--- In [email protected], Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
<snip>
> Judy, I haven't replied to your post yet because I
> read it once and when I returned to it the next day it
> was gone because for some reason I only can keep a
> certain number of post in my mail box.
There's always the FFL Web site, Peter.
Your original
> argument was ridiculous when you claimed that I had
> violated some sort of confidentiality with Richard and
> could only say what I did if I had his informed
> consent.
If you did read the post even once that you claim
you lost, you know that the one you refer to above
was *not* my "original argument" (or my "seed post,"
as you called it earlier). The part about
confidentiality was from a later post, and *in
context*, it was not at all ridiculous. But you've
taken it out of context and distorted it to make
it *sound* ridiculous, I assume because you don't
want to have to deal with the actual point I was
making.
<snip>
> Your second argument, however, does have some merit
> IMHO. It refers to behavior by psychologists in a
> non-professional context where some people could
> attribute more authority to their words or behaviors
> because they know they are a psychologist. The APA
> struggles with this one to.
OK, so you've known all along what my objection
was and have just been pretending not to.
In this instance with
> Richard I basically was calling him crazy using
> rhetorical excess based upon my knowledge of
> psychological disorders and medications to treat those
> disorders. The intent of this was a clever insult.
Calling it "rhetorical excess" is disingenuous.
There was no indication in your post that you
meant the comment rhetorically, let alone that
it was "excessive." It was phrased very
straightforwardly using clinical lingo; and you
appeared to want it to be understood as a
professional diagnosis because you said, "I kid
you not"; and you prefaced it "With respect..."
> Some of you took this way too seriously and assumed I
> was seriously diagnosing Richard and then revealing
> some sort of confidence in asking him to return to a
> specific anti-psychotic medication. It was a joke.
You seem to think the fact that you intended it
as a joke or a "clever insult" somehow makes it all
OK. It does not, and furthermore it's disingenuous
considering that you made an apparent effort to lead
readers to believe you were dead serious.
> Abuse of power? I could see how it could be taken this
> way. But it seems that Richard as well as many other
> got my intent.
I got your intent, as you'll see if you can bring
yourself to bother to look up my original post. But
that intent made it *more* unethical, not less.
> Others misunderstood it and I
> understand why they did.
THAT'S WHY YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE SAID IT, because it
was so likely to be misunderstood--and again, you
tried to make it appear that you were serious, so
you can hardly blame anybody for taking you at your
word.
Frankly, Peter, I don't believe you didn't intend
it to be taken seriously. I think you weren't just
insulting Richard, I think you were playing dirty
pool, using your credentials as a psychologist to
lead people to believe you really considered Richard
psychotic. I think all this about rhetorical excess
and insults and jokes is some rather desperate
backpedaling on your part because you know you
should never have said what you did.
> But apologize? PLEASE!
It wasn't I who said you should apologize, FWIW.
But it wouldn't be a bad idea at all. You need
to acknowledge that you *did* abuse your
authority for the sake of causing discomfort to
someone you don't like.
Just for the record, here's the post you "lost":
Peter, I'll go through it again for you. PLEASE
make an effort to follow what I'm saying.
It's unethical because it's quite literally
impossible for you to make a comment on somebody's
mental health without its having the authority of
your professional expertise behind it in the minds
of everyone who knows your credentials and what you
do for a living. You don't somehow lose that aura
of authority just because you're posting informally.
You could have said "You're crazy, dude" and it
wouldn't have been so problematic. But you used
professional lingo, characterizing his purported
symptoms as those of a "mild psychosis." And you
mentioned a brand-name antipsychotic drug as
purportedly one he had been prescribed.
It *sounded* like a professional diagnosis, and
you said "with respect" and "I kid you not," as
if you intended it to be taken as such.
As nonprofessionals, we aren't in a position to
know whether what you said was accurate. And there
was no way for us to tell, given the apparent
seriousness with which you said it, that *you*
really didn't have any better idea than we do
whether he's psychotic or not.
Again, you can't just discard your aura of
authority *unless you do so explicitly*. When you
explicitly *do the opposite* ("I kid you not"),
you reinforce that aura in the minds of your
audience. You gave us no clue that what you said
wasn't to be taken as your professional opinion,
regardless of the fact that you weren't speaking
in a professional capacity.
Those of us who harbor the suspicion that there's
something really wrong with him (other than being
an obnoxious jerk who gives himself way too much
credit for shedding light on the issues we discuss
here) would have felt their suspicion was confirmed.
That's grossly unfair to him.
And if it were to get out onto the grapevine
without being accompanied by your current demurral,
it could conceivably have very negative effects on
his social relationships and even his career. If
*he* were to take you seriously, it could be very
damaging to his self-confidence.
Realistically, neither is likely, but you simply
can't take that risk just for the sake of venting
your own frustration with him.
>From another post:
> People seem to be making statements about others'
> "mental health" all the time on this board.
Of course they do. And exactly how much weight do
such statements carry in readers' minds? We aren't
professionals; how the hell would we know whether
somebody has a genuine problem with their mental
health? We take such opinions for what they're
worth, i.e., almost nothing.
Coming from you, however, couched in professional
lingo, such a statement is a whole 'nother kettle of
fish. It carries a great deal more weight, whether
you intend it to or not--and especially when you say
of it, "I kid you not."
> I do not
> have a professional relationship with Richard, nor do
> I post in any sort of professional capacity. Perhaps I
> hit to close to home regarding your feelings regarding
> Richard.
To the contrary, as I've explained in several of my
posts on this. Those of us who have had the longest
exposure to him (and even some who've encountered
him only briefly) are pretty sure he makes these
ridiculous claims deliberately, knowing full well
they're ridiculous, as a means of getting us to think
differently about the issues they address (as Shemp
pointed out).
That doesn't mean we don't find him a royal pain in
the butt. I think most of us share your frustration
with him. (*Some* of us also get frustrated with
those who continue to think he believes what he says.)
>From another post:
> > But even if his posts *do* "approach psychotic
> > ramblings," Peter, as a mental health professional,
> > has absolutely *NO* business saying so publically
> > without his informed consent.
>
> Judy, I finally found your "seed" post regarding this
> matter. "Informed consent" can only be given when
> there is a professional relationship between a patient
> and, in this case, a doctor.
(The post you're quoting from wasn't my "seed post."
It was well down the line. My "seed post" is #147874.)
Note the first part of my sentence: "EVEN IF his posts
*do* "approach psychotic ramblings...": in other words,
if you *were* making a serious professional diagnosis,
it would be *worse* that you were doing so without
having a professional relationship with him.
If you still don't get it, Peter, I'd suggest you
check with a couple of colleagues you respect who
would be capable of giving you an objective take on
the situation (not close pals who might be be biased
in your favor).
And note that I'm not saying you breached the APA's
code of ethics; that concerns only your conduct in
the course of your professional activities, not
your private ones. But that doesn't mean your
private activities somehow get carte blanche and
cannot be unethical in a more general sense.
As I keep saying--and this is really the salient point--
you can't *not be*, even in your private activities,
a person with the professional expertise to give your
statements about an individual's mental health far more
weight than if they came from a nonprofessional.
Concerning this incident specifically, it probably
*is* making a mountain out of a molehill to
object to what you said. But if you don't have the
ethical awareness to know it was wrong *in principle*
to say it about this person, you may well do it
about somebody else in the future in a way that
causes a great deal of harm. So it's very much worth
hashing out, IMHO.
I personally just find it appalling that you don't
instinctively know what the problem is, that you
have to have it explained to you.
