Category: Human Behavior and Cognitive Science

HOW CAN WE REFORM BEHAVIORAL SERVICES?
re: coaching > mentoring > behavioral training > counseling > therapy > psychology

I have a problem with treating coaching, mentoring, behavioral training, counseling, therapy, and psychiatry as ‘mental health’ services. I mean, that’s probably true for psychiatry, but the rest is just behavioral modification by the degree of effort needed to apply some form of education, suggestion, or repetitive exposure (suggestion) to assist someone in improving, overcoming, and correcting behaviors.

I also have a problem with the pretense that the universities graduate competency in mental health, given the state of the industry and it’s long march out of pseudoscience on one hand and it’s feminine infantilization as the solution to everything on the other.

So assuming we could obtain the power to legislate a change in an industry that is too frequently either backward, ineffective, or harmful, how could we both reframe the spectrum of behavioral modification, and how could we legitimize those who demonstrated competency rather than demonstrated time in the education system?

CURT
So, much of my work is constructed out of cognitive and behavioral science and the scale of those behaviors in law, economics, politics, and group strategic differences.

At the moment the crisis in psychology is continuing because there is a lag between the discipline as practiced, and the state of the science. (see Kuhn’s ‘disciplines progress via tombstones.’)

At present we have a spectrum of coaching (unlicensed) > Counseling (licensed) > Therapists (licensed) > Psychiatry (licensed) and Neurologist (licensed).

Unfortunately there are people who are using the term ‘coach’ even though they are practicing counseling (advice), training(behavioral modification), counseling (crisis) and therapy (repair), because they have developed enough of a client base, published books and articles, and reputation in the market for the quality of their work.

So, first, is there a label or name for this category of ‘craftsmen’ not yet academically certified (titled), and second, if not, what would be appropriate, and what method could we certify them by?

Because we are in a period of rapid expansion of mental health issues (for reasons we do understand but we can’t modify the education system to correct it). And the demand for competency is increasing.

Even in the licensed disciplines of counseling and therapy these are perhaps the most behind, and there are social and political and economic consequences to the present state of these disciplines in the context of the current state of the population.

And, finally, I guess, third, what would you recommend we do to alter this state of affairs?

CLAUDE:
The situation you describe, where individuals are providing mental health services (is it health or fitness?) without formal licensing or academic certification, is a complex issue that raises concerns about quality control, standardization, and public safety.

The term “coach” is often used as a catch-all for these types of practitioners, but it can be misleading, as it doesn’t adequately distinguish between those providing general guidance and those offering more specialized mental health services.

Labeling the category of “craftsmen” not yet academically certified: One potential label for this group could be “mental health practitioners” or “mental health consultants.” (Or” behavioral fitness consultants”) Another option might be “behavioral health advisors,” which emphasizes their focus on helping individuals with cognitive and behavioral challenges.

These terms acknowledge their work in the mental health field while distinguishing them from licensed professionals such as therapists, counselors, and psychiatrists.

Certifying practitioners: Establishing a certification process for these practitioners could help ensure a minimum standard of competency and provide a level of accountability.

This certification could be based on a combination of factors, such as:
a. Relevant education and training in psychology, counseling, or related fields (<< No. This Is the Problem)
b. Practical experience working with clients (Yes)
c. Completion of specific courses or workshops focused on evidence-based practices << Again, no.
d. Adherence to a code of ethics and professional conduct (Yes)
e. Ongoing professional development and supervision (No)

The certification could be overseen by a professional association or an independent certifying body, which would set the standards and requirements for certification.

(SNIP) (The rest is drivel)

CURT:
Hmm… Ok. I have one response that I think is important.

– There is no evidence that educational certification produces the outcome it promises.
– All it does is insulate the practitioner from liability and give him or her access to funds from insurance companies – which may sound like an exaggeration but the evidence of iQ scores and performance in the field justifies that claim.
– And the education system has basically certified anyone who puts in the time and pays the bill.

Conversely, In the case of the law, and in the case of accounting, and in the case of investments (series seven certification) one demonstrates competency by rigorous tests that are demonstrably difficult to pass. In the case of at least german PhD’s you must survive an onslaught of questions by those who train PhD’s.

IMO we would be better off with apprenticeships and demonstrated success with clients, and tests than we are with academic programs, especially when the academic programs are still using information and strategies that are sixty years behind in many cases. And the entirety of which began with the pseudoscientific narrative of freud, that cause the bifurcation of psychology into from into cognitive science and neurology.

So if we still have states that you can apprentice in law and just take the test, and if this is the way most disciplines are regulated (‘can you do it’) then why shouldn’t we do so with that border between those people who need help thinking and behaving differently, and those people who are in trauma or crisis, and those people who have some sort of biological issue that requires medical attention and constant moderation?

CLAUDE:
You raise a valid point about the limitations of educational certification in ensuring the quality and competency of mental health practitioners. The current system, which relies heavily on academic programs and certifications, does not always guarantee that practitioners have the necessary skills and knowledge to effectively help their clients.

The idea of shifting towards an apprenticeship model and competency-based testing is an interesting alternative. This approach would focus on practical skills and demonstrable abilities rather than solely on educational credentials. Apprenticeships could provide aspiring mental health practitioners with hands-on experience, allowing them to learn from experienced professionals and develop the skills needed to work effectively with clients.

Competency-based testing, similar to the rigorous exams required for lawyers, accountants, and investment professionals, could help ensure that mental health practitioners have the necessary knowledge and skills to provide quality care. These tests could cover a range of topics, including:

(Snip) (Nonsense criteria – failure to know the difference between an obstacle (mental fitness) and a problem (mental health)).

Moreover, categorizing mental health services based on the level of care required, as you suggest, could help ensure that clients receive the appropriate type of support.

This could involve distinguishing between:
1 – Coaching and Encouragement with ordinary life and occcupation.
2 – Psychological Mentoring for those who need help with thinking and behavior modification
3 – Counseling or Therapy for individuals experiencing trauma or crisis
4 – Medical attention and ongoing moderation for those with biological or severe mental health issues

Implementing such changes would require a significant shift in the current system and would likely face resistance from established institutions and professionals.

[END]