These psychologists are terrible with details

Post Reply New Topic

I have been through three neuropsych evaluations, one with a psychology graduate student (under supervision of a licensed clinician) and two with licensed psychologists. You'd think people who have (or almost have) graduate degrees would be very careful with details, but all of them have made grave errors in my reports:

One thought I'd been previously diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder (I said I'd been diagnosed with depression only).

One thought I'd had multiple panic attacks (I told her I'd had one).

One stated in her report that I did not know my own siblings?!

One wrote that I did poorly on a test in one part of the report, then wrote that I had no problems with the test in another part of the report.

Etc.

Anybody else have this problem with psychologists mixing up important details? It seems impossible to trust psychologists after all this. The funny thing is that the grad student wrote in my report that I over-focus on details. They could stand to focus on details more.

After learning about Dunning-Kruger syndrome, John Cleese started asking people who he thought were real experts, not just PhDs, how many of their colleagues really grasped their subject. Estimates ran from 5 to 20%, with about 13% average. In psychology, most of them are just relying on impressions, not data, and trying to match you with someone else they know. Even simple combinations of two common conditions totally baffle them, as they have only been taught about isolated symptoms. Questions of Nature vs Nurture are often treated as ideologies. Still, those University years have to be paid for, and there's a clear majority of ass-covering comrades, so they put up a shiny building and invite us in.