Agreed. If the credentials in their second comment were what qualified the statement in the first comment, why did they sign the first comment “licensed psychologist”, a title that doesn’t inherently qualify someone to speak to the pharmacological question.
The second comment is summarizing what they researched for their PsyD degree and partially explaining why therapist and psychologist are not synonymous.
I wasn’t super clear on the subject, so I did a bit of googling. It doesn’t look like any of the subjects in the second comment are required courses for a psychology degree. Apparently a psychologist isn’t a medical doctor and can’t prescribe medication. I don’t think that saying they are a psychologist would give any indication that they are qualified to speak to the subject.
My husband is a ClinPsyD and you’re right that those aren’t specific to that degree, but as psychologists specialise they tend to get advanced training which is probably where that comes in. My husband specialises in neuro, specifically brain injury and has done further diplomas that have included study of degenerative disorders, traumatic brain injury and other neuro specific diseases.
I know in the US some states allow psychologists to prescribe which I would assume requires some pharmacological training beyond a normal degree, so I would guess that’s what has happened here.
And this being the internet, of course they’re
qualified, why else would they rattle off a bunch of topics they’ve supposedly mastered? Surely no one on the internet would ever lie to win an argument!
People wonder why everyone on the internet is so full of shit, but then they take something like this at face value.
And the thing is, it’s actually somehow less cringe if they’re making the whole thing up. Healthy, well adjusted adults don’t argue with strangers on facebook, and they definitely don’t list random topics they’ve studied to “win” the argument. On reddit there used to be an allegory about pigeons and chess that applies here.
But my money is still on this person having no psychology degree whatsoever, because…I’m not new to the freakin’ internet. Cheap, unprovable claims to authority should be dismissed as easily as they’re written.
If you’re saying something factually verifiable or properly sourced then fine, but rattling off “credentials” to internet strangers is cringe af and always will be. I take it as an immediate sign that you’re not confident in your facts and are hoping to avoid or deflect scrutiny.
Agreed. Comments should only be valued as much as their inherent value in the eyes of the reader, or through the reputable sources they cite. Claimed external qualifications are pointless.
Agreed. If the credentials in their second comment were what qualified the statement in the first comment, why did they sign the first comment “licensed psychologist”, a title that doesn’t inherently qualify someone to speak to the pharmacological question.
The second comment is summarizing what they researched for their PsyD degree and partially explaining why therapist and psychologist are not synonymous.
I wasn’t super clear on the subject, so I did a bit of googling. It doesn’t look like any of the subjects in the second comment are required courses for a psychology degree. Apparently a psychologist isn’t a medical doctor and can’t prescribe medication. I don’t think that saying they are a psychologist would give any indication that they are qualified to speak to the subject.
My husband is a ClinPsyD and you’re right that those aren’t specific to that degree, but as psychologists specialise they tend to get advanced training which is probably where that comes in. My husband specialises in neuro, specifically brain injury and has done further diplomas that have included study of degenerative disorders, traumatic brain injury and other neuro specific diseases.
I know in the US some states allow psychologists to prescribe which I would assume requires some pharmacological training beyond a normal degree, so I would guess that’s what has happened here.
And this being the internet, of course they’re qualified, why else would they rattle off a bunch of topics they’ve supposedly mastered? Surely no one on the internet would ever lie to win an argument!
People wonder why everyone on the internet is so full of shit, but then they take something like this at face value.
And the thing is, it’s actually somehow less cringe if they’re making the whole thing up. Healthy, well adjusted adults don’t argue with strangers on facebook, and they definitely don’t list random topics they’ve studied to “win” the argument. On reddit there used to be an allegory about pigeons and chess that applies here.
But my money is still on this person having no psychology degree whatsoever, because…I’m not new to the freakin’ internet. Cheap, unprovable claims to authority should be dismissed as easily as they’re written.
If you’re saying something factually verifiable or properly sourced then fine, but rattling off “credentials” to internet strangers is cringe af and always will be. I take it as an immediate sign that you’re not confident in your facts and are hoping to avoid or deflect scrutiny.
Agreed. Comments should only be valued as much as their inherent value in the eyes of the reader, or through the reputable sources they cite. Claimed external qualifications are pointless.