I just wanted to touch on two points and do so without introducing conflict:
#1: My beef has never been concerned with someone criticising tek, but only that certain peope insist that others must agree with them that said tek is bad. You covered this point in a post you wrote a couple of posts back and what you said made sense.
I am in the camp with Carmelo, Leon and some others that caring communication, with no rigid formatted patter can cause a betterment in another person. It is one person genuinely caring about another person, being there with them, caring, really intending to help them and listening carefully to what they are saying. Someone skilled at this can direct the person's attention to a specific area and the person being helped will often be able to see something new and achieve some betterment.
#2 - As you say, "It isn't hard and it isn't complicated." As to wheter it is tek or not, it doesn't have to be called tek but I see nothing wrong with calling it that.
In my life, I have not seen a whole lot of this type of activity going on in society. A very few seem to have a knack for doing it but if one just listens to talk radio or panel discussions on TV one will not generally find it there. Instead one will find mainly a lot of "make wrong", talking over others and trying to enforce an agenda upon them. Society is also now taking medical drugs to achieve betterment.
The ability to help another through communication does not seem to be a skill which is intrinsic to most humans. It has to be taught to most of us and not everyone is interested in learning it. I see how this technique could be referred to as tek. It could just as easily be called by another name or left unnamed. There is a technique involved here and theories exist as to why it produces results. To that degree calling it tek is not out of line. Freud and Jung were earlier pioneers in the field and much much earlier there were Plato and Socrates.