Psychologists Versus Psychologists: Evaluating the Claims of Psychologists Who Publicly Criticize Their Profession
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the 1990s, 7 psychologists have written books for a public audience expressing great dissatisfaction with mental health practitioners. These critics represent 4 English-speaking countries: Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Those psychologists make 3 basic arguments: (a) any improvements attributed to psychotherapy are due to placebo effect, (b) psychological assessments have little value, and (c) clinicians do not meet the legal standards to qualify as experts in a court of law. The present author examines these arguments and concludes that these concerns are unfounded. The exception is that several forensic psychologists had been using tests that were invalid for legal purposes, but this situation has shown gradual improvement in the past 15 years.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.146 | 0.364 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.049 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.029 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".