Like Tom, I am struggling with the difference between Joe's written theory and how he was during consultation. When I'm teaching people seemed turned off by the language used in the articles until I liven it up with a charismatic presentation. In response to the reading I thought that perhaps the authors are struggling with the seemingly magical part of infering a plan. Sometimes there does seem to be an omnipotence on the part of the therapist which can feel like a burden. Nonetheless, with that said there is still too much emphasis (largley unconscious) in psychoanaysis on things like secondary gains and insidious drives.Though it may not do it in an elegant fashion, CMT benefits the field by focusing on the inherent drive toward wellness.
One thing I liked in the artcle was the idea that people start to identify with their pathogenic beliefs. They point out that you cannot attack them too violently at times because patients can feel lost or criticized. I think that Joe in his clinical work balanced this very well and made sure that people felt taken seriously. I don't know of any written discussion of the nuances of challenging beliefs.
Rebecca Stoller(aka Webster)