Re: ETHICAL ISSUE? "Bush on the Couch" by Justin Frank, M.D.

[Christopher D. Green]

It would appear that you didn't read my whole post. I'm not much of a  defender of clinical psychology either. Nevertheless, clinical psych's one big advantange over "profiling" is that its practitioners actually see and converse with their objects of  interest rather than guessing on the basis of a very impoverished set of after-the-fact evidence. As a historian of psychology, I am often astonished by the ways in which is harkens back to the 19th century attempt to define "criminal types." Would that life were so neatly organized! Regards, -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, Ontario, Canada M3J 1P3 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] phone: 416-736-5115 ext. 66164 fax: 416-736-5814 http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ ============================ . Rick Adams wrote: Christopher Green wrote:   ============== Yes, I recall clearly the utterly inaccurate profile for the "lone white gunman in his 30s" (which turned out to be two black men, one in his teens and one in his 50s) who shot up the Washington DC area a year or so ago. I'm with Nancy -- complete hoodoo (based, as one of the article cited by someone else pointed out, mainly on non-empirically-validated public stereotypes). ==============       I seem to recall a number of cases in which criminal sex offenders have been released on parole because clinical psychologists testified at their parole hearings that they were no longer a danger to children or other members of their society. The results of their "expert" opinions have lead to the implementation of such legislation as "Megan's Law" in New Jersey.        I can also remember a number of cases where the diagnosis of "multiple personality disorder" was shown to be completely inaccurate or where the assumption made by a psychologist that a client was "repressing" memories of sexual abuse experienced as a child was later determined to be baseless and false. I can ever recall a number of court cases where psychologists or psychiatrists (both of whom had examined the defendant under clinical conditions) appeared as witnesses for both the prosecution and the defense and provided completely opposite diagnoses of the defendant under oath.       I guess, given the belief that infallibility is a necessary prerequisite for professionalism implicit in your statement above, that clinical practice is, by definition, "hoodoo" as well, right?.       Rick    --   Rick Adams Capella University Grand Canyon University Jackson Community College   [EMAIL PROTECTED]   "... and the only measure of your worth and your deeds will be the love you leave behind when you're gone."    -Fred Small, J.D., "Everything Possible"     --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]