A little about the debate among psychologists on the topic: “Whose approach is better.” To begin with, we note that discussing which psychotherapeutic modality is better is like deciding whether a hammer, a screwdriver or a wrench is better. Everything has its own tasks and application points. There are many classifications of psychotherapeutic approaches, and there are even more of these same approaches: according to various sources, from 450 to 1000+. All these modalities are divided by subject, object, goal, task and, as a result, by methodology. Approaches can be long-term and short-term, procedural and non-procedural, paradigmatic and mixed, nosocentric and problem-oriented, phenomenological and criterion-based, etc. And so on. etc. There is psychotherapy, psychocorrection, psychological counseling, and there are still fierce debates about what is what and what it is. There are medical clinical models, humanitarian and philosophical paradigms, sets of bare techniques, without a fundamental theoretical basis for them. Some help solve momentary issues, others allow you to cope with the fundamental problems of existence, others make it possible to get rid of behavioral and personal characteristics that interfere with life. At the same time, there are also neuropsychologists involved in rehabilitation after brain accidents, psychologists in the field of education, crisis psychologists who help people in emergency zone, and such specialists who support somatic patients both during treatment and at the dying stage. Some are firmly convinced that everything is determined by a person’s childhood; others that sex and aggression rule the roost; still others need nothing more than stimulus and response; still others delve into intrusive thoughts and maladaptive beliefs; someone draws pictures, dances, crushes sand, etc. Most therapeutic schools are based on some theory of personality and concept of the psyche. However, let’s be honest, today there is no absolute and comprehensive theory, since the degree of knowledge of the physiological substrate of the psyche is far from complete. But it is not only and not so much humanity’s ignorance of its own brain that is responsible for such a motley variety of psychotherapeutic schools. The reason here is rather that all people are different , their conditions and pathologies are different, they come to us with different requests. Let’s not forget about the difference in cultures and environmental conditions in which our clients/patients live. A person with cluster B disorder from the USA will be very different from a patient with OCD from Nigeria. A client with BPD from Israel is not at all the same as a client with ASD from France. Yes, take two patients with an identical diagnosis from different... whatever... from the same country - they will be completely different people with different ideas about the world and a unique history. So Well, are we going to push them all exclusively into psychoanalysis, only into CBT, or purely into existentialism? Maybe everyone on the gestalt in orderly rows? Or let the psychiatrists give everyone haloperidol at the establishment’s expense, and no one will leave offended? No. Alas, it doesn’t work that way. Even as a psychotherapist of one modality, I was convinced that an individual approach should be selected for each person, for each of his problems, and having moved to the integrative multimodal model, I was even more strengthened in this opinion, creating, according to Essentially, there is a different therapy for everyone. Let's go back to where we started. A screw can be driven in with a hammer, a bolt can be pulled out with a screwdriver, or a nail can even be driven in with a wrench. However, wouldn't it be more logical to use the most suitable tool for each task? The only thing I have always opposed are approaches based on esoteric and theological concepts. Although the latter, in fact, is a type of philosophical trend. However, many colleagues do not agree with me, believing that if it helps, then it is permissible. Which, by the way, is their right. Moreover, I respect their opinion. It is only at the beginning of training that there are truths that must be accepted as true. When you have been in the profession for many years, many postulates become questions..