{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020924149956408022, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0017436791630340018, 'mean_word_length': 5.5227272727272725, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Why is formulation daunting? A response to Bagster et al.’s ‘instructions’ for developing skills in formulation

Objective: To explore the theme identified by Bagster et al.1 in their selective psychiatric literature review that formulation can appear daunting. Conclusion: Formulation is understandably daunting, even though it occurs in all human encounters. The plural nature of mental symptoms is such that anxiety-provoking intuitive judgement is required at all points in both the process and explication of formulation, a type of instinctive guessing. There are no rules for this, because the laws of vertical integration of systems are not established. Guidelines are more appropriate than ‘instructions’. Much of the wider mental health and clinical reasoning literature addresses intuitive judgement, but the current psychiatric literature tends to focus on pattern recognition as a deliberative cognitive act of Type 2 processes. Arguably this reductionism adds to the dauntingness. Anxiety detected about the intuitive judgement involved can be addressed in supervision, taking into account the psychological mindedness of the trainee.