What’s obvious is that 10, and 2 are not something you know in advance.
More importantly, I am guessing you don’t have any model that predictively associates whether you like person’s writing at a particular instance in time with their efficacy as a therapist.
They don't have to be. The principle holds generally, as long as there's some choice out there you'd like.
More importantly, I am guessing you don’t have any model that predictively associates whether you like person’s writing at a particular instance in time with their efficacy as a therapist.
I don't but you're moving the goalposts and asking a different question. I was talking about personal preferences (e.g. like/dislike), and you're talking about "efficacy as a therapist."
I'm also getting a vibe of a kind weird inversion from you, where it's the therapist's right to see a particular patient unless that patient can prove with a "model" that the therapist won't work for them.
No. You are advancing the position that the interests of people selecting therapists are served by newspapers publishing articles about their writings.
I think that if you ask people whether they would prefer a more effective therapist over a less effective one, most people would say they would prefer the more effective one.
Effectiveness as a therapist is part of how people form preference of therapists. Excluding it is arbitrary.
Nowhere do I suggest anything about therapists having any right to see any particular client. That idea is competely made up by you.