The earlier pitting of which I spoke.
Some good stuff by Stoid and BeagleDave, the smarmy bastards! :eek:
[nitpick]
While clinical psychologists and psychiatrists can both be addressed as “Doctor,” they are not the same thing.
A psychiatrist is a physician with a medical degree who has chosen to specialize in “the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of mental illnesses and emotional problems,” according to the American Psychiatric Assocation.
A clinical psychologist, on the other hand, does not need a medical degree. Rather, the clinical psychologist generally requires a doctorate in clinical psychology. This doctorate can either be a PhD or a PsyD, depending on which program the person attends and whether than program models itself more on the “Boulder model” (research emphasis) or the “Vail model” (clinical emphasis) of clinical psychology training. (Those psychologists must like to ski, i guess.)
As a general rule, psychiatrists are subject to the same Board certification requirements and licensing procedures as other medical doctors, and can prescribe medicine like other doctors. Clinical psychologists are usually licensed based on state-by-state criteria, although the American Psychological Association sets national minimum standards for program accreditation. Clinical psychologists cannot prescribe medication like doctors do, although i believe that some states are now allowing clinical psychologists to administer a limited range of drugs for certain conditions.
I find his show irritating, but my mom’s on his weight loss plan and that does seem very sound. I’ve caught a few of his weight-loss-challenge shows and flipped through the book, and generally I thought its emphasis on changing life patterns, healthful exercise, and eating moderately and healthfully (a diet as in “the panda lives on a diet of bamboo” rather than the usual use of the term) sounded like an excellent message, and one that’s really worked for my mom.
He also seems to emphasize very healthy attitudes towards exercise in promoting good habits and routines that busy people and stay-at-home moms can do without a lot of extra money and that should work for extremely overweight people as well, and set good examples with the people competing in the weight loss challenge - some of them were very overweight and showed good results. I think on the whole it was a good thing for somebody trying to lose weight on their own to see.
That would certainly help clear the log jam that CSR has become.
You do, of course, see the irony in your saying this, don’t you?
I don’t like the man any more than the OP does but he has a PhD in psychology, and, from what I understand, was responsible in part for Oprah’s winning the Texas Beef trial from however many years ago after he was suggested to her as an advisor by various lawyers.
Regardless of what you or I think of his methods, he obviously is not an idiot.
W’all, shucks, y’all sound like a man spittin’ hayseeds in a hurricane. I tell you whut, if you get to the cause of your pain, you’ll find the flaws in your brain, and by that I mean the flaws in yer thinkin’ that’s making yer life a mess, 'cause like my Aunt Bob used to say, ‘stress makes a mess so it’s best to jess confess and that’ll make it less.’ We’ll be right back.
Good thing Dr. Phil doesn’t claim to cure anybody in an hour, or you might have a point.
If you watch the show at all, you’ll see the guests generally fall into three categories.
-
The Family categories. So far he’s had two families on the verge of falling apart. He works with them over the long term and they have weekly installments of their progress. These people are also referred to anger management therapy, drug/alcohol therapy when applicable, and therapists closer to their homes. As well as financial planners, lawyers, etc.
-
“Workshop” groups. (can’t think of a better word.) These are people who are with the weight loss group or the “relationship rescue” group. These are generally intense sessions over a period of days with followup therapy and assignments. Anger management therapy is not uncommon. They also receive the treatment the first group does (more therapy, etc).
- Just the regular crazies who come to Dr. Phil for help. We generally only see them for one episode unless they do a follow-up show with the guests. Guess what? They are also referred to clases, therapy, and additional professional help where applicable. He sends a lot of people to drug rehab centers directly from the studio.
But of course, you watch the show religiously and you’re intimately familiar with how he treats his guests, so you’re comfortable calling him a quack who does more harm than good.
Yes Q.E.D., that’s why I said it. Because I was allowing for that. But bully for you for picking out the obvious allowance I made! WOO! Are you sure you aren’t a PhD?
he doesn’t actually call people stupid. I was being faceticious. What he does is force them to come to terms with their bad behaivor. It may seem really, really obvious to you when your friends are making poor decisions or hurting themselves, but it’s rarely obvious to the person who’s in the middle of it. If it were, people wouldn’t be hurting themselves and others all the time.
SNORK!
::wipes key lime water off monitor::
Good one!
Here’s the bit that gets me. Always, without fail, the person he picks to yell at ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H “forces to come to terms with their bad behavior” isn’t always necessarily the one who’s behaving badly. It’s the one that Dr. Phil can get the audience to cheer against by yelling at him.
The example that I called him on, which in turn made my wife decide that she didn’t have to watch his show anymore: A married couple. Man was working himself to death so they could afford to buy a house. Woman was at home withe kids, doing housework, etc.
Woman told Dr. Phil that she was on an “allowance”, and that it made her feel bad. At the word “allowance”, the audience started booing the husband. Phil immediately started cussing out the husband about being too tight with “their” money, audience cheered.
“WTF” says I. “One person’s allowance is another person’s budget. Does the wife have compulsive spending problems? What’s the root problem that caused them to get to this state where the husband felt it necessary to monitor his wife’s spending that closely?”
We never found out, because Dr. Phil decided to just yell at the husband, because the women in the audience would cheer when he did that. Since fucking when is therapy supposed to be subject to popular vote?
-lv
I second Dogzilla’s applause (it was applause, wasn’t it?) Bryan. And your point is well taken. The homespun hayseed act resonates with a lot of people, and Dr. Phil the television show is, after all, supposed to entertain.
But I think some of the criticisms here have been a little over the top. For example, I don’t think you can find an instance of Dr. Phil calling someone stupid. He points out that certain behaviors are counterproductive. If you read that as “stupid” you’re probably with a very large group. But the barb is always aimed at behaviors and not at individuals. If someone’s behavior isn’t producing the results they’d like, changing it would seem to be in order. One of Phil’s favorite expressisons is, “How’s that working out for you?” If it doesn’t work, try something else. Good advice if you ask me.
I don’t always agree with the good doctor, however. I bristle when he states categorically that spanking of children is never justified. According to Phil, you should be able to reason with a two-year-old, or “explain” why touching a live wire might kill them. Sometimes I think you have to punctuate “NO!” with a swat to make it absolutely clear that certain behaviors are not tolerated. Reasons come later. But I would add that Dr. Phil is by no means the only psychologist who takes a hard line against spanking.
Incidentally, the advice Dr. Phil gave Oprah regarding her Texas lawsuit defense was about jury selection. He has been a professional jury consultant based on psychological criteria. Personally, I think Jury consultants work as much against justice as for it. The whole point of juries was intended to be finding impartial people to decide an issue. Now both sides in both civil and criminal trials hire people like Dr. Phil to see that juries are not impartial. That seems wrong to me.
Long and short (you’ve already gotten my “long”) I found Dr. Phil interesting early on, but his dogmatic approach has worn thin with me. I don’t think he’s a quack, but I don’t think TV is the best place for psychotherapy.
I don’t care for the yelling, but I do like the “how’s that working for you?” questions that make people face their own faulty behaviors and themselves.
I wish he could take on a friend of mine and get her to stop her whining, self-imposed martyrdom, obsessive-compulsive hoarding and cluttering, and other stuff that’s really been putting me off over the past few years. But it would probably take up a whole week of the show.
You want her to stop the self-destructive sounding behavior she’s been doing and you’ve just been putting up w/ it for a few YEARS?
“How’s that working for you???”
Obligatory link to the Dr. Phil Random Quote Generator
My favorite:
You don’t need the weight of the world on your shoulders to grab 'em in the biscuits.
Nor did I ever suggest he was. I just think his methods are crap, and I said so, loudly. But clearly he’s a bright fellow, and a good showman.
Pepperlandgirl: :rolleyes:
I was under the impression that Dr. Phil pre-interviewed the guests. Is that the case? If so, maybe the husband really was the “one behaving badly.” But the fact that he didn’t get that across to you, the viewer, is a problem.
I haven’t seen the show in a few years, but the shows I saw were actually pretty good. I believe the ones I saw were from the first season of the show. (I never saw him on Oprah.) It seemed that he was able to cut through the extraneous crapola and get to the heart of the matter, enabling the guests to come up with workable strategies to alleviate their problems. But maybe I just saw some atypical episodes.
I wonder if succumbed to the same thing as Judge Judy–success and fame made her abandon the hard-nosed and fair-mided justice that she was known for and move toward pure showmanship. But Has Dr. Phil done the same thing?
In any case, I’m glad that the trend in psychology is toward more practical and results-oriented therapy.
Guess y’all missed the disclaimer to the show: Not sure how you did but okay…
"Opinions expressed during the show are educational and informational in nature and are directed only at the individual show guests based on their specific and unique circumstances," The material provides general educational information only to the viewing audience. For advice appropriate to your specific situation, please consult a local health care professional."
Dr. Phil makes it very clear “on the air every day that you should not substitute his judgment for your own.…” As well Phil McGraw adds so many times on the show: “…we are not doing therapy here.”
There is many pre-interviews and notebooks full of information are gathered for each show. All the participants agree to appear on the show and have the freedom to not appear on the show even after the interviews. There are wavers that are signed that also state that the advice given on the show is not considered therapy. His advice is not intended for those who have a mental illness or are in therapy.
Dr. Phil just “wants you to get excited about your life”. Hum. Sounds like alright advice to be excited about your own life. Since we only go around once in life.
So, if there are people who appreciate Phil McGraw, his advice and his show/website because of his straightforward talking about taking responsibility with some of the circumstances in their lives. That advice/web/show information has “struck home” and they have worked out their problems themselves. I don’t see much of a problem. It is a tv show and nothing more than that. Don’t like it, change the channel.
You mean like how John Edward’s show about talking to the dead was purely for entertainment purposes only? He was just entertaining the studio and home audience? See, there’s the rub - you can disclaim all you want, but viewers see this stuff going on and think it’s supposed to be therapy for the people up there.
If I didn’t work days, I’d watch his “kid developing into serial killer!” show that I cited above. I still can’t figure out how apparently putting some kid on TV (or, hopefully, “just” the family - but you know that people who know them are going to see this and the kid’s going to be tagged “psycho” and “serial killer” - and saying how he shares all of these “characteristics” with serial killers is going to help anything.
T’was a bad joke, made worse with accidental omission of a smiliey.
OK, point taken. He doesn’t call them stupid. He just implies it.
No, he makes a show of scolding people with what, to outsiders, appears to be the blindingly obvious, so that we can feel superior, all in the name of selling dishwashing detergent. That is not therapy. It’s a sideshow.
The main thing I have against this guy (and “Doctor” Laura) is that people will tune in and get the idea that this is how real therapy works. People that could actually benefit from therapy may get turned off of it as a result.
he appears on Oprah. We all knopw the 11th commandment for many people is “Oprah can do no wrong”, so if he appears on Oprah, he has to be right also in a sort of “correctness due to Oprah proximity”.