Dr. Phil on 'poly-fidelity

Dr. Phil on 'poly-fidelity (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Alternative Lifestyles in the News

Message

Petruchio -> Dr. Phil on 'poly-fidelity (2/2/2006 4:36:29 PM)
Dr. Phil on 'poly-fidelity'– I'm watching it right now. Fairly predictible, but it makes me sort of want Robin. (heh heh)

KatyLied -> RE: Dr. Phil on 'poly-fidelity (2/2/2006 5:36:10 PM)
Another man I can't stand.

Lordandmaster -> RE: Dr. Phil on 'poly-fidelity (2/2/2006 5:56:47 PM)
He's such a phony. You all know about his involvement with diet supplements, right? Basically he has been peddling his name in support of products that he's not qualified to assess. (I'm pretty sure he's a doctor of education, or something like that.)

KatyLied -> RE: Dr. Phil on 'poly-fidelity (2/2/2006 6:00:29 PM)
Here ya go: B.S, M.A. and Ph.D. in clinical psychology from North Texas State University with emphasis in the areas of clinical and behavioral medicine. He has been a certified and licensed clinical psychologist since 1978. Doesn't make him any better in my eyes

Lordandmaster -> RE: Dr. Phil on 'poly-fidelity (2/2/2006 6:38:08 PM)
Hmm, then I was wrong. Anyway, a clinical psychologist still can't claim any special expertise about dietary supplements. There's a damning internal e-mail where he admits that he doesn't know anything about the products he's pushing: http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/371844p-316267c.html

Chaingang -> RE: Dr. Phil on 'poly-fidelity (2/2/2006 7:47:11 PM)
Lots of his techniques are reminiscent of EST. So solid credentials or not, he's off my list of reputable professionals.

LostLenore -> RE: Dr. Phil on 'poly-fidelity (4/27/2006 4:39:12 PM)
To be fair, Dr. Phil was speaking to a case where a selfish husband was trying to convince his wife of many years that she should accept his mistress (lower case m) into their relationship. Had the situation involved all parties holding genuine affection for each other, his answer might have been different. As for Dr. Phil's own domestic bliss, it's clear that Robin's in charge. Note how he defers to Her, usually with a cowering posture and guilty, sheepish grin. If she doesn't thwack him now and then, it's only because he's so well-trained that she doesn't need to.

youQadesh -> RE: Dr. Phil on 'poly-fidelity (4/27/2006 5:32:27 PM)
I don't know much about this but if it has anything to do with him getting paid to solicit a certain supplement then it doesn't really matter if he knows anything about it. All types of famous people get paid to peddle upport for products they know nothing about. It doesn't necessarily reflect him being a phony psychiatrist. From what I have seen it looks like he has helped alot of people, and he is very qualified to do so. I can't blame the guy for advertising supplements for some extra cash(if thats what he was doing). Like I said though, I don' really know what he did so I cant say wether its right or wrong. I just wouldn't be so hard on the guy. He is human after all.

MistressLina -> RE: Dr. Phil on 'poly-fidelity (4/27/2006 5:47:11 PM)
I studied psychology in university, and I'm right with Dr. Phil on most issues, including this one. Poly-fidelity has nothing to do with trying to convince your spouse, whom you led to believe you were faithful to, that your affair is just your way of exploring poly-fidelity. A marriage that is supposed to be monogamous can't suddenly become poly because one person wants to get some on the side. Gimme a break.

JohnWarren -> RE: Dr. Phil on 'poly-fidelity (4/27/2006 5:56:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: youQadesh I don't know much about this but if it has anything to do with him getting paid to solicit a certain supplement then it doesn't really matter if he knows anything about it. All types of famous people get paid to peddle upport for products they know nothing about. It doesn't necessarily reflect him being a phony psychiatrist. Ethical people don't give recommendations for products about which they know nothing. Doesn't matter if they are famous or not. A paid liar is a paid liar.

PlayfulOne -> RE: Dr. Phil on 'poly-fidelity (4/27/2006 8:33:23 PM)
The supplements became and outgrouping of the book and program, The Ultimate Weight Loss Solution. Part of which started based on exercise and low calorie diest centered aroun Dr Phil's motivational techniques. The line of supplements, meal replacment bars and shakes was added in by another company. A group of people sued based not on the fact that the supplements were phony, but the basis of their claim was that they were to expensive and they THOUGHT they could loss weight by only taking the supplements and ignoring the exercise and diet portions of the program. There are enough reasons to dislike Dr Phil without trunping up ones. K

youQadesh -> RE: Dr. Phil on 'poly-fidelity (4/28/2006 7:22:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JohnWarren Ethical people don't give recommendations for products about which they know nothing. Doesn't matter if they are famous or not. A paid liar is a paid liar. Oh geez I just accidentally deleted my response. Anyway, what I basically said is… I agree that peddling products one knows little about is unethical at varying degrees depending on the context it was done in. For example, it would be more unethical for him to tell paid clients to use the supplements for their well-being, than it would be for him to appear on a commercial for the product. It also matters how he peddled the product…did he say he personally recommends it as someone who uses the product (which to me is fine to do if he actually does use it), or did he claim to be an expert on it(which would be false and more immoral). I am coming from a family who owns a natural health and beauty store. None of us are professionals, or qualified to give medical advice, but we honestly try to steer people to the right products for their ailment. In that way we do peddle products we may not be experts on. Is that unethical? I could go on and on about different scenarios and make judgments on their level of morality, but geez, that would be really boring. What I am ultimately getting at is that just because one of his actions may be unethical does not make him a bad psychiatrist, nor does it reduce his whole character down to just being a paid liar. It is just my opinion that people are not as nominal as that; He could be an ethical psychiatrist to his clients, while being an unethical business man in some respects. Also the context of the peddling matters a lot to me. Hope I didn’t bore you with this drawn out response.

youQadesh -> RE: Dr. Phil on 'poly-fidelity (4/28/2006 7:26:29 AM)
Ahh thats what the law suit was all about.... unbelievable! [:-]

JohnWarren -> RE: Dr. Phil on 'poly-fidelity (4/28/2006 7:40:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: youQadesh I am coming from a family who owns a natural health and beauty store. None of us are professionals, or qualified to give medical advice, but we honestly try to steer people to the right products for their ailment. In that way we do peddle products we may not be experts on. Is that unethical? I could go on and on about different scenarios and make judgments on their level of morality, but geez, that would be really boring. I did retail sales so I know how this works. The big question would be "did you make a bigger profit or receive a per-sale bonus on the products you recommended?" I recommended products too. Sometimes my recommendations were quite strong, but I was on salary and made the same amount selling a piece of crap Kodak or a Nikon F. There was a camera with a built in flash called a Keystone. We saw almost as many of them returned for repairs as we sold but each sales person got $2 per sale. I never recomended that anyone buy one of theses. Unless I find that Dr Phil had some reason besides money for recommending the snake oil, I'll keep my opinion. Part of my feeling about this goes back to when I was a young boy listening to Arthur Godfrey. It seems that one of his sponsors had a defective product. He not only kicked the sponsor off his show but the went on the air to explain why he had done so in a similar way the Oprah did her literary mia culpa a few months ago.

FelinePersuasion -> RE: Dr. Phil on 'poly-fidelity (4/28/2006 8:08:45 AM)
Dr phil's disclaimers about his show say you can not be a guest in his audience if you're under pychiatric care. I don't care for the man just cause he annoys me.

GoreanBob -> RE: Dr. Phil on 'poly-fidelity (4/28/2006 8:13:14 AM)
Dr. phill is a hack! No repeat NO doctor that respects his patints gets into "public" analysis. To many variables and each case is different. Bob

cloudboy -> RE: Dr. Phil on 'poly-fidelity (4/28/2006 9:43:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MistressLina I studied psychology in university, and I'm right with Dr. Phil on most issues, including this one. Poly-fidelity has nothing to do with trying to convince your spouse, whom you led to believe you were faithful to, that your affair is just your way of exploring poly-fidelity. A marriage that is supposed to be monogamous can't suddenly become poly because one person wants to get some on the side. Gimme a break. So, in your universe, it boils down to denial or divorce.

Smythe -> RE: Dr. Phil on 'poly-fidelity (4/28/2006 8:17:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MistressLina I studied psychology in university, and I'm right with Dr. Phil on most issues, including this one. Poly-fidelity has nothing to do with trying to convince your spouse, whom you led to believe you were faithful to, that your affair is just your way of exploring poly-fidelity. A marriage that is supposed to be monogamous can't suddenly become poly because one person wants to get some on the side. Gimme a break. People change. I didn't see the show, so I am not sure of the facts. Based on what you have said, you may be right. But on the other hand, a person may have been monogamous in the early years of a relationship and then changed, and realized he or she needed more. In that case, give him or her credit for trying to bring the spouse along in trying something new, instead of just cheating. A marriage that is monogamous can't suddenly become poly but it can become poly. Smythe

Lordandmaster -> RE: Dr. Phil on 'poly-fidelity (4/28/2006 9:34:53 PM)
Not true. You can read the text of the complaint here: http://www.casewatch.org/civil/drphil/classactioncomplaint.shtml The allegations are quite serious, and include several instances of fraud and misleading statements about research. It's not just that a bunch of fat-asses thought they could lose weight by popping pills and not doing any exercise. quote: ORIGINAL: PlayfulOne The supplements became and outgrouping of the book and program, The Ultimate Weight Loss Solution. Part of which started based on exercise and low calorie diest centered aroun Dr Phil's motivational techniques. The line of supplements, meal replacment bars and shakes was added in by another company. A group of people sued based not on the fact that the supplements were phony, but the basis of their claim was that they were to expensive and they THOUGHT they could loss weight by only taking the supplements and ignoring the exercise and diet portions of the program. There are enough reasons to dislike Dr Phil without trunping up ones.

cloudboy -> RE: Dr. Phil on 'poly-fidelity (4/29/2006 5:24:12 AM)
quote: A marriage that is monogamous can't suddenly become poly but it can become poly. The deck is so stacked in favor of romantic ideals, "shoulds," and cheating that Poly barely ever seems to have a fighting chance. It makes me think of Stef's "lonely old man." http://www.collarchat.com/m_264916/mpage_1/key_van/tm.htm#265012 Of course there's nothing like good old 60s propaganda either: > Parents, teachers, and concerned adults all counsel against premature marriage. But they rarely speak the truth about marriage as it really is in modern middle class America. The truth as I see it is that contemporary marriage is a wretched institution. It spells the end of voluntary affection, of love freely given and joyously received. Beautiful romances are transmuted into dull marriages, and eventually the relationship becomes constricting, corrosive, grinding, and destructive. The beautiful love affair becomes a bitter contract. The basic reason for this sad state of affairs is that marriage was not designed to bear the burdens now being asked of it by the urban American middle class. It is an institution that evolved over centuries to meet some very specific functional needs of a non industrial society. Romantic love was viewed as tragic, or merely irrelevant. Today it is the titillating prelude to domestic tragedy, or, perhaps more frequently, to domestic grotesqueries that are only pathetic. Marriage was not designed as a mechanism for providing friendship, erotic experience, romantic love, personal fulfillment, continuous lay psychotherapy, or recreation. The Western European family was not designed to carry a lifelong load of highly emotional romantic freight. Given its present structure, it simply has to fail when asked to do so. The very idea of an irrevocable contract obligating the parties concerned to a lifetime of romantic effort is utterly absurd. < Mervyn Cadwallader Writing in THE ATLANTIC, 1966

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

4.003906E-02