Aren’t we over-interpreting what she said? Did she not qualify that she was a research psychologist, and not a licensed psychologist, which is a distinction everyone understands?
Perhaps the Stanford CV was inaccurate?
As I said, I’m just posting this here to let “real journalists” write a story.
FR regards Dangerous as a blog and many here regard infowars with disdain.
As much as I dislike the 51 year old, lying “14 yr old”, you are correct she has a PhD as a research psychologist and not as a practicing licensed psychologist. In other words doesn’t work with patients. But you can bet she has done enough research into PTSD and other issues to know exactly how to pretend. Some of her work here.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Christine_Blasey
“Aren’t we over-interpreting what she said? Did she not qualify that she was a research psychologist, and not a licensed psychologist, which is a distinction everyone understands?”
“Several searches on California’s licensing database revealed many of Ford’s colleagues in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Studies at Stanford are not licensed psychologists in California, including the department chairman Laura Roberts, who identifies herself only as a professor. Of the unlicensed members of the faculty — which includes researchers, clinicians, professors, and fellows — none refer to themselves as a “psychologist” or “psychiatrist,” unless they also had a license issued in California.”
NONE refer to themselves as a “psychologist” or “psychiatrist,” unless they also had a license issued in California.
Prone to “EXAGGERATION” maybe????????
“Aren’t we over-interpreting what she said? Did she not qualify that she was a research psychologist, and not a licensed psychologist, which is a distinction everyone understands?”
EXCEPT, that’s not what THE LAW says.
“To look at her as some sort of expert in this area would be like asking a podiatrist about heart disease simply because he’s in the medical field. Still, the media ate it up.”
“the media ate it up.” Apparently so did you. (no offense)
Did you read the article?
No we are not over interpreting what she said. Under California law she is not allowed to use “research psychologist” or for that matter the term “psychologist” at all. This is due to the fact that she is NOT licensed as a psychologist in any state. Using either term makes people believe that she is a psychologist. That is why Stanford changed her bio. They changed it to “Affiliate, Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences”. They scrubbed her bio because if the CA state Board of Psychology wanted to, I doubt they will, they could come in and fine both the college and Ford. I’m hoping someone has filed a complaint with the board. What Ford-I refuse to call her a doctor-did by using “psychologist” in her title was make everyone think she is a psychologist when in actual fact she is a statistician that reviews psychology research. I’m a licensed health professional for 24 years and, until this article, I was under the impression she was a licensed psychologist who did research. Now I know she is just a Phd that only teaches and does research. And what’s that saying: Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach.