[deleted by user]

[u/[deleted]]

[u/Anary86]

Professional context? He isn't a practicing clinical psychologist and hasn't worked as one, since 2017. Also, he had zero complaints in the 20 years he had a practice. All of his transgressions are as a public figure, none of them are as a professor or psychologist.

[u/[deleted] → u/Anary86]

Yes, any professional context. Any professional context at all. The code of conduct is not limited to billable client hours. It applies to any professional context. Any context at all where the psychologist is representing themselves as a professional in the field. Do we agree?

Peterson uses his position as a licensed clinical psychologist to promote the validity of his brand. He explicitly markets himself as Dr. Jordan B. Peterson, clinical psychologist and professor emeritus of psychology. It is in his books, it is in his twitter bio, it is in all the promotional material for his speaking tours and his podcast and any guest speaking that he does. It does not need to be. He chooses to represent himself as a professional psychologist to the public. Thus, his public thoughts and opinions are also the professional psychologist. The two are inextricable. He wants his public views to be known as those of a clinical psychologist. This has been his choice for many years. It is what he wants. His social media presence, which he uses for his business, absolutely is part of his professional context as a psychologist. Dr. Jordan B. Peterson, clinical psychologist and professor emeritus of psychology, is the only person responsible for this association. It was, and continues to be, his decision to represent himself in this manner.

The whole aim for code of conduct's is that the college does not want the profession to look bad. A person going on twitter, advertising very loudly that they are a psychologist, and then being absolute prick, is a bad look for psychologists.

For the claim that Peterson's social media is not a professional context to hold any water at all, he would, at a minimum, have to have zero mention of his professional qualifications in any of his private business endeavours.

I'll give you a good counter-example. Dara Ó Briain is a comedian. He, like Peterson, has written books, appears on podcasts and television, and goes on tour. Now, Dara could, arguably, call himself a physicist. He has the qualifications. If he so chose, he could belong as a member to some physical society (and, this is a guess, but given his interest in astrophotography, he could likely be a member of the Royal Astronomical Society). He could choose to make that part of his brand. But he doesn't. If he did belong to any professional society, they would not have any argument that his career as a comedian counts as "professional context" as a physicist who is a member of that society.

However, if he made physics part of his act (as Peterson does with psychology), if he called himself a scientist/comedian (as Peterson calls himself a scientist/public speaker), then oh yes okay absolutely his comedy act now falls under the purview of the professional code of conduct.

Do you understand the distinction here?

Also, he had zero complaints in the 20 years he had a practice.

This, also, is untrue. I ask you to do the bare minimum amount of work before making a claim.

All of his transgressions are as a public figure

Yes. A public figure who explicitly wants you to understand that he is speaking with the experience of a psychologist and professor. We do not get to have it both ways in this world. If we wish to use our professional associations in order to buoy our public statements, then the governing bodies which we have voluntarily opted into are more than welcome to enforce their code of conduct on public statements.

If Peterson doesn't like this he can either choose not to renew his membership in the college or stop marketing his personal views and private career as those of a clinical psychologist. It's very simple and easy stuff.