Psychologists Shielded U.S. Torture Program, Report Finds

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
I remember very clearly when, in 2008, Christopher Hitchens was waterboarded for a Vanity Fair article. He was somewhat skeptical of the claim that waterboarding was torture until he was waterboarded. He changed his mind.
 
cara susanna said:
I'm not defending erg, but have you read other SDN boards? They're constantly mocking serious topics and making inflammatory comments. IMO this is one of the tamer sub-forums.
Click to expand...
Yes I have, I just assumed that this section was different given the kind of people who decide to go into clinical psych and the kind of training they receive. And it is indeed by and large different. I find a lot of compassion and humanity here, sensitivity towards other people and their challenges, lots of smart and respectful discussions too. It's why me and some classmates frequented this forum.
 
I find it fascinating when someone defends inflammatory, antisocial behavior on this board. My assumption has been that some of the people on this board must be friends in real life, so they are looking at the provocateurs from a different perspective. Or maybe it's just that most psychologists instinctually look for the good in others.

Bringing this back to the APA torture scandal, I imagine that there were some people at APA who were vaguely aware that their colleagues were involved in torture. But instead of confronting their colleagues, they chose to look for the good, despite our Ethics Code. Maybe that's why this scandal is so sad to me. Most of us are dedicating our professional lives to helping others. It can be difficult to call antisocial behavior what it is.
 
Having dealt with actual anti-social behavior in clinical contexts (prisoners brought to AMC, VJO), my bar for calling something "anti-social" behavior is a bit higher than what i've seen on this board. As far as I can recall, no one on this board has yet threatened to shoot me or stab me in the neck with a pencil yet.
 
I am certain of one thing: psychologists love to pathologize people in their descriptions of their behaviors/beliefs. Doing so does a real disservice to those labels and is dishonest of us as individuals who (hopefully) know and understand their implications.

That said, I think this thread serves as an interesting proxy for the issue with APA. There are differing opinions about what constitutes harm etc, and it makes this report (which most people [e.g., psychologists in general, not this forum] are responding to in a very reactionary over the top way) an easy thing to demonize views. Even if we don't think there should be room for disagreement, there will be. The real issue here isn't the personal beliefs (let's be honest, if erg or LApsyguy change their minds as individuals is more or less irrelevant to the field as a whole, broad entity) but the fact that there is not yet a concerted discussion on ways in which to clarify the myriad of ethical issues at play as a result of this report. If ethics evolve in response, there are a number of issues that this report uncovers that needs addressing: clarity of dual roles in professional organizations, definitional statements against harm, etc.

WisNeuro said:
As far as I can recall, no one on this board has yet threatened to shoot me or stab me in the neck with a pencil yet.
Click to expand...
It's nice when they tell you before they try. Always made me feel warm and fuzzy.
 
Peacemaker36 said:
I find it fascinating when someone defends inflammatory, antisocial behavior on this board. My assumption has been that some of the people on this board must be friends in real life, so they are looking at the provocateurs from a different perspective. Or maybe it's just that most psychologists instinctually look for the good in others.

Bringing this back to the APA torture scandal, I imagine that there were some people at APA who were vaguely aware that their colleagues were involved in torture. But instead of confronting their colleagues, they chose to look for the good, despite our Ethics Code. Maybe that's why this scandal is so sad to me. Most of us are dedicating our professional lives to helping others. It can be difficult to call antisocial behavior what it is.
Click to expand...
Calling written communication, behavior. is pretty Skinnerian, but am wondering what was said that was inappropriate or inflammatory? Eapcially since I was probably defending it myself.
 
smalltownpsych said:
Calling written communication, behavior. is pretty Skinnerian, but am wondering what was said that was inappropriate or inflammatory? Eapcially since I was probably defending it myself.
Click to expand...

The term "Heathen" that I used to described terrorists/jihadists seemed to be objectionable to many, but I am not sure why. I thought it was quite clear that it conveyed by opinion that jihadists are not practicing or following any legitimate form of their claimed religion (Islam), and instead are, as the word implies, mostly just acting as uncivilized sociopaths.
 
Last edited:
I'm muslim, (at least born into a muslim family, im agnostic/atheist), gay, and have had family who has been in concentration camps/been tortured..this thread has been really bad for me. lol

I don't care that erg calls terrorists heathens, as noted, one of its uses does accurately describe these people.
 
smalltownpsych said:
Calling written communication, behavior. is pretty Skinnerian, but am wondering what was said that was inappropriate or inflammatory? Eapcially since I was probably defending it myself.
Click to expand...

Maybe a less contentious word to describe the behavior I'm talking about is "aggressive." There is hostility on this board unlike anything I typically see at work, face-to-face with colleagues. I find it interesting. I've never spent much time on another message board, so I don't know how typical this kind of thing is. Maybe the aggression is more normative than I realize.
 
Peacemaker36 said:
Maybe a less contentious word to describe the behavior I'm talking about is "aggressive." There is hostility on this board unlike anything I typically see at work, face-to-face with colleagues. I find it interesting. I've never spent much time on another message board, so I don't know how typical this kind of thing is. Maybe the aggression is more normative than I realize.
Click to expand...

I think it's definitely an internet thing. This is probably one of the nicest message boards I've been on, aside from one that was frequented by children and therefore had heavy moderation. There are a few message boards that I read but am reluctant to comment on (not related to psychology).
 
Peacemaker36 said:
Maybe a less contentious word to describe the behavior I'm talking about is "aggressive." There is hostility on this board unlike anything I typically see at work, face-to-face with colleagues. I find it interesting. I've never spent much time on another message board, so I don't know how typical this kind of thing is. Maybe the aggression is more normative than I realize.
Click to expand...
At work I never talk about politics or religion and I don't discuss FSPS problem either since every place that I have worked had someone who went to one those schools. Well, I did work with a Cal Southern graduate and I did point out that he was not a psychologist from time to time.

I guess what I am saying is that these topics tend to get heated pretty quickly because people do have strong feelings about them and increased emotional charge leads to more simplistic reasoning and hasty conclusions and miscommunications that rapidly escalate. Sort of like some of the couples sessions that I have had to conduct (or referee is more like it). I personally don't have a lot of strong feelings about the issue of waterboarding and sleep deprivation and enhanced interrogation verses torture and whether or not the US government should have done this. I know that others feel differently. That is my perspective speaking as an individual citizen, it is not a clinical or expert opinion. As a psychologist, I refrain from publicly stating my opinion on purely political matters and that is one reason that I maintain my anonymity on this board. I also think it is embarrassing to watch the APA bend over backwards to fall on their own swords while still not taking much accountability for getting involved in something this political in the first place.
 
Erg's propensity to be "willfully obtuse" is usually in the service of hyperbole to illustrate a point, which is one reason his posts are a breath of fresh air. Other times he's just being a dick. That's OK with me, it reminds me he's a sincere person and would probably be fun to have a beer with and get in a fistfight about how obtuse we both are and then hug it out. A real person with opinions and feelings who should be alowed to speak their mind on an anonymous forum without fear of being "censured" or "reprimanded" or "receive infractions." You don't have to agree. I want people to tell me what they think - it's the ones who won't that I worry about.

So why the strong desire to damage or destroy his career and livelihood because of a comment on a forum? I'll tell you why it's fun to be a bully. At some level you realize that the authority (APA? licensing board?) who has the power to "reprimand" Erg is the same body that had absolutely nothing to say during the height of enhanced interrogations, when psychologists and psychiatrists were recommending exposure to dogs or darkness for suspected insurgents with phobias, or reminding them that their loved ones would live lives of destitution unless they cooperated. In fact, these influential people gained wealth, power, and influence through the process. You are impotent to do anything against the people with real power and influence who drove public and clinical policies, the movers and shakers, so you now feel like suckerpunching a guy who speaks his mind on an anonymous forum. Do it - it will feel good. It will make you feel potent and powerful. And then you won't feel so weak because you can't do anything about the people making actual decisions and rolling around in the money you gave them. And you won't feel so angry because it will distract you from the awareness that no one that matters cares about what you think.
 
Member 1337 said:
. At some level you realize that the authority (APA? licensing board?) who has the power to "reprimand" Erg is the same body that had absolutely nothing to say during the height of enhanced interrogations,
Click to expand...

As a point of clarification, APA has almost nothing to do with ethical violations. The worst they can do is remove you as a member. It's the state licensing board which would review these complaints. Getting involved with the APA torture issue is just a bit outside their purview.
 
Member 1337 said:
Erg's propensity to be "willfully obtuse" is usually in the service of hyperbole to illustrate a point, which is one reason his posts are a breath of fresh air. Other times he's just being a dick. That's OK with me, it reminds me he's a sincere person and would probably be fun to have a beer with and get in a fistfight about how obtuse we both are and then hug it out. A real person with opinions and feelings who should be alowed to speak their mind on an anonymous forum without fear of being "censured" or "reprimanded" or "receive infractions." You don't have to agree. I want people to tell me what they think - it's the ones who won't that I worry about.

So why the strong desire to damage or destroy his career and livelihood because of a comment on a forum? I'll tell you why it's fun to be a bully. At some level you realize that the authority (APA? licensing board?) who has the power to "reprimand" Erg is the same body that had absolutely nothing to say during the height of enhanced interrogations, when psychologists and psychiatrists were recommending exposure to dogs or darkness for suspected insurgents with phobias, or reminding them that their loved ones would live lives of destitution unless they cooperated. In fact, these influential people gained wealth, power, and influence through the process. You are impotent to do anything against the people with real power and influence who drove public and clinical policies, the movers and shakers, so you now feel like suckerpunching a guy who speaks his mind on an anonymous forum. Do it - it will feel good. It will make you feel potent and powerful. And then you won't feel so weak because you can't do anything about the people making actual decisions and rolling around in the money you gave them. And you won't feel so angry because it will distract you from the awareness that no one that matters cares about what you think.
Click to expand...

I am 2nd generaton Irish Catholic. We are not the warmest of people. I also attended a very strict boarding school for a few years, and attended an all boys high school, which I think tends to produce a bit of crudenes/crassness, along with the assumption that when you talk to your friends (including my internet friends), that you should not have to constantly dance around your wordings or say please, thank you, and other PC softening qualifiers all the day long. I have only rarely gotten caught up in emotion and said things I regret, or gotten overly personal. I really dont think I have directly insulted anyone..other than Jihadists.
 
erg923 said:
I am 2nd generaton Irish Catholic. We are not the warmest of people. I also attended a very strict boarding school for a few years, and attended an all boys high school, which I think tends to produce a bit of crudenes/crassness, along with the assumption that when you talk to your friends (including my internet friends), that you should not have to constantly dance around your wordings or say please, thank you, and other PC softening qualifiers all the day long. I have only rarely gotten caught up in emotion and said things I regret, or gotten overly personal. I really dont think I have directly insulted anyone..other than Jihadists.
Click to expand...

It is a poor argument to suggest that people's outrage at your comments has to do with being PC. I also come from a culture that is known for being masculine, aggressive, big tempers, and very direct with comments (my dad is the poster boy of this)..but from 9yrs old I started to live in Canada, which was polar opposite. The thing I've learned is that in the majority of cases, people are calling others "PC" to excuse their racism, ignorance, hatred, and temper. Now, don't get me wrong, we all have our moments of ignorance and temper problems, but those folks who are chronic racists or in general an ignoranus, tend to use the "PC" argument constantly.

People should be allowed to say anything they want, but those same people should realize that actions have consequences. If someone disagrees with you, if they call you an dingus, that is also their free speech right. Free speech is not just a right, there is also a responsibility.
 
psych844 said:
Free speech is not just a right, there is also a responsibility.
Click to expand...

I am under no "responsbility" to ensure that comments excercised under free speech dont offend you. There are legally defined exceptions to this in the US such a libel, slander, hate speech, etc. But none of these things is applciable here.
 
Yeah, my beef was not about being PC, but rather just wrong from an objective evidence standpoint after claiming to espouse scientific principles. Oh, and not wanting our profession to condone things that are very clearly in stark contrast to our codified ethics and aspirations.
 
erg923 said:
I am under no "responsbility" to ensure that comments excercised under free speech dont offend you. There are legally defined exceptions to this in the US such a libel, slander, hate speech, etc. But none of these things is applciable here.
Click to expand...
I don't mean that. I agree that we have to be open to any sort of speech, no matter how much it offends us and how much we disagree, BUT, there is also a responsibility in the sense that if you choose to be purposely offensive (like the people who chose to draw Muhamed, and made it event), that there are consequences.

Let me use a practical example.
I'm hanging out with a friend and he decides to start verbally abusing someone without much reason, calling them all kinds of names, the other person is even calm initially but just can't take it anymore and punches out my friend. I am 100% against violence, I believe everyone should treat each other kindly, and I'm especially annoyed because the violence happened to my friend, but my friend was also being beyond stupid and was totally out of line to do what he did in the context. So yes, he has free speech, he can technically say anything to anyone, but the way he went about it increased the chances that there was going to be a violent response, so i wouldn't exactly be hopping on to defend him. I'll always support him that nobody should hit him if he didn't hit them, but at the same time, don't think there is no responsibility in using your words.
 
Last edited:
Member 1337 said:
Erg's propensity to be "willfully obtuse" is usually in the service of hyperbole to illustrate a point, which is one reason his posts are a breath of fresh air. Other times he's just being a dick. That's OK with me, it reminds me he's a sincere person and would probably be fun to have a beer with and get in a fistfight about how obtuse we both are and then hug it out. A real person with opinions and feelings who should be alowed to speak their mind on an anonymous forum without fear of being "censured" or "reprimanded" or "receive infractions." You don't have to agree. I want people to tell me what they think - it's the ones who won't that I worry about.

So why the strong desire to damage or destroy his career and livelihood because of a comment on a forum? I'll tell you why it's fun to be a bully. At some level you realize that the authority (APA? licensing board?) who has the power to "reprimand" Erg is the same body that had absolutely nothing to say during the height of enhanced interrogations, when psychologists and psychiatrists were recommending exposure to dogs or darkness for suspected insurgents with phobias, or reminding them that their loved ones would live lives of destitution unless they cooperated. In fact, these influential people gained wealth, power, and influence through the process. You are impotent to do anything against the people with real power and influence who drove public and clinical policies, the movers and shakers, so you now feel like suckerpunching a guy who speaks his mind on an anonymous forum. Do it - it will feel good. It will make you feel potent and powerful. And then you won't feel so weak because you can't do anything about the people making actual decisions and rolling around in the money you gave them. And you won't feel so angry because it will distract you from the awareness that no one that matters cares about what you think.
Click to expand...
Erg's comments are about as fresh as a Dutch oven. I've found them to be humorless, forced, and lacking in original thought or insight
 
Is anyone else bothered that this is a thread about Erg now? I mean, I like Erg and get annoyed by him sometimes, but this thread is about an enormous political issue that our national organization has been involved with that is sparking a ton of conversation within the profession. I think we can talk about a whole lot more than whether what erg says is offensive or not. Maybe there could be a separate thread for that.

One thing I am curious about is how this is being discussed in military settings. Not necessarily military psychology programs, but people being trained and working within the DoD. I'd be curious what the culture there is like compared to the public reaction from the peanut gallery.
 
Pragma said:
Is anyone else bothered that this is a thread about Erg now? I mean, I like Erg and get annoyed by him sometimes, but this thread is about an enormous political issue that our national organization has been involved with that is sparking a ton of conversation within the profession. I think we can talk about a whole lot more than whether what erg says is offensive or not. Maybe there could be a separate thread for that.

One thing I am curious about is how this is being discussed in military settings. Not necessarily military psychology programs, but people being trained within the DoD. I'd be curious what the culture there is like compared to the public reaction from the peanut gallery.
Click to expand...
Trained as psychologists or like soldiers? I can answer re soldiers but most of the active psychologists I've met went to shady inadequate programs and have substandard ethical attitudes so probably would just weasel out of confronting the implications
 
pccgrad said:
Trained as psychologists or like soldiers? I can answer re soldiers but most of the active psychologists I've met went to shady inadequate programs and have substandard ethical attitudes so probably would just weasel out of confronting the implications
Click to expand...
That seems like a really broad statement. Care to elaborate?

I meant trained as psychologists, working in the DoD. I know the DoD has some internships and training as well so that's why I included "trained in" in the comment.
 
psych844 said:
So yes, he has free speech, he can technically say anything to anyone, but the way he went about it increased the chances that there was going to be a violent response, so i wouldn't exactly be hopping on to defend him. I'll always support him that nobody should hit him if he didn't hit them, but at the same time, don't think there is no responsibility in using your words.
Click to expand...

Umm... that's the same logic ISIS uses to explain some of the rationale in making people 1 head shorter - they say it's a legitimate response to "being humiliated" by others' words and sacriligeous lifestyles in their home territory... "they humiliated us, they parade their heathen ways and Western ideas in our faces, they will get what they deserve..."

You are allowing the people who would punch erg scare you into compromising your principles that people should be able to speak freely without being punched. Or decapitated.
 
Member 1337 said:
Umm... that's the same logic ISIS uses to explain some of the rationale in making people 1 head shorter - they say it's a legitimate response to "being humiliated" by others' words and sacriligeous lifestyles in their home territory... "they humiliated us, they parade their heathen ways and Western ideas in our faces, they will get what they deserve..."

You are allowing the people who would punch erg scare you into compromising your principles that people should be able to speak freely without being punched. Or decapitated.
Click to expand...

Put yourself in the situation in the practical example I layed out. Would you stand up for your friend? Maybe you are a better person than I am, and maybe you are more brave, but in the context of the situation, I'm not getting involved in that. If my friend gets hit, he gets hit..because he is displaying a lot of naivety and being really offensive. I still think the guy is totally wrong for hitting him, but it isn't exactly a shock if someone does. Let me clue you in on something..we wont' ever stamp out violence, or emotional reactions in people, so ya, we sort of have to watch how we say things.

You are really naive if you can't understand that principle/theory of any kind is much different when put into actual practice.

The idea that you would jump up and protect ANY person, no matter what they said to anybody, no matter what CONTEXT they said it in, no matter WHERE they said it, is very disingenuous and naive.
 
Last edited:
psych844 said:
You are really naive if you can't understand that principle/theory of any kind is much different when put into actual practice.

The idea that you would jump up and protect ANY person, no matter what they said to anybody, no matter what CONTEXT they said it in, no matter WHERE they said it, is very disingenuous and naive.
Click to expand...

Not trying to be disingenuous. I can't speak to "what I would do" in the pretend situation you wrote about as I've never been in one specifically like that. I had the opportunity to dodge mortars in Afghanistan, which sounds sexy but has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of the point I'm trying to make.
 
WisNeuro said:
Eh, I don't see it as aggressive moreso than just generally myopic and lacking in nuance. Kind of like watching Fox News.
Click to expand...
Fox News gets pretty aggressive. They definitely insite some seriously stupid behavior.
 
erg923 said:
I am 2nd generaton Irish Catholic. We are not the warmest of people. I also attended a very strict boarding school for a few years, and attended an all boys high school, which I think tends to produce a bit of crudenes/crassness, along with the assumption that when you talk to your friends (including my internet friends), that you should not have to constantly dance around your wordings or say please, thank you, and other PC softening qualifiers all the day long. I have only rarely gotten caught up in emotion and said things I regret, or gotten overly personal. I really dont think I have directly insulted anyone..other than Jihadists.
Click to expand...
It's relative. Some find condescension to be insulting. I know, I know, "boo boo."
 
Pragma said:
Is anyone else bothered that this is a thread about Erg now? I mean, I like Erg and get annoyed by him sometimes, but this thread is about an enormous political issue that our national organization has been involved with that is sparking a ton of conversation within the profession. I think we can talk about a whole lot more than whether what erg says is offensive or not. Maybe there could be a separate thread for that.

One thing I am curious about is how this is being discussed in military settings. Not necessarily military psychology programs, but people being trained and working within the DoD. I'd be curious what the culture there is like compared to the public reaction from the peanut gallery.
Click to expand...
I actually don't care how the military sees this. Why does it matter? How is it related. I'm more struck by the CIA psychologists being against it. They lodged several complaints. This is much more applicable for me.
 
Member 1337 said:
Umm... that's the same logic ISIS uses to explain some of the rationale in making people 1 head shorter - they say it's a legitimate response to "being humiliated" by others' words and sacriligeous lifestyles in their home territory... "they humiliated us, they parade their heathen ways and Western ideas in our faces, they will get what they deserve..."

You are allowing the people who would punch erg scare you into compromising your principles that people should be able to speak freely without being punched. Or decapitated.
Click to expand...
Not the same at all. One misguided soul wanted punish Erg. The remainder are engaging in discussion.
 
LAPsyGuy said:
I actually don't care how the military sees this. Why does it matter? How is it related. I'm more struck by the CIA psychologists being against it. They lodged several complaints. This is much more applicable for me.
Click to expand...
Um, because both the DoD and CIA have interrogation programs that are discussed in the report? That would be why it matters to me.
 
Pragma said:
Um, because both the DoD and CIA have interrogation programs that are discussed in the report? That would be why it matters to me.
Click to expand...
Both entities are under the same rules, or at least similar rules regarding torture, namely don't. For that reason, I couldn't care less.
 
Backlash for many of those named in the Hoffman Report starting to hit the news. I guess the cowards way out is to resign rather than be fired. All of these folks are almost admitting guilt by resigning rather than fighting for their jobs.

"Russ Newman was suspended as Provost by Alliant University pending an investigation following the release of the Hoffman report and in response he resigned his position."
 
Last edited:
Nahsil said:
Seems like a prime time for my friend's work examining Islamophobia in the media/social discourse more broadly
Click to expand...

FTA: "In fact in 2013, it was actually more likely Americans would be killed by a toddler than a terrorist. In that year, three Americans were killed in the Boston Marathon bombing. How many people did toddlers kill in 2013? Five, all by accidentally shooting a gun." There's a bit of magician's slight of hand statistically in the article, but it's still an informing piece of work.

The pertinent issue is that there is power to be gained in manipulating the public's fear of the "other" and this can be leveraged to push a policy that dehumanizes that other, making it easier to consider extremes in behavior that one would otherwise write off as an unacceptable violation of core principles. This assuages some guilt people feel over public policies that support harsh treatment of "the enemy."

The irony is that the military sees through this much more easily than civilian consumers of the Fox News money making machine - the consumer feeds off the drivel churned by Fox Murdoch & Co. because it feeds and soothes the primitive splitting defense. The Soldier has received incoming rockets while sitting at the masjid during Ramadan and knows that we are all in the same fight - the Soldier and the military see past the splitting because there is a real person shooting at you and it so happens that the only one who is protecting your righteous American ass has a Koran in their rucksack.


... action at 4:45.
 
I think that, statistically, more people are killed per year by bumblebee stings than terrorist attacks, as well. Have yet to see the proper level of attention paid by the media in terms of raising awareness/terror/hysteria about the threat posed by these little domestic mobile air units.

One thing that has always intrigued me is the general lack of widespread arson, poisoning, and mayhem that should be occurring on a daily basis in America if we are under some persistent threat of an 'enemy' army who are constantly lurking in the shadows just itching to do harm to our people. If the narrative bleated out on a daily basis by the mainstream media were even close to an accurate representation of the threat as it exists (or doesn't exist) in the real world (daily life), we'd be seeing more actual carnage/destruction.

The real threat is a sociopolitical system that, from all angles, is now constantly sending the message, 'Fear everyone, fear all the time, security trumps liberty, the people can't be trusted to think for themselves, mommy/daddy government will make the world all safe for you, everything we do is 'for the children' and 'for your safety.'' Qui bono? (Who benefits?)
 
Apparently Welch was paid a million dollars a year by APA for consultation and he was also provost for Alliant University. Does this not seem to be a conflict of interest?
 
Last edited:
WisNeuro said:
The APA has accepted money from Argosy and Alliant for sponsorship for years, this conflict of interest is old news and is bigger than just Welch.
Click to expand...

I understand that FSPS advertise in APA and this is not a conflict of interest but a free trade option regulated by laws. Paying a University Provost a one million per year for consultation is a conflict due to how large the payments are and that he is also a University President. This would be similar to paying a DOD psychologist one million a year and then having contracts with the DOD for services. This is not sound business practices and APA is basically corrupt for paying Welch such a large sum of money primarily for consultation. I would think that no one at APA is worth paying a million dollars a year. APA is a non profit and not a major insurance company where CEO are paid millions per year. Hopefully, this was just one case and no one else at APA is paid such a high salary. Anderson, the CEO is most likely only paid $150,000 per year or less, so why pay a consultant one million a year?
 
Last edited:
They don't just advertise, they heavily sponsor. Considering this is a significant chunk of income, it's hard not to see a conflict between this revenue and the allowance of substandard training programs maintaining accreditation.
 
http://chronicle.com/article/The-One-Email-That-Explains/231597/
It sounds like there were several key leadership folk at APA that stood to profit from APA supporting the military policy regarding interrogations. I knew that my spidey sense was tingling when I was reading articles about the APAs policy back then. I see that this Russ Newman from Alliant was involved in the promotion of prescription authority which has also been criticized for being corrupt.
 
smalltownpsych said:
http://chronicle.com/article/The-One-Email-That-Explains/231597/
It sounds like there were several key leadership folk at APA that stood to profit from APA supporting the military policy regarding interrogations. I knew that my spidey sense was tingling when I was reading articles about the APAs policy back then. I see that this Russ Newman from Alliant was involved in the promotion of prescription authority which has also been criticized for being corrupt.
Click to expand...

I know in Louisiana the Medical Psychologist left the Louisiana Psychology Board and transferred their regulation under the Louisiana Medical Board and disassociated any connection with APA and LPA. I believe they had some foresight of the impending doom of APA and jumped ship to the Medical Board before this happened. Maybe Psychologist in the rest of the United States need to have the same foresight and seek transfer of our licensing under the medical boards in our states.
 
OneNeuroDoctor said:
Maybe Psychologist in the rest of the United States need to have the same foresight and seek transfer of our licensing under the medical boards in our states.
Click to expand...

This makes no sense.
 
OneNeuroDoctor said:
I know in Louisiana the Medical Psychologist left the Louisiana Psychology Board and transferred their regulation under the Louisiana Medical Board and disassociated any connection with APA and LPA. I believe they had some foresight of the impending doom of APA and jumped ship to the Medical Board before this happened. Maybe Psychologist in the rest of the United States need to have the same foresight and seek transfer of our licensing under the medical boards in our states.
Click to expand...
APA is a professional association completely separate from state licensing boards. Just like the AMA is not the same as a state medical board. In other words, I don't have to be a member of the APA to maintain my license to practice and if they continue to be corrupt and not represent the profession of psychology's interests, then I might not support them anymore either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
VA hiring psychologists again
Replies
35
Views
6K
Therapist4Chnge
T
P
Masters vs. Doctoral-Licensed Psychologist
Replies
2
Views
1K
PsyDr
PsyDr
N
PhD/PsyD 🚨 ACTION ALERT for WI Psychologists 🚨
Replies
0
Views
825
NeuPsychLuci
N
cara susanna
Overview on personality assessment for non-psychologists
Replies
10
Views
1K
borne_before
borne_before
CuriousHedgehog
EPPP Changes-What Happens to Licensed Psychologists Moving Between States?
Replies
9
Views
2K
R. Matey
R. Matey
Top