She can call herself “doctor” all day long til a rainbow farting unicorn appears, but
in the state of California, she CAN NOT legally use the professional title of “psychologist” without a license.
That’s why one of her staffers had an “oh sh*t” moment and scrubbed the professors faculty page removing the reference of her being a psychologist.
In all honesty I believe that she has unwittingly opened up another can of worms, and wasn’t expecting people to start digging into her background.
We found that she’s not a licensed psychologist.
We found that the timeline she gave for her marriage counseling in relation to the home renovation was off by several years.
We found she lied about flying.
And the list keeps getting longer by the day.
The relevant California law is here:
The section pertaining to psychologists starts on page 331 of the pdf.
I do not see in this law any stipulation that someone who has a doctorate in psychology cannot call him/herself a psychologist, and it does say that a person may call him/herself a psychologist if he/she has the training and education. The law also states that only licensed psychologists may practice psychology, which it also defines.
As I think I’ve mentioned before, I have two research psychologists on my medical research team. Their job title is set by US law. They do not practice in a clinic; their work takes place in laboratories. And, like me, they use the title of “Doctor.” Education, not licensing, entitles people to use that title.
This is a complete red herring. Focus instead on the discrepancies, the suspect timing of the story, and the obvious lies, not on the legal definition of “psychologist” in CA law.