We value the psychology of elements by Wundt no less than the Gestaltpsychology. We arecognize the findings of learning theory like the findings of cognitive and depth psychology. We don't allow anyone to impose an either-or on us.

We accept the nomothetic theory of science as well as the ideographic approach: We are neither empiric nor hermeneutic. We are both empiric and hermeneutic. We don't object to statsistics nor to mathematics, but we object to scientistic games and cheap showmanship.

We accept case studies as well as group tests, we need the laboratory and the field. We neither make the past and early child influences absolute nor the here and now.

We don't accept a contrast of directive and non-directive, for us it is a continuum of more or less. We insist on the right to take up a psychotherapeutic position according to the situation and the purpose.

Generally we see the individuum in her/his sozio-ecological network. We follow the requirement of abstinence without drying out emotionally or mistaking patients as mere "cases". Ideologically we try to be as neutal as possible. Therapy aims at becoming redundant and qualifying patients to become experts of their own (> Reader Mahony⁽²⁾) to create real quality of life. This indivates for example: to get up early in the morning and be able to look forward to the coming day, and in the evening to have impression og havin spent a day worth living.

We don't need gurus. The GIPT needs many to build up the erected shell, and yet we will never be finished. Everbody wanting to get out of the limits of narrow schools is welcome.

Our image of man is realistic: man is able for good and bad and psychotherapists are naturally the same. In good societies it is the best for everybody to watch everybody; this the more, the more power someone has, as power is dangerous and all of us are delicate. Thus supervision as continuus training are life principles.

⁽¹⁾ Manifesto according to Sponsel 1995, p.42, 2nd footnote.
⁽²⁾ Reader Mahoney in Sponsel 1995, p. 629-630

Which form of therapy (psychoanalysis, behavioural therapy, Gestalt therapy, Rogerian therapy, etc) has the best chances to get to the therapeutic goals for this patient, this problem and this frame of reality in accordance with the available means and the ethic norms?

Which methods and techniques from all experiences of the psychological medicine have the best chances to get to the therapeutic goals for this patient, this problem and this frame of reality in accordance with the available means and the ethic norms?

From our GIPT-point of view it is not adequate to "adapt" (or better to subject) patients to schools of therapy, their limits and dogmas. Basically this is a professional error. It should be the other way round: the available methods and techniques have to be adapted to the individual and unique personality of the patient, to her/his life, to her/his background, to her/his problems and to her/his and our frame of reality.