Not sure how true the article was that I read from DANGEROUS few hours ago, but someone investigated her degree and found out she is not licensed anywhere to be psychologist. Someone also altered her Stanford school page and changed it from research psychologist.
Opps hit post before ready. Changed it from research psychologist to Affiliate. Before the alteration, it was saved on the way back machine. It’s illegal in California to list yourself as a psychologist if you are not. Not to mention, she stated to Congress under oath her title.
Well she wouldn’t need to be licensed to be a psychologist if she isn’t a practicing psychologist. That’s a no starter road.
http://www.apa.org/gradpsych/2004/01/get-licensed.aspx
. Those who work at a college or university, state or federal institution, research laboratory or a corporation may be exempt from having to be licensed in some states.
Yep. Her Stanford publications list on the Wayback Machine calls her a "Research Psychologist, Psych/General Psychiatry and Psychology (Adult)" and is four and half pages long. The current version of the same calls her an "Affiliate, Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences" and is empty.
Does a research psychologist need a license? Or do only clinical psychologists need to be licensed? Does a research psychologist treat patients?
She doesn’t do clinical work. You don’t have to be licensed to do research
She is not that kind of psychologist. Her specialty is statistical analysis in social psychological populations. In short she consults with pharmaceutical companies to establish the validity of drug tests and the like.
She is not your cornerstone head shrinker.
I don’t believe her story. But we should be accurate in our descriptions—that way we can focus the conspiracy theories where they are “true.”