Almost any meaningful and valuable explanatory hypothesis in the realm of psychopathology can be corrupted into a caricature if it is applied indiscriminately as a one-size fits all. /1

For any explanatory perspective, there are areas where it applies well (serves a primary role in offering an explanation), areas where it applies partially (where it may be relevant but not adequate/sufficient as an explanation), and areas where it doesn’t apply at all. /2

For example, Irvin Yalom’s existential approach sees psychiatric distress as a product of existential anxiety that comes from confronting life's “givens”: mortality, isolation, meaninglessness, and freedom. /3

There are definitely many cases where it applies well & there are definitely many cases where this perspective is relevant, contributing to distress is some fashion, & worth exploring. The widespread admiration for Yalom’s work speaks for its applicability. /4

But the same perspective becomes unreasonable if it declares itself THE answer for any and all situations. What was a useful tool for exploration & understanding, mindful of its limitations, becomes an oppressive doctrine (Yalom, wisely, doesn’t do that) /5

A mistake seen repeatedly in psychiatry & psychology is that explanations are stripped of their contextual utility & validity, and applied as blunt instruments without discrimination & without any sense of the boundaries of their applicability. /6