Guest tdperhs Posted November 10, 2009 Posted November 10, 2009 And the notion that these people just take for gospel anything that a person says is actually untrue in most cases (yea, sure, there are some quacks out there just like in any profession). In all honesty, Bob, when was the last time you heard of a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist confirming a patient's information with an independent source? People often fall in love with and depend emotionally on their therapists and will lie or exaggerate to keep his attention. Therapists will prescribe drugs or psychotherapy based on that erroneous information. And it is not unusual for a therapist to become an advocate on behalf of his patient no matter what the extreme of culpability. Look at what psychologists did to the McMartins in the Manhattan Beach, CA case back in the 80's. Of course, if people want to spend money blurting out their fantasies to a stranger with a certificate "suitable for framing" on the wall, fine. Have at it. My problem is the weight these people have in courts. Social workers? I'll concede that, when time permits, they do go more deeply into a case. But these are generally sociologists, not psychologists. In the 1920's psychoanalysts were referred to as "alienists." I wonder why the name change. Quote
Gaybutton Posted November 10, 2009 Author Posted November 10, 2009 He would also put callers on "Hold". Shhhhhh. You promised to keep that a secret. I'm in enough trouble on this thread already . . . I wonder why the name change. Most likely for the same reason Shell Shock is now Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Quote
Bob Posted November 10, 2009 Posted November 10, 2009 In all honesty, Bob, when was the last time you heard of a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist confirming a patient's information with an independent source? You're not being very specific with your question. If you're asking if the clinical psych or shrink needs to confirm that the television is really not giving secret orders to somebody, the answer is "not very often." If it's a question of confirming physical evidence (family history, organic brain sydrome, or the like), than the answer is "thousands of times." But I worked with hundreds of them for a dozen years or so (although I've known many for much longer than that). Quote
Guest fountainhall Posted November 10, 2009 Posted November 10, 2009 Most likely for the same reason Shell Shock is now Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. And why Impotence is now Penile Erection Dysfunction! Quote
khaolakguy Posted November 10, 2009 Posted November 10, 2009 And why Impotence is now Penile Erection Dysfunction! They are actually different, as although Impotence can refer to Erectile Dysfunction, it can also refer to sterility in a person with functioning erections! Quote
Guest fountainhall Posted November 11, 2009 Posted November 11, 2009 Thanks. Sorry my little attempt at amusement rather backfired! Quote
Guest lvdkeyes Posted November 11, 2009 Posted November 11, 2009 Oxford dictionary defines impotent as:"2 (of a man) abnormally unable to achieve an erection or orgasm. Wikipedia: "Erectile dysfunction (ED, "Baby-D Syndrome", or "male impotence") is a sexual dysfunction characterized by the inability to develop or maintain an erection of the penis sufficient for satisfactory sexual performance.[1]" Merriam Webster: "1 a : not potent : lacking in power, strength, or vigor : helpless b : unable to engage in sexual intercourse because of inability to have and maintain an erection; broadly." Quote
khaolakguy Posted November 13, 2009 Posted November 13, 2009 im⋅po⋅tent 1. not potent; lacking power or ability. 2. utterly unable (to do something). 3. without force or effectiveness. 4. lacking bodily strength or physically helpless. 5. (of a male) unable to attain or sustain a penile erection. 6. (esp. of a male) sterile. 7. Obsolete. without restraint. www.dictionary.com Quote
