Route to Follow for prescriptive authority for psychologists

[smalltownpsych]

True, everyone has an option, but in a way that is what continues to stand out to me. If this is snake oil, its the best snake oil ever because it continues to grow, and not just with clients, but PhD practitioners. I am willing to accept my own inexperience and naivety, I am also biased due to my exposure however how many people who should know better than to be fooled does it take to stand up and say this might be legit before acceptance is reached? Are all the people getting into this field just blind? Naturally I wouldn't be happy if found that my ideals have been set on snake oil, but not nearly as unhappy as I would be if I tried to get a PhD with my sights set on that goal. Is there some reason I shouldn't trust these people?

I don't know anything about the literature on neurofeedback as it is not my area of interest and I keep pretty busy doing what I am doing now. My point was that it doesn't matter from a scientific standpoint what anyone's opinion about something is as that is not empirical evidence. Part of becoming a scientist, which a psychologist of any stripe should be first and foremost, is to develop critical thinking skill and design ways to test things. If you think there is some potential for this, then research it and demonstrate the efficacy and publish the results.

To answer your question about trusting people. A scientist doesn't trust, they test. People who call themselves scientists have a history of being wrong about stuff and a lot of people getting on a bandwagon about things. Look at the repressed memory stuff from the 80's. So, yes, they could all be wrong. Again, not saying they are wrong, because I don't know either way, just saying that the evidence is really what matters and since I personally haven't reviewed the evidence for it, I won't even venture an opinion about it as to do so would be unscientific.

---

Members don't see this ad.