Hi!  I have made a mock discussion board for you to reply to. You will be responding to a fake colleague named "Kimly

The marking rubric for this assignment is as follows:
"Graded Discussion Rubric 2024
Graded Discussion Rubric 2024
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeContribution to dialogue
You should make multiple post that contribute to a dialogue. Posts should respond to posts already on the thread and connect, critique, extend or elaborate on the posts it follows. Posts should contain on-topic content – addressing the discussion questions and/or replying to another student to extend the discussion. Posts should reference or continue content already in a thread.
Posts should not be an “essay” that blocks other responses. Posts should not “broadcast” ideas while ignoring the flow of conversation in the thread.
Tone must be respectful.
40 to >31.98 Pts
HD
Multiple posts connect intelligently and respectfully with conversation and makes an original contribution that progresses the dialogue. Acknowledges/references persons and ideas in the discussion
31.98 to >27.98 Pts
D
Posts make relevant and meaningful contributions that clearly connect with the discussion. Shows some original content/thinking.
27.98 to >23.98 Pts
C
Posts make relevant contributions to discussion, clearly connecting with previous posts or ideas in the thread.
23.98 to >19.98 Pts
P
Post(s) is relevant/on topic.
19.98 to >0 Pts
N
No post or posts fail connect and contribute to the thread.
40 pts
This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeLinks to unit content, source citation
Your posts should make links to or cite specific ideas in assigned readings, lectures, and other lesson content relevant to the discussion. You do not need to agree with the course material but posts should integrate or critique lesson content. Marks may also be awarded if the post cites/links relevant sources outside the unit (e.g., news media, academic article) which contribute to the discussion.
20 to >15.99 Pts
HD
Excellent selection of relevant and appropriate concepts/sources to illustrate or support points. Concepts/sources are well understood and correctly applied. Sources/citations are clear.
15.99 to >13.99 Pts
D
Good selection of relevant sources, although there may be better selections for some areas. Post indicates concepts are generally correctly understood. Source/citation is clear.
13.99 to >11.99 Pts
C
Sources used are generally appropriate/relevant. One or two important concepts may have been overlooked or misinterpreted. Source/citations usually given.
11.99 to >9.99 Pts
P
Sources/concepts used are of marginal relevance. Over-reliance on one key source. Source misunderstood.
9.99 to >0 Pts
N
No post. Little or no reference to sources or concepts from the unit
20 pts
This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeCritical thinking
Your posts should collectively display integration, comparison, and/or analysis and critical thinking about the unit content; logically connect ideas across the discussion thread with lesson aims or broader unit themes; and provide critical evaluation of concepts raised in the discussion.
40 to >31.99 Pts
HD
Outstanding evaluation of source material/theory/data. Appropriate framework has been selected and thinking shows sensitivity to complexities of the issues. Strong synthesis/connections show deep understanding of concepts/argument.
31.99 to >27.99 Pts
D
Good evaluation of source material/theory/data. Consistent logical approach or use of appropriate framework. Synthesis/connections shows developed understanding of concepts/argument.
27.99 to >23.99 Pts
C
Sound evaluation of source material/theory/data. Logical arguments or appropriate frameworks applied. Synthesis/connections evidence a developing understanding of concepts/argument.
23.99 to >19.99 Pts
P
Some evaluation of source material/theory/data and connections with discussion. Generally coherent/logical argument. Synthesis/connections show some understanding of key concepts.
19.99 to >0 Pts
N
No post. Little or no critical thinking.
40 pts
Total points: 100"

Kimly Ly:
When thinking about the influence of Freud, Rogers, and behavioural therapy on modern psychological therapy, it’s clear that each approach has left a lasting mark on the field.

Freud’s psychoanalysis introduced the idea of the unconscious mind and early life experiences shaping our behaviour. While we don’t see psychoanalysis as widely practiced today, his influence is still evident in modern psychodynamic therapies. Freud’s theories are fascinating, but they’re often criticised for being difficult to measure scientifically and lacking empirical support (also a bit off-putting to consider)

In contrast, Carl Rogers' humanistic therapy changed the way we approach the therapist-client relationship. His focus on empathy, unconditional positive regard, and the idea that clients have the innate ability to find their own solutions made therapy feel more collaborative and person-centred. This approach might not be the most “scientific” by today’s standards, but it revolutionised how therapists engage with their clients on a personal level. I like to think I would adopt some aspects of his approach when I begin practising as well, as that is what I find most engaging/ valuable when speaking to a clinician myself.

However, when we look at behavioural therapy (and more specifically, CBT), this is where we see the biggest influence on modern therapy. CBT focuses on changing thought patterns and behaviours and is highly structured, short-term, and evidence-based. Its effectiveness across a wide range of mental health conditions has been well-documented in research, making it the go-to for many clinicians today. Since its breakthrough though, I think there have been a lot more therapies that have been developed that work better for certain disorders (e.g., OCD, complex trauma), and CBT is definitely not the catch-all treatment! I have heard great things about DBT, ACT and EDMR and would love to learn more about it.

Should therapy have a scientific basis?
This is where it gets interesting. On one hand, having a scientific basis (like CBT) ensures that therapy is effective and backed by evidence, which is absolutely essential to ensure we are doing right by the client and also development in our understanding and work in a field. But on the other hand, therapy is deeply personal. The human connection, empathy, and trust between therapist and client—things that are harder to quantify—are just as critical to the healing process. So, while science is important, there’s an argument that therapy also needs to embrace the complexity of human experience, which sometimes goes beyond what can be measured.

I guess my answer to this question is to raise another one... Should therapy prioritise scientific evidence, or is there room for a more holistic, relational approach even if it’s harder to measure?"

Here, we will be responding to kimly