Quit making fun of the Papadopouloses!

QuestEon · Number of posts: 631 Registration date: 2008-03-25

That seems to be the new sentiment at FDR.

It has been brought to my attention that the infamous podcasts--Defooing, Parts 1 & 2 (#451 and #452)--have been removed from the site. Or maybe just moved to the private side.

So, if you were looking forward to revisiting that gleeful autumn hike where Stef and Christina are ridiculing her own parent's anguish, you're out of luck.

The question, of course, is why? A continued whitewash of Molyneux's true beliefs as he strives for legitimacy? A repudiation of the defooing philosophy? (Ha. Just kidding.)

I'm putting my money on the continued purge of everything Christina from the site, which would mean they weren't moved, but deleted.

We certainly wouldn't want anything threatening her credibility as a "family counselor," would we?

_________________
-Q.E.

jawol(48) · Number of posts: 124 Location: UK Registration date: 2008-11-16

Well you defiinitely nailed that post QuestEon.

Did Christina actually have any credibility as a family counselor then? and has that credibility been revoked as a result of some therapy that might not be what it should?
My experience tells a different tale of credibility, but then that is just one man's opinion.

QuestEon · Number of posts: 631 Registration date: 2008-03-25

jawol(48) wrote:

Did Christina actually have any credibility as a family counselor then?

I'll bet you didn't expect the following long-winded answer!

I never quite get the full picture of Christina from my little Web quests. (Well, I literally DO have her picture, but...)

If I try to answer that from an AnCap perspective, maybe she is a superb family counselor. Like Molyneux tells his followers, you don't need a degree. (Although it sure seems to be a prominent feature in his own FDR bio...)

So, the only way we could tell for sure from that perspective is by interviewing her past patients. That would be the only test of her credibility.

If I try to answer it from a logical perspective, I get a few shivers down my spine. I think the worst place in the world might be inside Christina's head trying to rewire all of the cognitive disconnects. She runs a family therapy clinic and is married to a guy who has categorically stated (detailed on my site) that the world is screwed up because all parents are bad and the best thing for anyone to do is "turf" all of those relationships.

So, again thinking logically, if Christina mends even one family in which the parents believe in religion or government, she instantly repudiates her husband's philosophy (which he claims he derived from her). If she believes, as her husband does, that virtually all parents are abusive, does she tell that to her younger patients? Does she tell her older patients at the outset that her end goal in therapy is to separate them from their parents?

It's one thing to spout off theories on a Web site. It's another to take those theories daily into a family therapy center and inflict them on unsuspecting patients. I wonder what rationalization gymnastics must go on in that cranium of hers?

Therefore, knowing what I know about the paradoxes in her philosophy, I think her credibility is severly impaired.

Finally, if I try to answer it based on evidence, I get all tangled up in Canadian weirdness. It turns out that in Canada, only two provinces have passed legislation to regulate the practice of marriage and family therapy. One of them is Ontario, where Christina has her practice.

As near as I can guess, although the regulation law has passed, the actual regulations are not yet determined.

That means Ontario, like most other provinces is a psychotherapy wild west. According to a document I found from the Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Council:

"Under Ontario’s present regulatory framework, anyone may represent him or herself as a psychotherapist, or use the title “psychotherapist” regardless of credentials, training, education, experience or lack thereof. Similarly, as psychotherapy is not a Controlled Act, psychotherapy may be provided by anyone in Ontario, regardless of their education, training or experience."

If anybody knows better on this, please correct me. As far as I know, this is where it stands today. But legislation is pending and I think soon?

However, there is a College of Psychologists of Ontario that attempts to provide regulation within the profession itself. To be a member of that group, you need to have either a Masters degree (in which case you can apply for the title of Psychological Associate) or a Doctorate (in which case you can apply for the title of Psychologist).

Christina and her two employees are Psychological Associates. (I think one of her employees is a part-timer, though. He is also listed on the staff of Toronto Psychological Services.)

Here's the thing. Those two employees have Masters Degrees. Christina has Diploma in Child Studies. Now, that's a post-graduate diploma, but it's not a Masters Degree.

There are a number of people floating around in Canada with that diploma and they all seem to come from the University of Toronto. However, I haven't found any evidence that the UofT still offers that diploma.

When it was offered, it certainly wasn't the equivalent of a Masters. (What student would want to do the work required of a Masters and walk away with some weird diploma?) My best evidence suggests that the Dip.CS program was a one-year program and the Masters program is two years.

Now, here's where I get really confused. The University of Toronto has a Psychology Department, of course, but this seems to be separate from that. The diploma seems to have been offered in the Education Department.

The university offers graduate studies in education through the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE). As far as I can tell, when the course of study leading to the Dip.CS was offered, it was through the OISE's Child Studies program. While the program is indeed focused on the psychology of children (in education), it was/is part of the Department of Education, not Psychology. (Does that matter? Don't know. Just trying to get the facts.) It seems that the program still exists as a course of study leading to a Masters degree, but the diploma track has been eliminated.

I'm guessing the program is primarily for elementary ed teachers who want to go into school counseling or maybe just jump start their careers a little. The graduate students in the OISE Child Studies program study in a working laboratory school.

Now, if all that tumbles together right, then this is what we have: There's no telling what Christina's plan was when she applied for this course of study, but when she graduated with her Dip.CS in 1992, she had spent one (1) year in an elementary school setting learning about child development.

Then she apparently opened a family therapy clinic without a shred of graduate training in family dynamics or family relationship counseling.

Of course, I could have this all wrong, but so far--from the evidence perspective--her credibility isn't looking all that great. When the College of Psychologists granted her the title of Psychological Associate in 1997, it was under the following conditions:

According to the Registration regulation 533/98 Sec. 10(2)1, "The member shall practise the profession only within those areas of the member’s competency that are authorized by the College or under the supervision of a member who has competence in those areas".

Based on those regulations, when she opened up her practice had she actually developed the areas of competency needed for autonomous practice in family therapy? I don't know.

Here's something else I don't understand. If you go to the aformentioned College of Psychologists of Ontario and try to apply for membership with Christina's academic credentials, you will be immediately rejected. They have a little on-line questionaire and the first two questions are Do you have a Masters Degree? and Do you have a Doctorate? Two "no's" and you're kicked out of the quiz.

Here are their explicit requirements: In Ontario, there are two regulated titles respecting the practice of psychology. For the title psychologist, you require a doctoral degree in psychology. For the title psychological associate, you require a masters degree in psychology and at least four years of relevant, post-masters degree experience.

Well, Christina doesn't have either of those, but she (along with other Dip.CS holders) has been admitted as a Psychological Associate anyway. I wonder why. Were they grandfathered in, since the Dip.CS. program no longer seems to exist? I have no idea.

And if Ontario has no legislation regarding pyschotherapists now but is about to get some, then what does that mean for Christina? If you must have a Masters or above to be legally allowed to call yourself a psychotherapist is she out of luck? Or, as with the Ontario College, will she just be grandfathered in?

I wonder if her two employees know anything about Molyneux's psychology theories and the contribution Christina has allegedly made to them? I wonder how they would feel about that? For example, you might be interested in this excerpt from the Masters thesis one of them wrote that builds a case about the importance of peer influence on child development:

Quote:

....The development of belongingness can be discussed in terms of socialization. Socialization is described as the process by which an infant become "an acceptable member of his or her society--one who behaves appropriately, knows the language, possesses the requisite skills, and holds the prevailing beliefs and attitudes" (Harris 1995, p. 462). Most theories of social development emphasize parents as the principal agents of socialization (e.g., Sroufe, 1978; Rubin and Soman, 1984). Although young children have been socialized by their parents, in part, through imitation, they also imitated both adults and children outside of their family (Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974; Perry & Bussey, 1984). Rowe (1994) further postulated that it would not make evolutionary sense for children to only learn from their parents, as they would fail to incorporate useful innovations into their lives. According to Hartup (1979), children grow up in at least two social worlds, one with adults and the other with peers.

....One author who has emphasized the importance of group behavior for social development is Harris (1995). Harris (1995) has proposed a controversial theory called Group Socialization Theory, which suggests that peers may actually be the primary socialization agent for at least some facets of development, such as personality development (Harris, 1995, 1998).

Sounds pretty rational to me, but I wonder what this employee would think if she knew her boss's husband suggests those theories are a load of crap and runs a web site for morose navel-gazers who blame their parents for everything? All built, again, on Christina's...credibility?

But I digress. To sum up--at least from the reason and evidence perspectives--I think Christina's credibility is profoundly challenged first by her association with Molyneux (which they are furiously trying to scrub from FDR for reasons unknown) and by the weirdness that is Canada's/Ontario's psychotherapy situation.

I would love to have lunch with her and hear how she thinks it all fits together. 'Cause I sure don't get it.

_________________
-Q.E.

PhaseEight · Number of posts: 11 Location: Canada Registration date: 2009-11-10

I’ve always been interested to know the extent of Christina’s involvement in Stefan’s relationship theories. I understand that she also “deFOO’d” her parents, but was this done on her own volition or did Stef have an influence here as well?

I did notice that Christina occasionally chimes in on some of the podcats; if they want to wipe FDR clean of her name then that will be a challenging task. It will be interesting to monitor the podcast numbers and see which ones, if any, begin to disappear in the same manner as the ones mentioned above.

Conrad · Subject: Re: Quit making fun of the Papadopouloses! Fri Nov 13, 2009 7:44 pm

somewhat dubious about QuestEon's post, the naming names and what not. but I want other people's inputs, and also I want other people to start making decisions for me. in life in general.

_________________
My Blog

Stewart · Number of posts: 1189 Location: Boston, MA Registration date: 2008-04-03

You should replace your dog avatar with something new.

QuestEon · Number of posts: 631 Registration date: 2008-03-25

Conrad wrote:

somewhat dubious about QuestEon's post, the naming names and what not.

I was in hyper-research mode. It doesn't add anything to name names so I took them out. I was probably just showing off anyway.

_________________
-Q.E.

NonEntity · Number of posts: 2638 Registration date: 2007-11-08

Stewart wrote:

You should replace your dog avatar with something new.

Penguins make nice pets.

- NonE flower

Patience · Number of posts: 391 Location: England Registration date: 2008-08-26

QuestEon - that's a fascinating piece of work, with or without the names. It raises some interesting questions. I doubt if Christina has told her employees about her plan to change the world through her work with her husband. She probably didn't mention it when she applied for membership of the College either.

Dylboz · Number of posts: 2058 Registration date: 2007-09-20

Conrad wrote:

somewhat dubious about QuestEon's post, the naming names and what not. but I want other people's inputs, and also I want other people to start making decisions for me. in life in general.

Pull your panties out of your crack, dude. This is public information about people who have intentionally made themselves public figures. QuestEon is doing a public service, I only wish this little corner of the intarwebz had a wider audience. Good work, Mister investigative reporter, sir!

_________________
Please check out my blog!
Dylboznia

Conrad · Subject: Re: Quit making fun of the Papadopouloses! Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:33 am

Stewart wrote:

You should replace your dog avatar with something new.

that's crazy talk. i want good advice.

_________________
My Blog

Conrad · Subject: Re: Quit making fun of the Papadopouloses! Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:36 am

Dylboz wrote:

Conrad wrote:

somewhat dubious about QuestEon's post, the naming names and what not. but I want other people's inputs, and also I want other people to start making decisions for me. in life in general.

Pull your panties out of your crack, dude. This is public information about people who have intentionally made themselves public figures.

but the two partners of her firm have not made themselves into public figures. they do have their names (I reckon) on the clinic's website, so it is public information. and I dig re: warning people of what they might be getting themselves into therapy-wise. hence the connundrum.

Quote:

QuestEon is doing a public service, I only wish this little corner of the intarwebz had a wider audience.

me too. i would be able to live off of the ad revenue

_________________
My Blog

Conrad · Subject: Re: Quit making fun of the Papadopouloses! Sat Nov 14, 2009 3:01 am

Conrad wrote:

Stewart wrote:

You should replace your dog avatar with something new.

that's crazy talk. i want good advice.

I played with this doggie yesterday btw. it was great

_________________
My Blog

QuestEon · Number of posts: 631 Registration date: 2008-03-25

PhaseEight wrote:

I’ve always been interested to know the extent of Christina’s involvement in Stefan’s relationship theories. I understand that she also “deFOO’d” her parents, but was this done on her own volition or did Stef have an influence here as well?

Here's the answer in Molyneux's own words. Podcast #1136 (FooGloo):

Quote:

01:15:01 When my wife’s relationship with her parents began to unravel, it was when I came over. Because, from the outside, you see, right? And you say, “well, I didn’t quite understand how that happened,” or, or, “what was up with that–that seemed like…?” or “Your mom got really tense about this–why was that?” Right? Because when you’re in it, you don’t see it, right? It’s like a noise that plays for twenty fucking years. You don’t hear anything after awhile, right?

So, yeah. According to Molyneux, Christina was "blind" to how lousy her parents were and how unhappy she really was until Molyneux began showing up and picking it all apart.

He's very helpful like that.

I can't imagine the hatred those people must have for him.

_________________
-Q.E.

Patience · Number of posts: 391 Location: England Registration date: 2008-08-26

QuestEon wrote:

So, yeah. According to Molyneux, Christina was "blind" to how lousy her parents were and how unhappy she really was until Molyneux began showing up and picking it all apart.
He's very helpful like that.
I can't imagine the hatred those people must have for him.

I can.