This paper presents comments on the article by D. Westen and J. Weinberger , which criticized academic clinical psychologists for being cynical about clinical judgment and clinical practice. In the authors' view, it seems unlikely that more than a few academic clinical psychologists believe that they have little to learn from clinical practice or experience. In this comment, the authors examine the arguments about clinical judgment made by Westen and Weinberger (2004). Westen and Weinberger (2004) conflate the effect of training with the effect of experience. Westen and Weinberger (2004) do not mention that the value of training in psychology has been well-supported by research. While Westen and Weinberger (2004) make positive comments about the types of feedback that clinicians receive, for a number of reasons, including the Barnum effect, psychologists can be misled by feedback. Westen and Weinberger (2004) also argue that "psychotherapists tend to have much more direct and immediate feedback than most other medical practitioners, who may prescribe a medication or perform a procedure and not see the patient again for a year" (p. 603). But when psychologists make a diagnosis or describe a personality trait, they frequently do not receive "direct and immediate feedback" on whether they are right or wrong. In contrast, physicians often receive highly valid feedback. Finally, in discussing the value of ratings made by clinicians, Westen and Weinberger (2004) observe that "empirically, the authors have found surprisingly little evidence of theory-driven observational bias in using clinician-report methods" (p. 601). The issue is important because Westen and Weinberger argue in favor of using clinician ratings to construct diagnostic criteria. If clinicians' ratings are biased, then the criteria will be biased.