My objection was that he said he was coming from a “diagnostic perspective,” and then proceeded to opine that no one in the TSA could possibly be qualified. Which, unless one has actually evaluated everyone in the TSA, or at a minimum, read reliable research from someone who has, is a baseless statement that one should not associate with the term “diagnostic perspective” unless one is just trying to sound more puffed up and important than one really is. Which reflects poorly on the field of professional mental health, and is the kind of thing one is ethically required not to do if one is a practitioner.
Yes, I see that you’re a licensed real estate agent.
I bet that makes you very, very qualified to counsel people. [koff] sorry, I mean “coach,” aka “counseling done by people who didn’t want to bother to go to school and sit for a licensing exam.”
Citation very much fucking needed. I probably couldn’t stun an ox with the stack of textbooks I could pull out just within my arm’s reach that provide current, real-word, long-term efficacy research, but I could definitely make you jump up and down a bit if I dropped them on your instep. If I added the journals that include meta-analyses that show NLP is junk science, you might even need some actual “Western Medicine.”
No, but seriously, don’t bother. I don’t show up where you work and tell you how to scam people out of their money, so don’t try to tell me my job, hmm?
1 Like
When you think who certifies people is relevant, it warrants derailing topics over. But when I think who certifies people is relevant, you get dismissive. The questions were not merely “just”, they were essential. If you disagree because you “profess” to something, that’s your problem. I don’t ask questions to trolley, I do it because they’re worth thinking about. Counter them with something of substance instead of coercive, conformist BS.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
