Are they really "doctors"?

Be sure to get it facing forward. The other way can only be read in a mirror by narcissists.

More seriously, sure, use it in writing, if that's your thing. But, believe me, introducing yourself or calling yourself "doctor" just sounds weird and very self-centered.

In the military we always used our titles. It was expected, part of the culture, and had utility. This ain't that.

 

I don't "correct" anyone because that usage is correct. However, the next thing I say is, usually, "Call me 'Rich."

 

"Self-aggrandizing." That's the term for it.

 

And it's boorish, bombastic and buffoonish.

 

It sounds like Rich, Chris, Steve, and Nosborne are saying It is obvious that when a dilettante effectuates a conspicuous argy-bargy on an online community of real-world incurious polymaths, vacuousness emanates.

I'll stop playing the devil's advocate. Seriously it's funny how people get caught up in titles. Nobody really cares except your mother. Your significant other nor your kids really care. They say do, but they really don't.

 

I kinda thought so, Xspect.

 

Its ABD Xspect PhDc

 

I'd rather you didn't speak for me. I'll draw my own assessments.

 

What I'm saying is that I can do without the trolling. And the troll.

 

My gastronomic rapacity knows no satiety.

 

I treat weight loss and eating disorders. I can help ya out

As long as you understand I'm not a Doctor

 

The word "doctor" is derived from the Latin "docere" meaning "to teach." So yes, an audiologist is a "doctor" in every sense of the word as audiologists teach their patients about the hearing process and all its complexities.

 

About 80% of my treatment for tinnitus is education. The rest is testing, examination, and adjusting equipment.

 

That is a good example of the etymological fallacy, namely, asserting the meaning of a term based solely upon its etymological meaning. For example, the term "dynamite" is derived from the Greek δύναμις meaning "power." Everyone, therefore, who has power, has dynamite.

 

You're more than entitled to your opinion. You don't like the idea of, say, an LMHC who possesses a doctorate, even if it is relevant to their field, using the title of Doctor? Fine. Don't go to one.

But whenever this topic comes up you very casually throw around words like "fraud" and "unethical" which are defined by the state rather than any individual's opinion. Is it fraud? Not according to the state of New York it isn't. Nor is it considered unethical. There is nothing in any of our administrative code to disallow a holder of a doctorate from using that title in any of those licensed fields. There is not, to my knowledge, anything illegal about using an UNRELATED doctorate which, in my humble opinion, IS very misleading. So you can certainly use a related doctorate.

CACREP accredits PhDs in Counseling. Not everyone with a psychology is licensed as a psychologist. Some of them are operating under another psychologist's license. Some are LMHCs. Some are LMFTs. Some are licensed psychoanalysts. And if you have a doctorate, then that's just ducky.

You don't like it. We get it. However, there are professionals who do use the title of "Doctor" with those license classes. You're not just railing against a hypothetical construct. And slinging the word "fraud" at them is not just distasteful but potentially opens you up to some serious legal issues.

"In my opinion, this misleads the public" conveys the message just fine. I disagree with your conclusion but I respect your opinion. "This person is committing fraud by doing this" is objectively false and needlessly inflammatory.

And yes, it's probably driven in part by the fact that my wife, an LMHC, is earning a doctorate and will absolutely be referring to herself as "Doctor."

 

Good points.

 

We're already known to disagree on this point. But, yes, is is a fraud. And I will keep saying that every time it comes up. Because, you know, it's "ducky." As for legal issues, I'll wait for an opinion from an actual attorney. Funny how you like to throw yours around but not when someone disagrees.

 

One other thing. It is far different to consider something a fraud and to accuse someone in particular of criminal fraud. I am doing the former. A fraud. A scam. A sham. A rip-off. A bamboozle. A deception.

Considering something a rip-off, for example, is a far cry from accusing someone of ripping you off.

But it is all those things. It's some really scummy behavior and I'm disappointed that it can be legal under some circumstances. But a lot of unethical things are legal. That's just the way it goes.