Hold Dr. Keith Ablow Responsible... NOW!

This is physically painful for me to say, but, ( I can't believe I'm doing this) We are acually in agreement.
Now excuse me while I go flush out my gray matter.

LOL!

To be fair though, Oprah is about as much a liberal as Toby Keith is a conservative.

They're both outlandish cartoon characters. Attributing their behavior to the "ideology" of the left or the right is just silly.

I'll second that. A big BOOOO!!! to these two hacks, Ablow and "doctor" Phil...

Whoa whoa whoa, let's not go overboard here.

Psychology isn't a hard science, to be sure, but you wouldn't you agree that it's closer to physics than it is to fashion?

Dissociative personality disorder, schizophrenia and hundreds of various non-medical diseases are both real and have been treated with various therapies and techniques.

Psychology can have a lot of bunk in it, but it is way out of line to say it's a pseudoscience.

And read what I said at the top of the thread too.

I would like to say that it does more good than harm but the standards by which psychologist are measured are wildly subjective. Also, I said psychology not psychiatry. In most cases a psychologist can not administer medication for more organic brain disorders. A psychologist really can not help a schizophrenic. I wish they could because the state of the medication is not the best. A psychiatrist can make someone with a physical brain disorder symptom's more manageable and render them more socially acceptable but at a very high cost to the patient's health. There is science involved in psychiatry but it is in its infancy because although we have more tools than ever to study the brain, it is infinitely complex. Each individuals chemical make up is like a snowflake, which makes prescribing medication a crapshoot that must be closely monitored.

In my own experience, I have met more psychologists that are akin to the Dr. Phils and Keith Ablows of the world than competent professionals. I have actually met tarot card readers that I think are more in tune with their client's needs than most of the psychologists that I know.

Closer to physics than fashion? Only in competent practitioners. A fashion show would be more productive and less damaging than a session with a bad psychologist.

It would be out of line if there were only good psychologists, but many of the people that gravitate to the profession are doing it to try to heal their own psychic wounds. I am certainly not saying that they are all bad, but the standards are very subjective. It makes ratings and evaluations really more based on one or a group's values than actual hard evidence of progress.

And television psychologists are the WORST because they are usually not accredited, but look good for a camera. Keith Ablow would probably make my head explode so I refuse to listen to evaluate, but the things that make the news are more than enough. Dr. Phil!! I have had the displeasure of being in a doctor's waiting room while that quack was on the air and I lost count of how many breaches of ethical behavior and bad advice occurred.

My apologies to the very decent and competent psychologists out there. I know you are out there. Your TV counterparts and very bad ones do have a tendency to make your chosen career look really bad.

Ablow is an MD with a speciality in psychiatry, His inability to understand gender orientation would but him at odds with the AMA.

Like any other tool , it can be used for good or bad
Ablow-Bad!

There is no doubt that it can get results. What matters is whose hands are wielding that tool, the healers, or the propagandists and corporate marketers. Ablow and his ilk fall under thelater.

There's a lot of stuff to address here, so this post will be long.

"I would like to say that it does more good than harm but the standards by which psychologist are measured are wildly subjective."

That's why they have a board called the AMA which holds them to very strict guidelines. It is VERY easy to lose your practicing license.

" Also, I said psychology not psychiatry."

That's funny because it's becoming more common consensus that the opposite is true, that psychiatry is bunk and that psychology is far more practical. Psychiatrists often ignore serious mental problems in favor of applying dangerous medication that only staves off what could be a serious underlying issue.

And it obviously doesn't need to be said how shady their relationships with pharmaceutical companies can be.

"In most cases a psychologist can not administer medication for more organic brain disorders."

Were it that serious of a problem, neither could a psychiatrist really. You'd need to see a real doctor, because that wouldn't be a mental issue. And it would be silly to think that psychologists would be oblivious to something like that.

"In my own experience, I have met more psychologists that are akin to the Dr. Phils and Keith Ablows of the world than competent professionals. I have actually met tarot card readers that I think are more in tune with their client's needs than most of the psychologists that I know."

I'm sorry to hear that, but that has nothing to do with the competency or validity of the field, which has mountains of useful research in it.

There are plenty of bad doctors and engineers too, but I'm not about to discard modern medicine or technology because of that.

"Closer to physics than fashion? Only in competent practitioners."

This was meant to be a comparison of its relationship to hard science. If you seriously think this, you are fiercely ignorant of the findings of the field and sharply biased about its practical results.

"It would be out of line if there were only good psychologists, but many of the people that gravitate to the profession are doing it to try to heal their own psychic wounds."

It's out of line because there are good ones, and because even if they were all bad that has nothing to do with the validity of its research. What's really out of line is your latter statement, which you can in no way substantiate.

"I am certainly not saying that they are all bad, but the standards are very subjective."

Just to reiterate, they follow strict standards that are not subjective. You don't follow the AMA guidelines, you lose your license, Just like medicine.

"I have had the displeasure of being in a doctor's waiting room while that quack was on the air and I lost count of how many breaches of ethical behavior and bad advice occurred."

I don't dispute that, but you said it yourself, he's not an accredited psychologist. He's lost his license. He may as well be a tv psychic.

"My apologies to the very decent and competent psychologists out there. I know you are out there. Your TV counterparts and very bad ones do have a tendency to make your chosen career look really bad."

I understand your skepticism and vitriol towards the psychological field if that's where you got your impressions from, but please understand that actual practitioners are not like that.

Psychologists are board certified by individual states. They may use AMA guidelines but enforcement of said guidelines are only as good as the state that the license is issued and reporting methods. Yes, they may lose their licenses like any other medical practitioner, but enforcement is also a very precarious system depending on location and local politics. They are also human and they are as good or as bad as they are. This goes for any profession.

The fashion comment was just me being flippant. But I stand by the sentence "A fashion show would be more productive and less damaging than a session with a bad psychologist." in any case where someone is seriously disturbed and seeing an incompetent psychologist. Unfortunately, I have seen people needlessly damaged, misdiagnosed and badly medicated due to bad practitioners.

I am coming from a social work background working professionally with the mentally ill. I have worked in Nursing homes, HIV/AIDS care facilities and have close family that have been victimized by psychiatry and psychology. I may very well be terribly biased. I have seen more harm than good in a 26 year career. Not to say that there has been nothing positive, because I do believe that under ideal situations, psychology is a useful and beneficial tool. I have just rarely seen ideal situations. I will also say, in all fairness, that it is not an easy job to have the responsibility of the mental well being of an individual.

TV psychologists aside, I am skeptical of the profession based on dependence upon diagnostic tools that can be easily misinterpreted. And of course, I am even more suspicious of the pharmaceutical industry's hand in a proliferation of mental health disorders that now seem to require medication without regard to the "do no harm" aspect of medicine when a profit motive is clouding judgement.

Honestly, I will be the first to admit that I have some bias, but it is not something that I just pulled out of my ass. I do have experience in a related field.

The subject was TV douche bags pretending to be credible and because they anger me so much, maybe I was a bit harsh on the whole profession.

Just an added note, since my experience is primarily with the poor and the poor are generally treated badly, this may be another reason for my less than enthusiastic view.

:)

Fair enough, I just wanted to make sure your personal experience wasn't getting in the way of a sound judgment. ;)

Personal experience does have a way of doing that. ;) Thanks for paying attention.

Well, Cher should look in the mirror too because she has also been really insensitive to Chaz (at least that is what I hear)...

Where did you hear that? I haven't, maybe I missed it.

I bet Cher shows up in the audience to see Chaz dance though

They do?