Dr. Phil

[PsychEval]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

What do people think about his direct, in your face, no nonsense psychology? Is he good for the field?

 

[Kevin Psych]

What do people think about his direct, in your face, no nonsense psychology? Is he good for the field?

Sometimes for certain people with certain circumstances, I think his direct, confronting approach can be helpful for the individual(s). But again, this probably is only helpful for a small percentage of people and is primarily done to be entertaining for his audience. Is he good for the field? Well apparently at one time, for instance during his years in grad school at North Texas State Univ. (or something like that), he did write scholarly articles. So that is a contribution to the field of some kind, but I don't know a whole lot more about his experiences within the field other than his TV show.

 

[PsychEval]

I am on the early career list serve and recently there has been a lot of heated debate about Dr. Phil.

 

[lazure]

I used to watch his shows occasionally for the his concrete and clear explanations of parenting strategies. Later he started to show blatant cases of child abuse for the nation's entertainment instead of reporting them to social services....hence he lost my viewership....
The fact that he is not licenced says it all....plus I have had my share of patients who were shocked to discover that I will not directly "tell them what to do" and send them on their way after a 15 minute conversation.... Dr. Phil has skewed the public's idea of what therapy is like...

 

[psych101]

Some fun Dr. Phil links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_McGraw
bio on Dr. Phil

http://www.eonline.com/On/Holly/Shows/DrPhil/?fdfour4
(depending on how much credibility you give E True Hollywood Stories, their quote is:
"Dr. Phil was once reprimanded by the Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists. He gave a patient a job working in his office, which is a no-no. Dr. Phil had to retake his licensing exams, get ethical counseling and take a physical and psychological exam himself."

 

[lazure]

Why the physical?!

 

[psych101]

who knows? that seemed odd to me, too! 🙂

 

[Primum est non]

Why the physical?!

Drug abuse?

 

[PsychEval]

More heated debate about Dr. Phil on the early career list serve especially now that he is coming to APA. Someone wrote:

I will not attempt to conceal my disappointment and dismay that APA is embracing Dr. Phil by having him as a "Presidential invited speaker."

I have several questions about APA's decision to invite Dr. Phil to speak at APA:
1. Is Dr. Phil a member of APA?
2. Does APA have any concerns with the form in which Dr. Phil's presents and interacts with individuals in psychological distress on his show?
3. Does APA have any concerns with instances in which Dr. Phil has provided information about psychological assessment and treatment that are far outside of general practice or practice guidelines set by American Psychiatric Association (e.g., recommendations for the assessment of ADHD)?
4. Does APA have any concerns with how Dr. Phil represents himself professionally (e.g., as board certified)?

I would appreciate answers to these questions by APA.

 

[codetype4/9]

APA is embracing Dr. Phil by having him as a "Presidential invited speaker."

Why not have Bob Newhart give an opening address while they are at it.

 

[Forensic M.S.]

APA is embracing Dr. Phil by having him as a "Presidential invited speaker."

Why not have Bob Newhart give an opening address while they are at it.

why not just invite oprah too? that's the only reason dr. phil has any fame at all. he is an embarssment to the field imo, he exploited his own father to get where he is (who was/is also a psychologist).

 

[Anuwolf]

Dr. Phil needs to get 20 ECT a day... hes a idiot. I couldnt watch his show without fearing of losing any brain cells over it.

 

[Ratch1980]

Read this 2004 article about Dr. Phil: http://www.medicalnewsservice.com/ARCHIVE/MNS2669.cfm

 

[Poety]

I like Dr. Phil's approach, no nonsense, no bs, no touchy feely crap - say it like it is. You need patients with a lot of insight though, so probably not the best for the PD spectrum. I just can't see a borderline taking his advice very well 😉

 

[Dr.Phil]

Come on guys cut me some slack!!! Its not like im an expert or something...I just got this job cuz i knew the BIG O. 😉

 

[docjohng]

Dr. Phil is a shallow but more media-savvy mirror of Albert Ellis and mimics some of his approach to people's problems. He saw an opportunity through his involvement with Oprah and leveraged it to his advantage. Psychologists are often uncomfortable with people who do this, because they find it distasteful. Nonetheless, to be competitive in a market, you have to understand who your market is, and how the consumers in that market think. (Psychologists would be well-served by a few business and marketing courses in their education whenever they can get them.)

I find it funny when people get upset by Dr. Phil. That's like getting upset at any Hollywood celebrity... They serve their purpose, they have their following, and ignoring them or caring like they don't 'deserve' to be where they are is ignoring the very reason they are where they are -- they are appealing in a way most psychologists (or people) are not. In Dr. Phil's case, there's also a distinct entertainment factor.

I sometimes wonder if psychologists don't take themselves far too seriously....

John

 

[50960]

I agree. I am not a Phil fan (don't watch the show) but I operate alot like he does in practice and it works well for alot of people. I disagree that we should NOT give advice to patients; it is just silly. A direct, assertive and informed approach should be instilled in every psychologist in training. Good to have you back docjohng!

 

[PsychEval]

Adler, Carl Whitaker, Jay Haley, and Ellis all utilized a direct approach and gave advice. I like them all. I'm impressed with Dr. Phil's ability to make millions as a psychologist/entertainer. Is he the wealthiest mental health care provider in the United States? Are there any psychiatrists, psychologists, or social workers who have made more money?

 

[positivepsych]

Adler, Carl Whitaker, Jay Haley, and Ellis all utilized a direct approach and gave advice. I like them all. I'm impressed with Dr. Phil's ability to make millions as a psychologist/entertainer. Is he the wealthiest mental health care provider in the United States? Are there any psychiatrists, psychologists, or social workers who have made more money?

So what? Just because he makes millions does not make him a person worthy of respect. His intellectual impact on the field and the public good are negligible in my mind.

My problem with Dr. Phil is that he does not really draw upon psychology or empirical studies to give the advice he does, despite his training. He's not bringing science to the masses, he's touting common sense in a Texas accent like all the charlatans before him.

Another great example is Dr. Laura Schlessinger. Her PhD is in Physiology, not Psychology, but somehow she is able to pass off as an authority figure of mental health. There's no way a history PhD can pretend to be a Dermatologist, so why can people successfully pose as psychologists? In my mind, these people are bad for the field because it sense the message that ANYONE can be a Psychologist or counselor, without recieving training or using methods or advice based on empirical science.

Furthermore, I don't think he really cares what he says or does as long as he makes more money. Since when does he have the credibility to put out a weight-loss book? He knows nothing about medicine or nutrition. Dr. Phil is an charlatan entertainer who met the right person at the right time, nothing more.

 

[Ratch1980]

I find it funny when people get upset by Dr. Phil. That's like getting upset at any Hollywood celebrity... They serve their purpose, they have their following, and ignoring them or caring like they don't 'deserve' to be where they are is ignoring the very reason they are where they are -- they are appealing in a way most psychologists (or people) are not. In Dr. Phil's case, there's also a distinct entertainment factor.

The problem is that many Americans think that Dr. Phil is well-informed, competent expert in the field of mental health. They look to him for advice, and do not question it (because he is on TV!). This is pretty dangerous because he sometimes gives misinformation and ends up causing a lot more harm than good. For an example, see my previous post.

 

[docjohng]

My problem with Dr. Phil is that he does not really draw upon psychology or empirical studies to give the advice he does, despite his training. He's not bringing science to the masses, he's touting common sense in a Texas accent like all the charlatans before him.

It depends on what your expectations are for such a person. If you see him as a role model for psychologists everywhere, then yes, he's going to come up short. But I never saw him that way, I see him as a successful entertainer who properly leveraged an opportunity that arose within his professional life. No offense, but if I had had the opportunity to spend a significant amount of time with the likes of Oprah, I may have very much tried to do the same. (For better or worse, Oprah is one of the most influential people in American society today.)

The problem is that many Americans think that Dr. Phil is well-informed, competent expert in the field of mental health. They look to him for advice, and do not question it (because he is on TV!). This is pretty dangerous because he sometimes gives misinformation and ends up causing a lot more harm than good.

I absolutely agree that Dr. Phil is not the best role model for the professional or for the field of mental health. But would I rather have *any* spotlight on mental health issues that occasionally gets it wrong, or no spotlight at all and have it continue to languish in obscurity and stigma? Personally, I prefer the former, because I've seen what decades of stigma and living in the darkness with mental health issues does for people (and their seeking help for their issues). I agree, he sometimes sucks, and he makes mistakes.

But you know what? So do I, and so do most people I know.

John

 

[ProZackMI]

Personally, I find him to be a bloated bald bumpkin. His show appeals to the Wal-Mart crowd: undereducated, underemployed, cigarette smoking, pepsi-drinking, overweight, bored women in search of quick answers to their multitude of problems. Okay, he's an entertainer, but what irks me about him is that he comes off like a know-it-all on every topic. It's like positivepsych said, Dr. Phil is not only peddling his lame show, but he's selling books on weight loss (sorry folks, the man, while not obese, is NOT thin!!!), nutrition, and even healthy cooking (from Texas?). WTF? Not only that, but his 26-year-old son is an expert on adolescents and their problems and goes around giving talks to high school and middle school students about peer pressure, etc. Phil's son isn't a psychologist or social worker, but comes off like an expert like daddy does.

He is just puffery. I've seen a few of his shows and his advice is the type of advice you'd expect from a parent, co-worker, friend, or significant other: basic common sense. His advice, however, is completely devoid of therapeutic substance.

 

[PsychEval]

Has anyone tried the: Dr. Phil's Shape Up! Bar? Wow, this guy is quite a promoter. Well, I’m no fan, but perhaps he is a little brighter than I am because my published work appeals to about 200 other Ph.D.’s who publish in a similar area. Dr. Phil appeals to the Walmart crowd. Good strategy from a financial perspective. No one spends money like the poor.

For the record, I shop at Target.

 

[66Lenses]

It's all for media attention. He's in character, that's all.

 

[PsychEval]

45 Million. Not bad.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/53/1VDD.html

 

[Psyclops]

Anyone happen to catch DPM hosting some sort of 4th of july celebration?