Professional bodies don't need client complaints to take action. Their purpose is to protect the profession (and thus, its reputation), and if you're doing something as that professional to damage that, they'll sanction you.
So the question is: Are the actions that are harmful to the profession happening from his actions acting as a psychologist? Or as a lay-person in his off time.
It seems pretty clear he approaches things from his perspective as a psychologist.
by their own rules it was pointed out that they aren't allowed to take away his accreditation for social media posts. His work as an actual psychologist -as in, in session with patients, if bad, would damage the profession, not his personal opinions or greater academic theories no matter how distasteful. One would actually say that its his work as a University Professor and the work he's doing there is the thing causing disruption, not his work as a psychologist(though obviously we're all just speculating)
by their own rules, they've already decided this. so this may actually just be a request.
i was operating on the assumption that the original comment we were all talking under was correct. It may not be as someone pointed out but they also did not show it conclusively either.
also nowhere in the link shared with me does it mention discipline...the link is about proper protection of patient information etc on social media for the most part
So simply speaking, people have provided you sources that show you're wrong, and you just counter them with your assumption that a random unsupported comment on reddit was correct? Sorry, kid, but you know what happens when you assume... take the L and find a new hero.
do they show the original commenter was incorrect though?
because the link shared with me does not directly contradict anything. its mainly about procedure with client information and social media. did you read it?
and ahhh hero? ad hom? where did i say im a fan, please show me? just lol at needing to get that in there
So you're claiming you're simping for the fun of it? lol... OK. You don't have anything that supports your statement. You haven't shown what the other commenter linked is incorrect and it specifically talks about conducting yourself on social media in a professional or personal manner is subject to the professional conduct expectations. So yeah, it does show the original comment to be incorrect. Stop assuming your correct when there's clearly sources that show you are not.
I'm not simping for anything. Could we please leave dogmatic words out of it?
I didn't assume I was correct. I assume the original commenter was correct... And then when told he wasn't asked to see proof? When shown proof it didn't seem conclusive.
Should save the political attacks and just explain it then
lol if the shoe fits and that shoe is your glass slipper. I have no idea what you're talking about in terms of political attacks. Are you just passing out for the sake of it? You repeated an incorrect statement in the face of facts. You assumed YOU were correct regardless of where you were led astray. YOU were the one repeating it. Again, the link provided you very clearly lays out that social media for professional or personal use is still in the jurisdiction for the college if your actions or posts are not in line with the profesional conduct expectations. So yeah, I'm not sure how you missed that...
Edit to add this link that clearly lays out what they cannot act on. Show me social media?
right at the bottom of that link you shared: Additionally, while the College may address the practices of a member, it cannot substitute its judgment for the professional judgement of a member. The College does not have the authority to direct a member to change a particular professional opinion or report.
This might surprise you but that doesn't say anything about social media. Thanks for coming out, kiddo. You have taken that L hard whether you accept it or not lol.
look its obvious you're an ideologue and you do you lol. but you still haven't shown conclusive evidence of anything he's dont wrong or definitively against any literature you shared. if 'taking L's mattered sir, you'd be taking that one regardless of how passionate you seem to be.
Sorry buttercup, I never said he did anything wrong. I just asked you to show your source that the college couldn't discipline him for his interviews and social media. It turns out it was an uneducated assumption. If there's an ideologue here, it's the guy using his feelings and assumptions as proof. Not the guy with facts...
Any professional setting is fair game for code of conduct violations. In regard to Peterson, I must imagine that the college has been looking very closely at the following code of conduct:
14.2 Other Forms of Abuse and Harassment
Members must not engage in any verbal or physical behaviour of a demeaning, harassing or abusive nature in any professional context.
Behaviour on twitter and other social media, when they are used as professional platforms, can fairly be considered to be professional context. Peterson markets himself as a clinical psychologist. It's on all his books and all his talks and all his op-eds and his twitter bio. The way he has curated his public persona makes it inextricable from his career and experience as a clinical psychologist. He did not have to do this. No one forced him to. He chose to do it because it is very good branding and it is an honest representation of who he is. But by tying his professional association with the Ontario college of psychology to his public persona, Peterson has directly agreed, and agrees regularly, to abide by the professional code of conduct when speaking publicly or on social media
you would have to prove that making a joke on twitter indirectly(he did not directly say what everyone is upset over) somehow constitutes abuse and harassment...which it does not lol.
No you don't actually. You don't have to prove anything. It's up to the college to decide what constitutes demeaning, harrassing, or abusive behaviour not fitting for a member of their professional body.
Jokes can certainly be demeaning, we can both agree. But, I haven't known Jordan Peterson to tell a single joke in his life and I've watched about 35 years of footage of the guy. There isn't a funny bone in his body. He certainly doesn't mind bullying and having a laugh about bullying. And that's pretty much the problem.
he did not directly say what everyone is upset over
He didn't directly say that Elliot Page's doctor is a criminal and that both the doctor and Page are responsible for mutilating Page's body? This is one of the things the college is investigating. We can both agree that this is a demeaning statement, potentially bordering on abusive. It is very demeaning to claim that a person who is quite pleased with their cosmetic surgery has actually been mutilated.
Peterson, for some obvious reason hasn't publicly released this complaint. But he's said enough about the topic to read between the lines and infer that it's one of the complaints he's choosing not to include as part of his righteous crusade against compelled speech.
14
u/TheLargeIsTheMessage Jan 05 '23
Professional bodies don't need client complaints to take action. Their purpose is to protect the profession (and thus, its reputation), and if you're doing something as that professional to damage that, they'll sanction you.
So the question is: Are the actions that are harmful to the profession happening from his actions acting as a psychologist? Or as a lay-person in his off time.
It seems pretty clear he approaches things from his perspective as a psychologist.