News Paper Columns
| Disclaimer
- The articles and columns on this website are not meant as substitutes
for one-on-one psychotherapy with a licensed professional. If you
feel you have issues that need to be addressed professionally, please
consult a licensed psychotherapist in your area. This article/column
may have first appeared in the Del Mar Times.
Ask
Dr. Ceren: Be Aware Of So-Called "Psychological Experts" (on
TV 9/10/2004) Several weeks ago, there was a spirited exchange
among psychologists about people defining themselves as psychologists
when they do not have the credentials.
It was noted that on the Larry King Show, Robi
Ludwig was described as a psychologist which was determined
to be untrue. Perhaps someone notified CNN of the error because
on recent show Larry King, she was billed as a psychotherapist
(and not the clinical psychologist label she previously wore).
The most striking thing was that she freely
"diagnosed" someone as "insane' but said that he couldn't meet
the standards for insanity. (Help me out here). The guy in question
was someone who had harbored several different women, at various
times, in his basement against their will. Reportedly, they
were sex slaves who were subjected to various forms of abuse/maltreatment.
Obviously, this is grist for the psychological mill here, but
one would have to know quite a bit of the background and circumstances
to make credible forensic and other professional statements.
A professional public statement on the fly was
disturbing, and in my opinion, far from appropriate. Few people
in the viewing audience probably realized that, much less that
mental health professionals rarely make such rash statements.
What are your thoughts?
Fred A. Johnson, Ph.D. I viewed the same show and came to the same conclusion.
Someone must have insisted that CNN change the professional title
of this so-called expert who makes quick and often inappropriate
diagnosis unbecoming to a bonafide psychologist and based on limited
information having never examined the person or people discussed.
However, Larry King isn't a university on TV.
The purpose of this show is not to elucidate or enlighten, but
to entertain. It is after all, a "show."
If education were Larry King's purpose, it would
be far better if his questions were directed to the forensic psychologists
who had examined the victims and the perpetrator and whose testimony
would be based on sound evidence and therefore credible, rather
than some off-the cuff diagnosis.
Moreover, on that particular show, Larry King's
questioning of the victims was insensitive and at times appeared
to be accusatory. Some psychologists felt he came close to blaming
the victim.
Victims appearances on TV to discuss their abuse
perpetuated another kind of abuse tantamount to a circus "freak
show." Of course they weren't forced. They willingly succumbed
to the few minutes of fame, so much apart of the TV culture where
people will go to great lengths to make themselves known, even
so far as to eat disgusting objects just to be on a reality show.
These TV programs offer a materialistic piece
of voyeurism to the audience, and where a few minutes of fame
are deemed worthwhile to the participants.
One must ask what needs are served by that segment
of TV culture?
Paid advertisers love the fact that there is an
audience for their products.
For the viewer these programs may be serve their
curiosity.
For the participants, their TV appearances, may
serve a psychological need to substantiate that they are alive.
Proof of their existence. They have finally become visible to
a large population of TV viewers, and have finally created an
impression--no matter whether positive or negative. They are there--if
only for the duration of the program.
Sandra Levy Ceren is a long time Del Mar psychologist
specializing in relationships. To query, or read more visit www.Dr.SandraLevyCeren.com
|