I apologize if I frustrated your wish to get someone "associated with Control-Mastery to admit that there might be a problem." Please do not assume that I see Control-Mastery Theory as being PERFECT, because I don't. I see myself as a clinician and a psychotherapy researcher, but not a theoretician. By nature I lean in the empirical direction. As a clinician I study many theories. I prefer those that I find to be empirically useful in my clinical work. When I first encountered Control-Mastery Theory 18 years ago, I was looking for a theory that would help me directly in my work with patients. I wanted a theory that could help me organize the abundance of data patients present and also help the patients to get better. I have found Control-Mastery Theory to be profoundly useful to my aims. I also like the theory because it is TOTALLY CASE-SPECIFIC. I see Control-Mastery Theory as a simple method for establishing a detailed, CASE-SPECIFIC formulation for most any patient I have ever encountered. Because of the theory's case-specificity, generalizations are rare. Certainly developmental issues are relevant. Certainly attachment issues are relevant. Perhaps there are other relevant general issues. But overall, the theory is a simple theory that allows a COMPLEX CASE-SPECIFIC FORMULATION. I also like Control-Mastery Theory because once I get a picture of the three main areas of goals, pathogenic beliefs blocking the goals, ways the patient might test me in the transference, and insights that might be useful - then I am free to use my own personal style in whatever way is most natural for me. That makes each patient-therapist couple unique and also allows for many ways to help a patient with many different styles.
As with any theory, Control-Mastery Theory can be over-simplified, misunderstood, and misused. Earlier writings in the theory overly stressed guilt at the expense of many other emotions which are now included in current writings (See Joseph Weiss' recent article in "Psychoanalytic Dialogues" for a good example of how the writing has evolved over time.) I certainly have had my share of theoretical debates with colleagues within the group and we all have grown in the process. This process continues and we welcome all to join. Perhaps if you want tomake CMT "the most solidly grounded psychological theory on the planet," you should be the one to translate the writings into something more to your liking. I admit that I don't fully understand your use of "tactical" versus "strategic" goals. But I am an empiricist and choose this theory because it works for me. Since you are a theoretician, we may need you to do the work we need. Thank you for your comments. P. S. Send me your address so I can send you a reprint. You can critique the missing "strategic" goals and perhaps I will understand better what the "problem" is with CMT.