Jordan Peterson to get “retrained?”
-
He doesn’t practice anymore, this is just about the principle. I am sure anybody can relate to the frustration of being held accountable by nameless faceless people who do not explain themselves and who have no obligation to do so. Reminds me of an HOA.
@Horace said in Jordan Peterson to get “retrained?”:
I am sure anybody can relate to the frustration of being held accountable by nameless faceless people who do not explain themselves and who have no obligation to do so.
I happen to work in that area, and find your comments deeply offensive.
-
He doesn’t practice anymore, this is just about the principle. I am sure anybody can relate to the frustration of being held accountable by nameless faceless people who do not explain themselves and who have no obligation to do so. Reminds me of an HOA.
I am sure anybody can relate to the frustration of being held accountable by nameless faceless people who do not explain themselves and who have no obligation to do so.
That is how it is for regulated professions like psychologists, speech-language pathologists, occupational therapists, physio-therapists, physicians and surgeons, engineers, architects, geologists, barristers and solicitors, accountants and pharmacists to name but a few. Generally it is understood and accepted and in the case of health care professionals appreciated when employers attempt to assign duties and responsibilities upon their membership that is outside of their scope of practice. The regulatory college intervenes on behalf of its membership. All provincial regulatory colleges have set codes of conduct which the members must agree to adhere in order to maintain to their license to practice within the jurisdiction of the College.
Dr. Peterson would not only know and understand this but would also accept it.
-
I am sure anybody can relate to the frustration of being held accountable by nameless faceless people who do not explain themselves and who have no obligation to do so.
That is how it is for regulated professions like psychologists, speech-language pathologists, occupational therapists, physio-therapists, physicians and surgeons, engineers, architects, geologists, barristers and solicitors, accountants and pharmacists to name but a few. Generally it is understood and accepted and in the case of health care professionals appreciated when employers attempt to assign duties and responsibilities upon their membership that is outside of their scope of practice. The regulatory college intervenes on behalf of its membership. All provincial regulatory colleges have set codes of conduct which the members must agree to adhere in order to maintain to their license to practice within the jurisdiction of the College.
Dr. Peterson would not only know and understand this but would also accept it.
@Renauda said in Jordan Peterson to get “retrained?”:
I am sure anybody can relate to the frustration of being held accountable by nameless faceless people who do not explain themselves and who have no obligation to do so.
That is how it is for regulated professions like psychologists, speech-language pathologists, occupational therapists, physio-therapists, physicians and surgeons, engineers, geologists, barristers and solicitors, accountants and pharmacists to name but a few. Generally it is understood and accepted and in the case of health care professionals appreciated when employers attempt to assign duties and responsibilities upon their membership that is outside of their scope of practice. The regulatory college intervenes on behalf of its membership. All provincial regulatory colleges have set codes of conduct which the members must agree to adhere in order to maintain to their license to practice within the jurisdiction of the College.
Dr. Peterson would not only know and understand this but would also accept it.
None of that is a justification for an opaque process in which the authorities do not explain themselves.
Education is extremely important.
-
I'm pretty sure my employer would object strongly if I posted all the stuff that JP does under my own name.
-
I'm pretty sure my employer would object strongly if I posted all the stuff that JP does under my own name.
@Doctor-Phibes said in Jordan Peterson to get “retrained?”:
I'm pretty sure my employer would object strongly if I posted all the stuff that JP does under my own name.
It's a licensing board, not an employer. It would be more appropriate to say they work for him. Again not unlike an HOA.
-
@Renauda said in Jordan Peterson to get “retrained?”:
I am sure anybody can relate to the frustration of being held accountable by nameless faceless people who do not explain themselves and who have no obligation to do so.
That is how it is for regulated professions like psychologists, speech-language pathologists, occupational therapists, physio-therapists, physicians and surgeons, engineers, geologists, barristers and solicitors, accountants and pharmacists to name but a few. Generally it is understood and accepted and in the case of health care professionals appreciated when employers attempt to assign duties and responsibilities upon their membership that is outside of their scope of practice. The regulatory college intervenes on behalf of its membership. All provincial regulatory colleges have set codes of conduct which the members must agree to adhere in order to maintain to their license to practice within the jurisdiction of the College.
Dr. Peterson would not only know and understand this but would also accept it.
None of that is a justification for an opaque process in which the authorities do not explain themselves.
None of that is a justification for an opaque process in which the authorities do not explain themselves..
Although I understand your position on the matter, the opaque process is justified through the respective provincial legislation that governs the mandate of each College. Dr. Peterson knows this and is free to petition his peers to introduce transparency to the process. The colleges are not run by provincial government appointees but by elected members of the profession by the membership at large. Likewise and as I stated already, Dr. Peterson would know this. Rather than crying to the law courts he should be petitioning the membership and seek election to his College’s BOD. If he has no support in such an endeavour then I would say it is not an issue that needs to be addressed.
-
None of that is a justification for an opaque process in which the authorities do not explain themselves..
Although I understand your position on the matter, the opaque process is justified through the respective provincial legislation that governs the mandate of each College. Dr. Peterson knows this and is free to petition his peers to introduce transparency to the process. The colleges are not run by provincial government appointees but by elected members of the profession by the membership at large. Likewise and as I stated already, Dr. Peterson would know this. Rather than crying to the law courts he should be petitioning the membership and seek election to his College’s BOD. If he has no support in such an endeavour then I would say it is not an issue that needs to be addressed.
@Renauda said in Jordan Peterson to get “retrained?”:
None of that is a justification for an opaque process in which the authorities do not explain themselves..
Although I understand your position on the matter, the opaque process is justified through the respective provincial legislation that governs the mandate of each College. Dr. Peterson knows this and is free to petition his peers to introduce transparency to the process. The colleges are not run by provincial government appointees but by elected members of the profession by the membership at large. Likewise and as I stated already, Dr. Peterson would know this. Rather than crying to the law courts he should be petitioning the membership and seek election to his College’s BOD. If he has no support in such an endeavour then I would say it is not an issue that needs to be addressed.
This could be used as a boilerplate defense of any institutionalized bureaucratic nonsense. Meanwhile, the nonsense itself might be interesting to investigate and discuss, to the extent there are details to investigate or discuss.
-
@Renauda said in Jordan Peterson to get “retrained?”:
None of that is a justification for an opaque process in which the authorities do not explain themselves..
Although I understand your position on the matter, the opaque process is justified through the respective provincial legislation that governs the mandate of each College. Dr. Peterson knows this and is free to petition his peers to introduce transparency to the process. The colleges are not run by provincial government appointees but by elected members of the profession by the membership at large. Likewise and as I stated already, Dr. Peterson would know this. Rather than crying to the law courts he should be petitioning the membership and seek election to his College’s BOD. If he has no support in such an endeavour then I would say it is not an issue that needs to be addressed.
This could be used as a boilerplate defense of any institutionalized bureaucratic nonsense. Meanwhile, the nonsense itself might be interesting to investigate and discuss, to the extent there are details to investigate or discuss.
-
What would it take to license Peterson in the U.S.?
-
@Jolly said in Jordan Peterson to get “retrained?”:
What would it take to license Peterson in the
in the U.S.in a province other than Ontario?FIFY.
Dr. Peterson is well aware of the requirements for each province. He would have little problem opening a practice elsewhere other than Quebec, which likely has a French language proficiency requirement he would have to meet.
Elbows up!
-
Want him in Alberta?
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
@Jolly said in Jordan Peterson to get “retrained?”:
What would it take to license Peterson in the
in the U.S.in a province other than Ontario?FIFY.
Dr. Peterson is well aware of the requirements for each province. He would have little problem opening a practice elsewhere other than Quebec, which likely has a French language proficiency requirement he would have to meet.
@Renauda said in Jordan Peterson to get “retrained?”:
@Jolly said in Jordan Peterson to get “retrained?”:
What would it take to license Peterson in the
in the U.S.in a province other than Ontario?FIFY.
Dr. Peterson is well aware of the requirements for each province. He would have little problem opening a practice elsewhere other than Quebec, which likely has a French language proficiency requirement he would have to meet.
He doesn't know exactly why his various tweets and conversations have run afoul of the public conduct rules. Whether the public conduct rules of other provinces would be violated would again be up to an opaque committee.
Education is extremely important.
-
@Renauda said in Jordan Peterson to get “retrained?”:
@Jolly said in Jordan Peterson to get “retrained?”:
What would it take to license Peterson in the
in the U.S.in a province other than Ontario?FIFY.
Dr. Peterson is well aware of the requirements for each province. He would have little problem opening a practice elsewhere other than Quebec, which likely has a French language proficiency requirement he would have to meet.
He doesn't know exactly why his various tweets and conversations have run afoul of the public conduct rules. Whether the public conduct rules of other provinces would be violated would again be up to an opaque committee.
Whether the public conduct rules of other provinces would be violated would again be up to an opaque committee.
I am certain Dr. Peterson is well aware of that risk. A hazard of qualifying for and maintaining the status of a licensed health care professional.
-
Jordan Peterson speaks out:
-
Jordan Peterson speaks out:
@Renauda said in Jordan Peterson to get “retrained?”:
Jordan Peterson speaks out:
Thanks for posting this. From the comments:
This is getting so tiresome. Then don't do as the OCP has ruled DrJP, and give up your license but for the love of all that is good in this country, stop whining and get on with your life! You said yourself you don't need your license anymore. You entered into a profession that has a regulatory body and you knew going in that it had some requirements that you either work by or you don't work.
The opposition always make it sound like he engaged in direct professional misconduct. But obviously his crime is to have engaged in the culture wars, against the mainstream, and in a public and successful manner. This is the mainstream culture fighting back against him. Of course this sort of action will have a chilling effect on any other licensed psychologist, who may agree with Peterson on political matters, but who needs their license to support themselves. That's a problem, for those of us who appreciate free speech. (A dying breed.)
-
@Renauda said in Jordan Peterson to get “retrained?”:
Jordan Peterson speaks out:
Thanks for posting this. From the comments:
This is getting so tiresome. Then don't do as the OCP has ruled DrJP, and give up your license but for the love of all that is good in this country, stop whining and get on with your life! You said yourself you don't need your license anymore. You entered into a profession that has a regulatory body and you knew going in that it had some requirements that you either work by or you don't work.
The opposition always make it sound like he engaged in direct professional misconduct. But obviously his crime is to have engaged in the culture wars, against the mainstream, and in a public and successful manner. This is the mainstream culture fighting back against him. Of course this sort of action will have a chilling effect on any other licensed psychologist, who may agree with Peterson on political matters, but who needs their license to support themselves. That's a problem, for those of us who appreciate free speech. (A dying breed.)
But obviously his crime is to have engaged in the culture wars, against the mainstream, and in a public and successful manner.
The comment you posted suggests to me that the problem is not with Dr. Peterson but rather his colleagues in the profession. That may very well be the case, since “The Guild” does reflect and safeguard the prevailing trends of its membership with regard to professional conduct. In short, Dr. Peterson is surrounded by licensed useful idiots and has no allies on the inside willing to stand with him in his cause. If that is the case, I am frankly surprised. Surely, given his professional insight into personality, the good Doctor ought to have realized long ago that his colleagues in the profession were, by and large, flakes.
-
But obviously his crime is to have engaged in the culture wars, against the mainstream, and in a public and successful manner.
The comment you posted suggests to me that the problem is not with Dr. Peterson but rather his colleagues in the profession. That may very well be the case, since “The Guild” does reflect and safeguard the prevailing trends of its membership with regard to professional conduct. In short, Dr. Peterson is surrounded by licensed useful idiots and has no allies on the inside willing to stand with him in his cause. If that is the case, I am frankly surprised. Surely, given his professional insight into personality, the good Doctor ought to have realized long ago that his colleagues in the profession were, by and large, flakes.
@Renauda said in Jordan Peterson to get “retrained?”:
But obviously his crime is to have engaged in the culture wars, against the mainstream, and in a public and successful manner.
The comment you posted suggests to me that the problem is not with Dr. Peterson but rather his colleagues in the profession. That may very well be the case, since “The Guild” does reflect and safeguard the prevailing trends of its membership with regard to professional conduct. In short, Dr. Peterson is surrounded by licensed useful idiots and has no allies on the inside willing to stand with him in his cause. If that is the case, I am frankly surprised. Surely, given his professional insight into personality, the good Doctor ought to have realized long ago that his colleagues in the profession were, by and large, flakes.
It's not a democracy, it's just a bureaucracy, run by social climbing mainstream bureaucrats who got where they are by thinking and saying all the right progressive things. It's similar to deans or presidents of universities. Their opinions in culture war matters will be systematically leftward of students or faculty, and it is so because they got where they are by being systematically leftward.
-
Call what or what not you wish. At no time was it ever a democratic institution. Actually it’s a modern equivalent of what was once called a Guild:
Professional organizations replicate guild structure and operation.[61] Professions such as architecture, engineering, geology, and land surveying require varying lengths of apprenticeships before one can gain a "professional" certification. These certifications hold great legal weight: most states make them a prerequisite to practising there.[citation needed]
Though most guilds died off by the middle of the nineteenth century, quasi-guilds persist today, primarily in the fields of law, medicine, engineering, and academia.[61] Paralleling or soon after the fall of guilds in Britain and in the United States professional associations began to form. In America a number of interested parties sought to emulate the model of apprenticeship which European guilds of the Middle Ages had honed to achieve their ends of establishing exclusivity in trades[62][63] as well as the English concept of a gentleman which had come to be associated with higher income and craftsmanship[64][61][65]
Licensing and accreditation practices which typically result from the lobbying of professional associations constitute the modern equivalent of a 'guild-privelge', albeit in contrast to guilds of the Middle Ages which held a letters patent which explicitly granted them monopolies on the provision of services, today's quasi-guild privileges are subtler, more complex, and less directly restrictive to consumers in their nature.
Nevertheless, it can be argued quasi-guild privileges are in many cases designed not just to serve some notion of public good, but to facilitate the establishing and maintaining of exclusivity in a field of work.
