There’s no such thing as a “post doctoral” certificate in yadda yadda yadda. That phrase means nothing except that she got her little $20 “certificate” after she got her doctorate in phys ed or whatever it was.
Okay, I admit it. I like Dr. Phil, at least what I’ve seen of his show.
I missed the episode with the sexually active teens, and the cross-dressing husband one as well, so I can’t say much about them, except that I respect the points being made here. He can be over the top.
And his advice does tend to be down-to-earth, straightforward, quit-giving-her-money type advice…but you know what? That’s exactly the type of advice many therapists give you, too. It might be exactly what your Aunt Mabel has been telling you all along, but who listens to their Aunt Mabel? Sometimes you have to hear it from a different source.
Ah well. I like Montel too. Go figure.
Sounds like he made an error in judgment. And of course, good psychologists are flawless. Therefore he must suck.
** Roadkiller, ** you hit the nail precisely on the head with this:
That would indeed be precisely the * point. * And Dr Phil him self says it all the time. He doesn’t ever lay claim to any mysterious truths that only he can reveal, he tells people things that are blindingly obvious to others.
And sometimes you need that pointed out to you.
Now you’re being prejudiced. Who the hell doesn’t love pie?
[sub]Hmmmmmmmmm pie![/sub]
OK, we do not get this particular show in OZ, and it sounds liek a good thing we do not. If the description is correct…what an asswipe.
Why is that pseudo-moralistic assholes like this see girls having sex as ‘used victims’ (maybe their own partners do not enjoy sex with them, but many/most do).
I’m sorry, you are just mistaken.
There is such a thing as post-doctoral certification, and it takes a lot more than a $20 certificate. And physiology is different from phys ed.
The phrase means exactly what it says - that the certification was awarded after the candidate already had a PhD., that she is licensed and certified by the state of California, and is entitled to practice marriage and family therapy.
Her PhD. is a more advanced degree than an MD, and fully entitles her to use the prefix Dr. professionally.
Everything she has stated about her qualifications is verifiably true. You may not care for her advice - I don’t care for it myself - but to deny that she lacks credentials is far more dishonest than she is being in using them.
Regards,
Shodan
I’ve known several PhD’s and PhD students, interestingly enough mostly biology or chem majors, who engaged in stupidity upon several occasions:
– a teacher at my HS, a PhD, had never heard of the specific equation for radiological halflives M(final)=M(initial) * 1/2^(time/halflife). She wanted us to memorize the generic, e-based equation, which I dont remember (I wanted to use the specific, “1/2”-based one as that is easier to remember.) She told me I could use my new-fangled formula, but at the peril of not getting partial credit for a wrong answer.
– I was in a trivia game online with a PhD when a question about the lowest pH possible came up. I answered 0 whereas the claimed answer was “1”. We IM’ed and she claimed that since the definition of pH was concentration of hydrogen ion=10^-pH, which I agreed with, that the minmum should be one. Geesh, just solve the friggin equation and you’ve proven yourself wrong.
– In my biology classes in college, two grad students unanimously claimed that viruses were alive. To state that there is some controversy over this can be forgiven, but to boldly state that they are alive is crazy talk.
The point is, not to say that these people are per se stupid, but that even PhD’s can have utterly stupid moments, even in their areas of expertise.
I think it’s because there is a lower level of intelligence required to do the sort of “stamp collection” involved in biology and chemistry, versus, say, particle physics. Not that it isnt a lot of hard work: I certainly couldnt do it.
Oh sure. Coldie, admit it, you tape it everyday and have a heart attack when the VCR doesn’t work.
I agree largely with the OP here. I’m glad you posted this, because I’ve been thinking about that show. I saw the same episode, and I found that moment with the girl on camera very forced and unnatural. I know Dr. Phil espouses “in your face” therapy (he calls it “Get Real” or something), but this was a bit much.
What really bothered me about the whole thing was that, early on in the show, he said he was going to “take a close look” at the boys’ behavior. He then completely failed to do so. Apparently, from the tenor of the show, it’s terrible when girls become sexually active at early ages, but boys simply can’t stop themselves so it’s all right for them. He spent all of about 30 seconds (if that) actually coming down on one boy for “using” girls to get off, the rest of the time was spent on how to change girls’ behavior, how to change girls’ attitudes, how to change girls’ perceptions about sex.
The father who, early in the show, admitted to a double-standard regarding his son’s sexual behavior versus his daughter’s, was pretty much justified by the rest of the show. It had the same double-standard.
The show dealt with only half the problem (if problem it is… I only partially agree that it’s a major “problem” in the first place). It pretty much espoused the current attitude that girls should be locked away, but boys should be given condoms and set loose.
To me, it’s boys’ attitudes that need changing just as much as girls’. If you’re really going to attack this issue, then you need to attack both elements of it equally. As even the show said, boys and girls deal with things differently. You need to present it differently to boys to change their attitudes about sex. What works for girls (if it works) won’t always work for boys, especially when it comes to sex.
The show’s final statement, to me, seemed to be that girls should be pristine, but boys will be boys. That’s unfair to both.
And I’m sending an e-mail to Dr. Phil saying as much.
I saw Dr. Phil talking to Oprah. He admitted the he has never been into therapy himself, but didn’t think that was a problem.
I don’t know how you get to be a psychologist where he came from without being on the receiving end. Something is fishy here.
Besides, I seem him do a lot of finger pointing. It’s not therapy, it’s just showbiz 
Thanks for the clarification, everyone. I knew you guys would have the scoop.
FranticMad, I can’t speak for the US, but in the Netherlands, people who are to become psychiatrists or psychologists are being put at the receiving end of all sorts of therapy, to get the patient perspective. I’d think it’s odd that in the US, there wouldn’t be at least some “passive therapy training”, if you will.
Another point lost for Dr. Phil. Maybe someone more knowledgeable can weigh in with regard to the training methods of US psychiatrists and psychologists?
Not to hijack this, but cold, i’d never thought of that! then again, I never thought of the training one would receive as a psych worker. Come to think of it it would seem an essential ingredient, perhaps even essential for licensed counselors. I have no idea if its standard training here.
I think they go on Dr. Phil to get attention too. Why in the world would she want to stop having sex? She needs her head examined for that alone, but obviously not by Dr. Phil.
Oh, and she should have flashed her tits on his show, that would have been REALLY interesting, his response that is. 
Doesn’t it seem as if he’s got a conflict of interest going as a therapist with a talkshow? If he’s faced with a decision of what’s best for his patient vs. what’s best for his ratings, which way is he going to go?
These people are not his patients. They are volunteering to air their issues in public for Dr. Phil to smack 'em upside the head in the hopes that others may learn from their example.
Don’t these little teenage sluts have to have a parental permission to appear on national television?
Christ, I’d have a hard time appearing before the cameras talking about wearing the same pair of pants two days in a row. God forbid I was 16 and pranced around on television spreading my legs for the camera.
And Dr. Phil should be ashamed, if he in fact trotted out these hussies for the camera. Does this man have no shame? These disturbed children need to be IMMEDIATELY committed to counseling and not trotted out on tv like a dog and pony show.
IANAP, but my sister is. I’m sure each school that trains psychologists is different, as is each state that licenses them, but she was never required to be on the receiving end. Although I always thought she could use it.
Well, this is simply appalling… I mean, I had sex when I was only 17, and look at how I tu…r…n… e…d… ou…
Wait, maybe that’s not the best example.
On behalf of psychologists, I apologize for Dr. Phil.
Nevertheless, you wouldn’t sit through commercials to watch me work on a daily basis. Dr. Phil gives 'em what they want. It doesn’t make it therapy, and in my book makes him unethical, but my book won’t sell nearly as good as his does.
I’ve never participated in therapy as a patient, largely because I’ve never suffered impairment from psychopathology. I wouldn’t demand a lawyer who has been charged with crime, nor a kidney transplant surgeon who isn’t packing his own factory originals. I don’t really go in for life coaching or nonspecific personal improvement. Go see a Freudian, or someone with some crap “post-doctoral certification” if you want that.