Agreed. If the credentials in their second comment were what qualified the statement in the first comment, why did they sign the first comment âlicensed psychologistâ, a title that doesnât 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 wasnât super clear on the subject, so I did a bit of googling. It doesnât look like any of the subjects in the second comment are required courses for a psychology degree. Apparently a psychologist isnât a medical doctor and canât prescribe medication. I donât 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 youâre right that those arenât 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 thatâs what has happened here.
And this being the internet, of course theyâre
qualified, why else would they rattle off a bunch of topics theyâve 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, itâs actually somehow less cringe if theyâre making the whole thing up. Healthy, well adjusted adults donât argue with strangers on facebook, and they definitely donât list random topics theyâve studied to âwinâ 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, becauseâŠIâm not new to the freakinâ internet. Cheap, unprovable claims to authority should be dismissed as easily as theyâre written.
If youâre saying something factually verifiable or properly sourced then fine, but rattling off âcredentialsâ to internet strangers is cringe af and always will be. I take it as an immediate sign that youâre 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 âlicensed psychologistâ, a title that doesnât 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 wasnât super clear on the subject, so I did a bit of googling. It doesnât look like any of the subjects in the second comment are required courses for a psychology degree. Apparently a psychologist isnât a medical doctor and canât prescribe medication. I donât 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 youâre right that those arenât 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 thatâs what has happened here.
And this being the internet, of course theyâre qualified, why else would they rattle off a bunch of topics theyâve 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, itâs actually somehow less cringe if theyâre making the whole thing up. Healthy, well adjusted adults donât argue with strangers on facebook, and they definitely donât list random topics theyâve studied to âwinâ 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, becauseâŠIâm not new to the freakinâ internet. Cheap, unprovable claims to authority should be dismissed as easily as theyâre written.
If youâre saying something factually verifiable or properly sourced then fine, but rattling off âcredentialsâ to internet strangers is cringe af and always will be. I take it as an immediate sign that youâre 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.