Re: Shrinks and us

[Guest guest]

>

>

> > > And I have reminded you we live in separate countries, but if we

I

> > > dont want youre Libertarian " Rot in the Streets you loser " or

Rot

> in

> > > jail you poor loser " attitude to the mentally ill either.

When you put words like this in " my " mouth, you are fair game for just

about anything. Good luck, Pete.

[Guest guest]

> > > The scope of what psychiatrists may do is defined by medical

> > > associations. The scope of what psychologists, social workers,

> > > counselors, etc., may do is usually defined by state licensing

> > boards,

> > > and these definitions vary greatly state to state. In some

states

> > you

> > > can be a psychotherapist without licensing. Actually there are

> many

> > > other types of unlicensed professions that infringe to some

extent

> > on

> > > psychotherapy, such as " lifestyle consultant " (encompassing a

> > variety

> > > of practices, whose number is limited by your imagination) or

> > > " personal coach. " You can be a hypnotist in many places without

> > > licensing. You can be a neurolinguistic programming

practitioner

> > > without licensing. The U.S. truly is the land of the free.

> > >

> > > What special knowledge do you have that qualifies you to make

> > > statements about the status of psychotherapy in the United

States?

> >

> > (Not " special " maybe but likely better than yours about why Swiss

> ppl

> > keep guns, and more politely expressed). I've read about it. What

> you

> > say above appears to agree with what I have been saying all along:

> > there is no *legal* requirement to be a doctor to be a

psychoanalyst

> > in the US, though many professional psychoanalytic associations

may

> > require it. So why the churlishness?

[Guest guest]

> > > The scope of what psychiatrists may do is defined by medical

> > > associations. The scope of what psychologists, social workers,

> > > counselors, etc., may do is usually defined by state licensing

> > boards,

> > > and these definitions vary greatly state to state. In some

states

> > you

> > > can be a psychotherapist without licensing. Actually there are

> many

> > > other types of unlicensed professions that infringe to some

extent

> > on

> > > psychotherapy, such as " lifestyle consultant " (encompassing a

> > variety

> > > of practices, whose number is limited by your imagination) or

> > > " personal coach. " You can be a hypnotist in many places without

> > > licensing. You can be a neurolinguistic programming

practitioner

> > > without licensing. The U.S. truly is the land of the free.

> > >

> > > What special knowledge do you have that qualifies you to make

> > > statements about the status of psychotherapy in the United

States?

> >

> > (Not " special " maybe but likely better than yours about why Swiss

> ppl

> > keep guns, and more politely expressed). I've read about it. What

> you

> > say above appears to agree with what I have been saying all along:

> > there is no *legal* requirement to be a doctor to be a

psychoanalyst

> > in the US, though many professional psychoanalytic associations

may

> > require it. So why the churlishness?

[Guest guest]

> > > The scope of what psychiatrists may do is defined by medical

> > > associations. The scope of what psychologists, social workers,

> > > counselors, etc., may do is usually defined by state licensing

> > boards,

> > > and these definitions vary greatly state to state. In some

states

> > you

> > > can be a psychotherapist without licensing. Actually there are

> many

> > > other types of unlicensed professions that infringe to some

extent

> > on

> > > psychotherapy, such as " lifestyle consultant " (encompassing a

> > variety

> > > of practices, whose number is limited by your imagination) or

> > > " personal coach. " You can be a hypnotist in many places without

> > > licensing. You can be a neurolinguistic programming

practitioner

> > > without licensing. The U.S. truly is the land of the free.

> > >

> > > What special knowledge do you have that qualifies you to make

> > > statements about the status of psychotherapy in the United

States?

> >

> > (Not " special " maybe but likely better than yours about why Swiss

> ppl

> > keep guns, and more politely expressed). I've read about it. What

> you

> > say above appears to agree with what I have been saying all along:

> > there is no *legal* requirement to be a doctor to be a

psychoanalyst

> > in the US, though many professional psychoanalytic associations

may

> > require it. So why the churlishness?

[Guest guest]

> When you put words like this in " my " mouth, you are fair game for

just

> about anything. Good luck, Pete.

You quoted Szasz as using these words, apparently favorably.

[Guest guest]

> When you put words like this in " my " mouth, you are fair game for

just

> about anything. Good luck, Pete.

You quoted Szasz as using these words, apparently favorably.

[Guest guest]

> When you put words like this in " my " mouth, you are fair game for

just

> about anything. Good luck, Pete.

You quoted Szasz as using these words, apparently favorably.

[Guest guest]

> > I prefer to think of myself as assertive, rather than churlish.

> > However, the tone of my response was probably elicited by your

saying that in the U.S., private associations decide what the scopes

of various counseling practices are, and that is simply not true.

>

> No I didnt say that, I said there was no legal restriction on

> pratising psychoanalysis in the US, but private associations place

> restrictions themselves on who they are prepared to train, which is

> true.

Pete, here's what you said: " there is no *legal* requirement to be a

doctor to be a psychoanalyst in the US, though many professional

psychoanalytic associations may require it. So why the churlishness? "

This brings up a lot of issues, and while my state code does not

specifically mention psychoanalysis, I would be willing to bet that if

I were to hang out a shingle, someone would be after me for

practicing either medicine or psychology or counselling without a

license. Thus the state becomes involved and it becomes a state

requirement to be licensed. I believe that by force of tradition, the

psychoanalytic aspect of psychiatry is carried on through the types of

residencies that would-be psychiatrists are required to undertake.

This type of training is not, in my view, properly characterized as

provided by " professional psychiatric associations. " Those

associations are the American Psychiatric Association, and so forth.

The training is, in fact, provided by accredited medical schools, some

private, some public. No special training is, in fact, required for

any M.D. who wishes to practice any specialty whatsoever, so far as I

know.

>

> I would say saying " what special knowledge.... " etc is being

churlish, when a simple " How do you know " would suffice. As it

happens, I belong to an American psychiatric professional

association, the American Association of Psychiatric Technicians. I

make no claims to " special knowledge " on the basis of that, but

somehow I think that if you had known that you might not have been as

" assertive " in your comments.

>

Pete, this really takes the cake. I don't see " what special

knowledge " and " how do you know " as very different, and someone could

certainly take offense at " how do you know " as being a kind of " nyah,

nyah, " response if one were inclined to look for offensive words.

I'm not very inclined to get into this type of discussion, because it

diverts attention from the main topic. But in this case, I have to

say that I think you are too quick to take offense, and that's what

derails a lot of your discussions. I support your views, for the most

part, so why are you so quick to call me " churlish " when you perceive

me as disagreeing with you? So what if I disagree with you? To call

me " churlish " ( " rude, boorish " ) seems much more offensive to me than

my request about your " special knowledge. "

Apparently you do have some " special knowledge, " (and you could have

mentioned it in response to my " churlish " e-mail), but I don't really

think it would have changed my question, because belonging to a

society does not mean you automatically absorb every member's

knowledge. As an example, I belong to the Wisconsin Home Builder's

Association, but don't send me any questions about how to become a

licensed electrician or plumber, nor what the R-factor should be for

newly built single family dwellings.

[Guest guest]

> > I prefer to think of myself as assertive, rather than churlish.

> > However, the tone of my response was probably elicited by your

saying that in the U.S., private associations decide what the scopes

of various counseling practices are, and that is simply not true.

>

> No I didnt say that, I said there was no legal restriction on

> pratising psychoanalysis in the US, but private associations place

> restrictions themselves on who they are prepared to train, which is

> true.

Pete, here's what you said: " there is no *legal* requirement to be a

doctor to be a psychoanalyst in the US, though many professional

psychoanalytic associations may require it. So why the churlishness? "

This brings up a lot of issues, and while my state code does not

specifically mention psychoanalysis, I would be willing to bet that if

I were to hang out a shingle, someone would be after me for

practicing either medicine or psychology or counselling without a

license. Thus the state becomes involved and it becomes a state

requirement to be licensed. I believe that by force of tradition, the

psychoanalytic aspect of psychiatry is carried on through the types of

residencies that would-be psychiatrists are required to undertake.

This type of training is not, in my view, properly characterized as

provided by " professional psychiatric associations. " Those

associations are the American Psychiatric Association, and so forth.

The training is, in fact, provided by accredited medical schools, some

private, some public. No special training is, in fact, required for

any M.D. who wishes to practice any specialty whatsoever, so far as I

know.

>

> I would say saying " what special knowledge.... " etc is being

churlish, when a simple " How do you know " would suffice. As it

happens, I belong to an American psychiatric professional

association, the American Association of Psychiatric Technicians. I

make no claims to " special knowledge " on the basis of that, but

somehow I think that if you had known that you might not have been as

" assertive " in your comments.

>

Pete, this really takes the cake. I don't see " what special

knowledge " and " how do you know " as very different, and someone could

certainly take offense at " how do you know " as being a kind of " nyah,

nyah, " response if one were inclined to look for offensive words.

I'm not very inclined to get into this type of discussion, because it

diverts attention from the main topic. But in this case, I have to

say that I think you are too quick to take offense, and that's what

derails a lot of your discussions. I support your views, for the most

part, so why are you so quick to call me " churlish " when you perceive

me as disagreeing with you? So what if I disagree with you? To call

me " churlish " ( " rude, boorish " ) seems much more offensive to me than

my request about your " special knowledge. "

Apparently you do have some " special knowledge, " (and you could have

mentioned it in response to my " churlish " e-mail), but I don't really

think it would have changed my question, because belonging to a

society does not mean you automatically absorb every member's

knowledge. As an example, I belong to the Wisconsin Home Builder's

Association, but don't send me any questions about how to become a

licensed electrician or plumber, nor what the R-factor should be for

newly built single family dwellings.