4 ms·
I think another rather critical point that is buried in the article is that Erikson *lied that the person writing the article* endorsed them as a behavioral sci
by neltnerb 5y ago
I think another rather critical point that is buried in the article is that Erikson *lied that the person writing the article* endorsed them as a behavioral scientist!
That makes everything else all the more poignant; Erikson apparently saw the author of the article as their *strongest likely supporter* which says so, so much about their degree of self delusion. The person that says Erikson is totally wrong and causing harm is seemingly about the only actual scientist Erikson knows... and Erikson continues to push their theory anyway.
- AtNightWeCode 5y agoThe way it works in parts of Europe and probably other countries is that there are some titles that are protected, and others are not. Anybody can call themself behavioral scientist. Psychologist would be the protected title in this case I believe.
- neltnerb 5y agoYeah, it kind of works that way in the US as well, though over-regulation of trades is more our tendency for sure since it keeps out competition from existing players (of course mostly the existing players get a say in the process). I won't bore with the details but look at how many hours of training it takes to become a hair stylist versus a police officer if you're morbidly curious. My point though is that this person lied, publicly, about being endorsed by the author of the article. You don't usually do that unless you have absolutely positively no other options that will increase your credibility. But sure, maybe psychologists have credibility while behavioral scientist is the equivalent of being a "brand influencer".