Dr. Gina Loudon

Her Phd dissertation is on her own theory contrasting Sternberg’s theory of love with the Maslovian hierarchical needs, and then applied it hermeneutically to existing data on relationship. It is also reported at William Woods, Loudon majored in psychology and minored in design/education. Clearly a student of Psychology. Within her book she also makes clear that she does not do clinical work and that she is a researcher. The distortion of her degree is found at the end of the book, titled "About the Author", and is clearly written by Regnery Publishing. The jacket of the book continues this falsehood, but was not designed by the author. Here is hoping that those involved with that project still have a job.

 

Thank you. Just what I thought. I might be wrong, but the topic seems as if it could be defended in an Org Psych program, and is not better or worse than what most of these usually produce. More importantly for the initial topic, the degree and the institution are clearly RA.

The book may be a load of hogwash (I'll never know for sure), but the degree is undoubtedly real. And undoubtedly qualifies her to write questionable books (everyone is qualified to do that, in all parts of political and every other spectrum).

 

People simplify degrees all the time in professional settings. I wouldn't recommend it for book publishing, but I see it on resumes constantly.

I've told you of my coworker who was awarded a Master of Science in Business Administration (what his diploma says). In the decades since his graduation, however, the school has changed that to a proper MBA and he identifies his degree as an MBA.

I've also seen people fudge the whole M.A./M.S./M.P.S. line at times. The only time you start getting into fraud territory, in my opinion, is when you try to make your degree look like something it is not. Having an M.S. in CompSci is a great achievement. Don't call it an M.Eng. (unless it actually is!) just because you think it gives you software engineering cred.

I don't need to like or defend a person's political opinion to absolutely defend their legitimate use of a legitimate degree. It's bull when people call Union Institute a diploma mill. As much as I disagree with the USDOE recognition of TRACS, I'd defend a graduate from a TRACS accredited university in the same way.

Argue with a person's views, their positions and their claims. No need to try to sling mud against a perfectly legitimate school and degree.

 

Reality check, combined with Levicoff's latest theory on DI posts:

Any new member who joins this forum and posts one message on the day of joining (regardless of how intelligent that message may appear), especially in an esoteric thread that has been necromanced, and will likely never post elsewhere if at all, is a bullshit artist. Last I counted, there are three such posts in this thread (allegedly by three different "new members"), and the style would suggest that they were all written by the same person.

My fellow DI'ers, y'all have to learn to stop taking the bait dropped by trolls.

 

I've been told that sometimes it's best to let the fish run a bit before you reel them in.