Risk Factors, Protective Factors, and Implications for Optimal Growth. In: Pfeiffer, S.I. (Ed.), Handbook of Giftedness in Children. Psychoeducational Theory, Research, and Best Practices. Second Edition. Cham, ZG, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 2018, 255-284. [Original, pp. 260f: “One way of looking at the propensity for depression among students with gifts, is that because they demonstrate advanced development, have more sophisticated reasoning ability, and have a heightened awareness of their surroundings that they somehow have a protective coating that exempts them from stress that can lead to emotional distress (e.g., depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation). Along this perspective gifted children and adolescents either do not get caught-up in the activities of daily life that are common place among developing preteens and teens; or they are more equipped to cope with the nuances persistent across all developing children and adolescents. On the other hand, it might seem counterintuitive to think that individuals who excel academically and who demonstrate high levels of self-control, curiosity; and who are ambitious, goal-directed and have such an interest in learning could actually be prone to feelings of depression (and suicide). However, the literature suggests that it is these very gifted characteristics that provide gifted students with amazing educational experiences that act as the catalysts for their social and emotional battles. For instance, they have higher than average tendencies toward perfectionism, therefore face challenges with more intensity and persistence; their higher aptitude potential often makes them struggle to see where and how they fit into their peer group; their heightened sensitivity makes them more emotionally vulnerable with stronger senses of awareness that foster selfdoubt and self-criticism; there level of maturity prevents them from adequate coping skills that lead to relationship conflicts that in turn can cause them to be introverted and isolate themselves in all contexts (i.e., home, school, and peers).”]
12 Cross, T.L.; Coleman, L.J.: School-Based Conception of Giftedness. In: Sternberg, R.J; Davidson, J.E. (Eds.), Conceptions of Giftedness. Second Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005, 52-63. [Original, p. 62: “The domains in which giftedness are recognized are reflective of society’s values and are subject to historical influences. ... Hence, people may be born with the potential to be gifted but many do not actually become gifted because to be gifted means to be gifted at something.”]
13 Heinsohn, G.: Wettkampf um die Klugen. Kompetenz, Bildung und die Wohlfahrt der Nationen. Zürich: Orell Füssli, 2019. [Original German, p. 96: “Die Befunde der Empiriker beleidigen unsere nobelsten Gleichheitsideale und höchsten pädagogischen Erwartungen, die wir - ich war allein schon von Berufs wegen Jahrzehnte dabei - doch für die gesamte Menschheit hegen und mit immer neuen Milliardenbeträgen herbeisubventionieren wollen. Noch ist das stetige pädagogische Scheitern kaum registriert oder gar verdaut. Noch sind gewaltige Bürokratien mit hohen Budgets unermüdlich an der Arbeit für jede nur denkbare Niveauanhebung. Sicher ist bisher nur, dass zum reichsten Menschen der Geschichte würde, wer endlich eine Pille oder Methode erfände, deren Verabreichung Durchschnittskinder in Matheasse transformiert.”]
14 Schiller, F.: Demetrius. In: Schillers Dramatischer Nachlaß. Edited from the manuscripts of the Goethe and Schiller Archive in Weimar by Gustav Kettner. Vol. 1: Schillers Demetrius. Weimar: Hermann Böhlau, 1895, p. 21. [Original German: “Mehrheit ist der Unsinn, Verstand ist stets bei wen'gen nur gewesen.”]
15 Epictetus: The Enchiridion, ch. 5. [English after the public-domain translation by Elizabeth Carter: “Men are disturbed not by the things which happen, but by the opinions about the things.” Cf. the German edition used by this journal: Epiktet, Teles, Musonius: Ausgewählte Schriften. Griechisch - Deutsch. Ed. and trans. by Rainer Nickel. Zürich: Artemis Verlag, 1994, p. 15.]
16 Ellis, A.: Reason and Emotion in Psychotherapy. New York: Lyle Stuart, 1962. [Albert Ellis formalized the Stoic idea in the ABC model of Rational Emotive Therapy: it is not the activating event (A) but the belief (B) that produces the emotional consequence (C).]
17 Dostoevsky, F.: Crime and Punishment [Преступление и наказание, 1866]. German edition: Verbrechen und Strafe. Zürich: Ammann Verlag, 1994. [In the original, pp. 350-352, Raskolnikov sets out his theory of the “extraordinary man,” who is permitted to transgress the rules binding the ordinary. On this view, extraordinary men have the right to overstep all obstacles when the realization of their idea requires it.]
18 Weizenbaum, J.: Computer Power and Human Reason. From Judgment to Calculation. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Company, 1976. — On the ELIZA effect, the triggering of strong delusions by a simple computer program, see the article: Luchmann, D.: Klientenzentrierte Gesprächspsychotherapie nach Carl Rogers. Psychotherapie. June 29, 2026.
19 Nordes, N.: Protokoll einer Fehldiagnose — ein Arzt erlebt Psychotherapeuten und Psychotherapie. Psychotherapie. March 11, 2003.
20 Kant, I.: An Answer to the Question: What Is Enlightenment? In: Berlinische Monatsschrift, December 1784, no. 12, 481-494. [Original German, p. 481: “Aufklärung ist der Ausgang des Menschen aus seiner selbstverschuldeten Unmündigkeit.”]
Your Comment
Do you have remarks, suggestions, or additions regarding this article? Do you have personal therapy experiences? We welcome substantial feedback.