Adversarial collaboration for therapy debates

Two clinicians with opposing priors (one skeptical of CBT’s dominance, one defending its flexibility) publicly converse and produce an agreed summary table, showing adversarial collaboration can clarify points of real disagreement and common ground in contested clinical debates. This is a low‑cost, replicable method to reduce polarization within professional fields and improve public guidance. — If adopted more widely, this method could improve transparency in contested medical or psychological debates, reduce overconfidence in single approaches, and produce clearer guidance for patients and policymakers.