Who are some OP (overpowered) psychologists?
Started by borne_before
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
Just those who are still alive or deceased ones as well?
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
There needs to be a Charlatan category.
I would add Thomas Joiner to the list
In no particular order:
Larrabee
Heaton
Reynolds
McWilliams
Zimbardo
Seligman
Ekman
Loftus
Gardner
Pinker
Peterson
I dislike many of these. However, some of the ones in media have improved our professions' recognition.
Larrabee
Heaton
Reynolds
McWilliams
Zimbardo
Seligman
Ekman
Loftus
Gardner
Pinker
Peterson
I dislike many of these. However, some of the ones in media have improved our professions' recognition.
I'm really interested in your thoughts on Pinker.
A/B tier - he's done a lot of good and his attempts at explaining how the mind works are laudable. Prolly A tier for rationalism, but B tier for focus on culture.
Lemmie see that artwork.
The stuff on the wall behind the mug?
Sanman
O.G.
That's why I added the qualifier "on my desk"!Sadly:
Does anyone else think that Piaget is the long lost Reddenbacher brother?
Seriously though- I couldn't really tell you any of the current "big names" in the general field of psychology. I might've mentioned Hayes, Barkley, or Linehan because they were big names back when I was a fledgling psychologists and I think they are still alive. I could give some big names in my niche area(s) (ASD assessment and ABA/EIBI), but with no thought that anyone else not directly involved in this nonsense specific area would recognize in the slightest. I think that is just the general nature of the field, where incremental but still important findings and changes are more the norm than totally new theories/approaches. I also could just be hanging out under a rock and not paying attention to what's going on in the gigantic field of psychology as a whole.
I remember back in grad school attending the AABT (now ABCT) annual conference and there was a session with Wolpe and Ellis going back and forth at each other. Is there anybody like that left in the field (or ascended to an equivalent position?).
I remember back in grad school attending the AABT (now ABCT) annual conference and there was a session with Wolpe and Ellis going back and forth at each other. Is there anybody like that left in the field (or ascended to an equivalent position?).
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Sanman
O.G.
Frankly, he looks like a hipster. I feel like I have seen that same outfit on a some guys in Brooklyn.
1) Both Freud and Pavlov were neurologists (like Luria). The former created a novel gold stain 2-3 years before he began clinical work.
2) It has never been clear to me, whether Jung graduated from medical school or not.
3) I thought we were discussing living people.
Sanman
O.G.
I've gone to greater lengths for a practical joke, but you do live quite far away. May have to wait until the early fall to break into your office and leave a mug there, the leaves are pretty by you.
Does anyone have anything even slightly negative to say about him? Seems like his lab is just super well respected with no shenanigans to speak of.
Sorry I forgot the /s on my post!
Seems like Loftus should be A tier at least, in that her work probably prevented even more people's lives being ruined by bogus ritual abuse allegations.
I have heard of the others, but would you mind sharing why this person? I want to keep my quack list up to date.
My assumption was that Cara was referring to the original list, not the charlatan component. Either that, or Joiner is embroiled in something of which I am not aware.
Ah that makes more sense, thank you!
Yes, I didn't mean to imply anything negative about him. Just that I think he has a lot of influence in and even outside of the field.
Apart from his book bashing mindfulness, lol
Apart from his book bashing mindfulness, lol
Hate to say it but there might be more currently infamous psychologists embroiled in recent academic fraud than ones gaining positive notoriety for their actual contributions.
No one has mentioned Jordan Peterson….I mean, someone said charlatan, so I just figured.
Sanman
O.G.
I mean he's Canadian. Are we really counting Canadians now?
Let's drop JP for Bob Hare (or really the entirety of violence risk literature people). Seems to be all they do up there.
Next they're going to be saying crazy things like 'Canadians should be allowed to have bank accounts and own property.'
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Last name on my list, bro.
(don't worry, I also find it better to tune me out)
JP is such a polarizing person and I'm a little mixed on him.
On one hand, he's kind of an easy target. He has a weird obsession with communist russia and is very good at baiting the media. Sometimes he says some provocative stuff and it's unclear if he's just thinking aloud, saying the quiet part, or deliberately causing a ruckus. He tends to focus on the unforgivable sin of his demographic - white males. He also claims he didn't know benzodiazepines were life messing up medications and hella addictive - like this is foundational knowledge, similar to a doctor missing diabetes. It like, a thing every licensed psych gets beat into them for EPPP and in undergrad. Why he didn't just come out and say "my wife had cancer, she is my everything, the stress of that made unable to be present for her and in her life, so I started using benzos to manage that anxiety, and like many, I also became dependent on them" I will never know. He also has some cooky claims and sees the world through a jungian lens and tends to be contrarian to a fault. His daughter and him have a weird relationship.
On the other, I think he actually speaks to a very under treated population - lonely, isolated, poorly socialized, basement dwelling, failure to launch, bitter, resentful young white males. He does seem to attempt to reparent them and give them actionable advice and encourage them to be responsible for themselves, stop blaming others, reduce resent, etc. His jungian approach provides an interesting model in which to view the world. He showed tremendous courage when he was one of the first people to stop playing the postmodern language games. Made a legit attempt to develop a unifying theory of meaning. His hidden skill is his expertise on personality psychology - which is probably what he does best.
However, I think the out of proportion backlash against him fried him a little bit. He started dressing weird. Additionally, you have a dude who didn't get tenure at Harvard, and now got a ton of monetizable attention - reinforcers that many humans cannot manage.
Personally, in the context of things, I'd probably rate him as C tier.
Last edited:
I'll give one thing to JP, he found a good cash cow. He found a group that is generally **** on in modern narratives, some fair, some not, and found a way to speak to them and make a lot of money and notoriety off them. The far left is just as responsible for his fame as the far right.
I'd submit Gary Marcus for B or C tier, depending on whether or not you care about AI and find his arguments persuasive.
Personally, I don't like him. He seems extraordinarily competent in some narrow areas of personality psychology. Everything else is either him reading a book and reiterating its talking points or him making weird religious/jungian statements as if they are facts.
However, he has drastically raised the profile of the field. There haven't been too many psychologists in the media as regularly as him.
His 12 rules stuff isn't totally horrible.
As a dirty school psych phd, here are my thoughts:
- Larrabee: ?
- Heaton:?
- Reynolds: If we're talking Cecil - A/B tier. The BASC and RCMAS are goat status, the big ole rating scale did a lot to quantify the field and these have strong clinical utility. Good textbooks on kid/psychoed assessment. The RIAS overestimates IQ, thereby under identifying kids with ID for special ed services and government services. Prolly A tier for facilitating the downfall of projective assessment alone.
- McWilliams
- Zimbardo: creepy boomer psychologist who probably faked or did shady stuff with his psychology. Was a jerk to people who called him out.
- Seligman: the work on learned helpless is foundational. positive psychology is cringe but probably not teratogenic. might of took money from the government to help
tortureenhanced interrogation of prisoners (not always a bad thing IMO, I mean if you're gonnatortureenhanced interrogate people, you want psychologist with a strong research background to help find effective ways ). A/B tier. - Ekman: ?
- Loftus: F tier - outright teratogenic. /s (prolly a/s tier)
- Gardner: C tier - the theory of multiple intelligences is wrong, but it also helps people understand that IQ ain't everything in life. A necessary counterbalance to G maximalists.
- Pinker: as a psychologist: probably a/b tier for the integration and move away from complete tabula rasa. A/S tier communicator, writer, and advocate of rationality.
Last edited:
S tier of capitalization.
I love the one where is pooping on people who make avant garde art because it's easier than developing real skill... Made me lol. The one on skateboarders being brave (compelling argument for not letting adults control all play and make it safe/educational) and petting cats are great.
Sanman
O.G.
Dr. Phil McGraw has entered the chat.
Okay, why the Lotus hate? I suppose I only know her work in undermining recovered memory movement, am open to learning she was horrible in some other way.
Why don't you like Loftus?
I was mostly rating by public perception, not academic achievements.
Larrabee= written a bunch of textbooks
Heaton= when people reach for norms, they see this name.
Reynold= written a bunch of texts, and tests so people see this name a bunch.
McWilliams= both psychologists and psychiatrists tend to read her books. CBT is mostly referenced by psychiatry authors.
Zimbardo= has been in the media. Somehow avoided the issue of his research.
Seligman= written popular press books, been in the media
Ekman= had a TV show about him, sold his stuff to the TSA
Loftus= attorneys all know her name, which makes more work for us
Gardner= IDK, seems like normal people sorta know the name
Pinker= written popular press books, normal people seem to know his name
Peterson= been in the media regularly, somehow gained acceptance from a segment of the population that habitually doesn't like psychologists.
Oh God. I guess he was a psychologist, and is one of the most recognized psychologists.
I would definitely include Zimbardo since he's also had several movies made about his study (agree that it's baffling he's gotten away with as much as he has, but hey)
Dr Joyce Brothers. The OG in stirring ire among ivory tower psychs for deigning to speak to the dirty peasants on the picture tube.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Sanman
O.G.
Arguably, the most recognizable living psychologist to the general public.
Dr. Brothers was even on The Nanny!
Biggest contribution to the field may be normalizing calling psychologists "doctor."
and dude hasnt been licensed in YEARS
