27 ms·
New Mexico: Psychologists to dress up as wizards when providing expert testimony
- zer00eyz 3y ago>> psychologist or psychiatrist Does therapy help some people. It sure does. Recall, the "reproducibility crisis" came to everyone's attention because of how bad the papers from these two camps were. Nothing really changed, no one got fired, and the situation, seems to have not only not improved but the quality has gone DOWN. Maybe the law should be they have to wear the hats till they un fuck the last 30 years of publishing...
- eimrine 3y ago[flagged]
- serpix 3y agomost people are just a few words away from a psychosis or a complete breakdown. Edit: to illustrate. Your phone rings. You hear the words. You know which words, the unthinkable ones.
- Filligree 3y agoI honestly don’t. Is there anything you want to tell us?
- rudasn 3y agoProd is down
- pineaux 3y agoCome on. Anything bad. The phone rings, your family just got crushed by a runaway truck. The phone rings, the company you founded and spend every waking hour of the last four years has a hostile take-over. They are firing you and you find out that the structure of the shares is in such a way that you walk away with peanuts. The phone rings, your mother is in de hospital, she will probably die before next dawn. You are six thousand miles away. You know, the gnarly stuff of life.
- cameronh90 3y agoI’ve had a call similar to the first one before. It felt like Mike Tyson had punched me in the head - but it didn’t cause a psychotic break.
- Filligree 3y agoAll of those would be bad, but "psychotic break" bad? C'mon.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- pineaux 3y ago@filigree: Depends on your disposition. I mean, you are probably a very stable genius at the moment, but not everybody is and you might not be that for ever. Things can change. If your endocrine system gets a hit somewhere and you get hit by this kind of news. You probably will go into a bad place. I know someone who was severely dehydrated from a viral infection, got into a delirium, then had to recover for 6 years, and still is not the same now.
- FeepingCreature 3y agoEh, I'd deal.
- corinroyal 3y agoOMFG, people! Therapy isn't pseudoscience. There is a shitload of evidence that it works. You don't get to wave around the reproducibility crisis like it's a magic wand to make things that scare you go away. Now show me on the doll where therapy hurt you.
- coldtea 3y ago>There is a shitload of evidence that it works. As "verified" not by hard measurements (like in Physics), proofs (as in math), or specific clinical results (e.g. blood panels in medicine) but with questionaires and "assessments" by the very people whose continued existance and esteem of the field their careers are based on? "All kinds of evidence that it works" was there for Freudian psychanalysis too.
- tokai 3y ago>All kinds of evidence that it works was there for Freudian psychanalysis too. Not really, which is why it is all but gone from university psychology research.
- coldtea 3y agoIt's gone because it went out of fashion. The psychanalysis institutes at the time had all kinds of papers and results of their huge success...
- piva00 3y agoThat's true for most science though, biology had the same issues earlier in the 1800s-1900s until the field matured. It doesn't mean that all biology from that time was pseudoscience, it was wrong but paved the way to find the right answers. Psychology has its successes, empirically proven by getting results in clinical settings, we don't have deep answers on why some of it works or not but working known pharmaceutical compounds also suffer from that, we know they work but we don't know how (some NSAIDs come to mind, psychiatric meds, anesthesia as well).
- beepbooptheory 3y ago"I know you hear those voices, but unfortunately I have no way of corroborating whether the voices are actually a problem or not. Would you like this pamphlet on how physics understands your brain?"
- pk-protect-ai 3y agoI would say they need to "unfuck" more than 100 years of pseudo science ...
- docdeek 3y agoI wonder if the fact that the amendment earned "unanimous approval in the senate” is what should really be concerning here. The idea seems clearly a joke but it was voted for by everyone in a senate split 27 Demoratcs/15 Republicans and headed for a house vote with a similar division (46D/24R). Does no one read what they are voting for?
- coldtea 3y agoIf there are no lobbyists paying them to pay attention, why would they bother?
- benterix 3y ago> Does no one read what they are voting for? Does it really sound like the most likely explanation to you? Because I can think about several others.
- logrot 3y agoDo share
- AlecSchueler 3y agoPlease could you share your other explanations? Whatever you're implying here is not clear, especially to non Americans.
- hallway_monitor 3y agoThe answer, of course, is that everyone sincerely agreed it would be beneficial to have the quacks wear wizard hats (to keep them from getting a big head)
- cqqxo4zV46cp 3y agoWhat? You’re either speaking from the perspective of an American, or a non-American.
- MathMonkeyMan 3y ago
- tokai 3y agoI have always thought law makers should have their head in a guillotine when they pass legislation. That would hopefully give them an awareness of the seriousness of their work, and the gravity of potential consequences.
- netsharc 3y agoWhy not all the time... Spout bullshit in an interview? Off with his head! That seems to be a movie plot? "Congratulations on your swearing-in, congressman. Now we'll put on the guillotine collar around your neck."
- pineaux 3y agoI think this is a great plot. However, to make it more interesting: 1) who or what controls the guillotine collars? 2) if you say something in an interview and your head doesnt leave your body. It must be true, right? RIGHT?! 3) at some point a few adversaries that are questioning the guillotine suddenly tell a lie or pass a bad law and get "Sepped" (the slang for head and body SEParation, i.e. your head gets chopped.). 4) going against the party is "objectively" a lie and all people who dont fall in line of "truth" get "Sepped" 5) a law gets passed where everybody wears a mandatory guillotine collar. "We are a Republic of truth! Do you have things to hide? Are you a liar? Then you must fear this law. Only the morally corrupt will fear this law! All true citizens of the Republic will welcome this law."
- Brian_K_White 3y agoIt's the premis of an old Dr Who arc. The planets leaders life is televised at all times, and they are subject to a continuous live electronic popular vote that's going on at all times. When it dips far enough they die and the next one in line takes over.
- Repulsion9513 3y agoOK, I'm gonna need sauce for this one to go watch it. Anyone happen to recall what episode(s)?
- preommr 3y agoSome of this is a reflection of society not wanting to confront the challenges with mental health. We went from just dumping people in asylums and ignoring issues like PTSD, to acknowledging these things exist, but trying to push everything into therapy and psych evals. I think at some point we'll have to acknowledge that pscyhology is a fuzzy field and it doesn't always have the correct answers and somehow balance that with but sometimes the experts are right.
- yadaeno 3y agoThe fuzzier the field, the wider avenue for corruption in the courtroom. Declaring someone competent based on the non objective whim of an "expert" can have major monetary consequences.
- messiah_complex 3y ago[flagged]
- Nursie 3y agoThey should do economists next.
- mangotiger 3y ago[flagged]
- tomp 3y agoMy interpretation is the exact opposite. Our society (well, the US and increasingly Europe where I’m from) has put a lot of resources and effort into mental health, largely by following “expert” recommendations. Tons of people are being treated for mental health, children are medicalised, employers offer mental health courses and insurance, people sharing experiences about burnout, language being changed to avoid offending people, … Yet the problems keep getting worse. Maybe the experts are the problem?
- nojs 3y ago> Maybe the experts are the problem? Or more likely, the current approach just doesn’t work very well. If everyone with a disease starts taking a medicine, and nobody gets better, it doesn’t mean the medicine causes the disease, despite the correlation. It just means the medicine doesn’t work.
- Gravityloss 3y agoThe title is wrong and misleading: it never went into law.
- hcfman 3y agoSounds like the way European laws are signed in
- rcarmo 3y agoI wonder what VCs would be forced to dress like.
- rubyfan 3y agoPatagonia vest.
- nottorp 3y agoA lot of jurisdictions still make the legal profession wear uniforms and/or wigs. Why not the expert witnesses too? However, I move that the hat should have "Wizzard" written on it.
- throwaway284534 3y agoAs a web developer, I’d like to think that we’re effectively alchemists who transmute vague ideas into products held together with absurd magic that’s constantly changing. Can we get a bill going? I can’t decide between “Webmancer” and “www.izard.com”
- csixty4 3y ago"It is well known that stone can think, because the whole of electronics is based on that fact" - Terry Pratchett
- hbossy 3y agoWhy are they even called therapists and not doctors? It feels as such a meaningless word. My hairdresser offers all sorts of therapies.
- halgir 3y agoPsychiatrists are called doctors. Psychiatry is something that a medical doctor specalizes into. Therapist is a meaningless word, because it's not a protected title. Anyone can call themselves a therapist without third party certification of any kind.
- FrustratedMonky 3y agoThis tracks with the HN view of Psychology. Was surprised this was from 1995, I thought it was current. Note: Psychology is a real science. It replicates as well as a lot of other 'sciences', studying the mind is not worthless just because it is complicated.
- jackcosgrove 3y agoI think studies of the mind will always produce less actionable results because at least part of every person's brain develops uniquely. There are structures which have specific purposes and the neurochemical mechanisms for how the brain develops are shared, and these areas are definitely worthy of study. But a lot of the brain's structure is formed by individual experience of the environment, which is impossible to generalize. Other organs are shaped by the environment but less so because they are simpler. I wish psychologists and neuroscientists all the best and really hope the fields progress, but we'll never achieve a level of understanding of individual brains and how they respond comparable to say, how heart health can vary with diet. I think it's just the nature of the beast that psychology in particular will remain more art than science.
- FrustratedMonky 3y agoI used to say similar things. But have found that so many things that were considered 'more art than science', after a few decades go by, are solved. Either there was an underlying structure discovered, or different view point, or additional data. Then it become 'oh, that's known, here is the formula'. They become common, are in textbooks. Every science has gone through something like this. Neuroscientist have now been able to scan a brain and re-produce the image the person was thinking of. In 2000 that would be called magic, what about in 2040, will they be able to scan and find out what you are feeling, and then apply some magnetic fields and change your mood. It's now in reach, real studies, real science, the mind is being untangled.
- StefanBatory 3y agoThat feels absolutely insulting. Had I been a psychologist in New Mexico at that time, I'd start preparing myself to leave. Seriously, as someone who owes his life to psychologist help, my blood is boiling while reading this.
- dartos 3y agoRead more than the title. It was a satirical proposal from 95 that, while it got surprising approval, was never signed into law.
- knighthack 3y agoAs a legal practitioner, and as someone who has friends within the medical community, I find your outrage odd. There's a reason why civil courts and judges are often given leeway to decide against the reception of expert testimony - because not all experts really are so. Especially in something like psychology - which isn't really science per se - you'd expect the courts to be more guarded against possible quacks. Just because you owe your life to psychologist help, doesn't mean that psychologists are all acceptable. You also didn't read between the fine lines - a satirical document had passed the senate as possible law by "unanimous approval". Which means that the lawmakers who voted in favour didn't really read or consider what was being passed. That's even more embarassing.
- dartos 3y agoVery misleading title. It was a satirical proposal from 95
- krapp 3y agoPsychologists are made to dress up as wizards to mock and humiliate them, yet priests and preachers who actually believe they have magical powers are taken seriously. Mad world. At least wizards are fun.
- TheCoelacanth 3y agoDo priests/preachers commonly testify as expert witnesses in court?
- krapp 3y agoI don't know. I do know it's ridiculous and hypocritical to mock psychology as "wizardry" in a culture where ersatz wizards and the people who believe in them still wield far too much influence.
- yencabulator 3y agoIn their defense, priests at least used to dress up weird by their own choice, making them easily identifiable as non-credible sources. We really should encourage all religious leaders to go back to that convention.
- EasyMark 3y agoWouldn't this be to show that they aren't reading the bills they're passing unless someone raises a stink and they have their interns actually read it an report back?
- tempodox 3y ago> It was withdrawn and never signed into law. Too bad, I was looking forward to seeing female psychiatrists with an 18 inch white beard and a wizard hat on the stand. But seriously, that this proposal got unanimous support in the state senate is deeply disturbing.
- defrost 3y ago> a startling amendment in 1995 It was an ammendment tacked onto a Bill that had wide support. The majority who voted likely never read it, those that did rightly figured that it would not pass all the way through and complete, like so many other ammendments on Bills. Even had it actually passed through it still would not be "solid real law" until it survived being called out for being bullshit and challenged in court.