My co-authors and I just published something in Clinical Psychology Review, and it's open access. It's called "One Size Fits None: A Call for an Idionomic Revolution." We put together a story that has been sitting in plain sight. Applied psychology has made painfully slow progress, and part of the reason traces back to the ergodic error and to the racist, sexist, and antisemitic roots of traditional biostatistics. The majority of American Psychological Association presidents from 1892 to 1947 were card carrying eugenicists. The laws that later shaped the Holocaust were written here in the United States two decades earlier, with the active support of mainstream psychology. Most textbooks treat this as distant history. Almost none notice that the same assumptions still quietly define what we call good science. This is an article of hope though. We lay out another way forward through the emerging science of idionomics, an approach that finally puts the individual client at the center. Do we know it will succeed? Honestly, no. But the path we have been on is scientifically and morally wrong, and if evidence based therapy is going to move ahead, it needs truly new ideas. Read it here, for free: authors.elsevier.com/c/1nkyr…