The “intellectual elite” did a lot of the damage themselves.
I want you to go watch a youtube channel called The Octopus Lady. She’s a member of Nebula, young woman with some marine biology credentials who zilennials her way through science communication mostly about ocean life. And she does the legwork, or tries to. She makes a running gag out of sounding out all the latin. “Nootfish are in the order pi…pisca…pis-caen-id-ae? And the phylum Pis-caein-in-ae? Piscaieninae.” And it’s not difficult to find an episode where she’ll talk about reading published research papers and completely failing to understand them, because they’re written in space catholic. She’ll read excerpts like “The phyringial jaws are motulidated lantitherally from the up end of the distal and caudal sclipera. When feeding, they linticulate joternimously in a cirratic fashion.” She has a habit of damning basically any scientist in any field other than marine biology to turbohell because she understands their work even less.
“Cite your source.” “Okay. 5.8th dimensional pile of moon runes Hope this clears it up.”
It raises the problem of science-shaped bullshit. The MLA or APA style guides are manuals on how to fake scientific literature. It’s very easy to make bullshit look credible. This happens a lot; industries hold fake scientific conferences where bullshit research is presented before being published in bullshit journals so that you can find the bullshit people cite when lying on behalf of a corporation.
Hell just go to a doctor. Make an appointment months in advance to have someone dead inside prescribe you whatever SSRI their office is wallpapered with ads for as treatment for astigmatism. Women commonly complain of having their problems outright ignored, meanwhile men pretty much just give up and just…live with three knees on one leg out of not unfounded fear the hospital will just maim them further. After all, if you cut a patient’s dick off during a tonsilectomy, you get to charge them for reattachment. The healthcare system managed to make themselves the worst part of a forklift accident.
Universities selling out en masse offering bullshit degrees like Musical Psychology casts a certain “What the fuck are you doing?” shadow over everything they do. But what do you expect out of our nation’s classroom-themed minor league professional sports franchises?
It’s not elitism. It’s fucking fact. Someone trained in a discipline knows more about said discipline than someone who isn’t
Not to say that you’re wrong, but this is a dangerous argument. There are a FUCKTON of antivax nurses and numerous antivax doctors.
Yogo moms are a universally bad source, but even ‘credible’ sources suffer the appeal to authority fallacy .
Never said to trust someone blindly. Is this how far we’ve fallen? The mere thought that an expert in their field may in fact be an expert in said field needs to be taken apart?
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Authority
We haven’t fallen at all. You should be aware of logical fallacies.
I literally just pointed out that someone who is trained in a discipline knows more about said subject than someone who is not. This is fact. What they choose to do with said knowledge up to and including falling victim to conspiracy theories is a seperate matter.
I also said not to trust blindly. These words are written right there to go back to look at whenever you please.
If you want to spew logical fallacies, look up “straw man” and “false dilemma”
I think I’ll just skip to block user and let you be as salty as you want to be to everyone else.
Correcting your misconceptions isn’t salt. But feel free to block.
It’s not hard to buy an MD and they can be bought cheap, especially in the UK.
Dog whistle.
No, don’t just blindly believe professionals either.
Cause some of them a assholes who try to sow discord for their own personal profit.
Like Andrew Wakefield, who started the whole “Vaccines cause autism!” fraud, because he wanted to sell shit that would benefit from the distrust he was creating and thought undermining faith in existing medicine would be a great marketing ploy.
and theres been tons of famous, formerly reputable doctors since, that have put down their ethics and picked up the snake oil since then. Like Mehmet Oz.
I have had pharmacists refuse to hand over the script after asking a few questions because it turned out the prescribing doctor was actually very incredibly dangerously wrong.
That’s the reason why Pharmacology is a tough degree. Nurses also cross check MD mistakes every day.
As someone who is an expert in one area and as dependent as anyone else in others, and who also hates appeals to authority -
To me, the correct stance is that any should be able to question things that don’t make intuitive sense or that one suspects might be a perspective motivated by financial considerations instead of expertise.
Note that I said question. Not invent your own replacement fever-dream explanation.
Questions require good-faith attempts to find information and understand.
Not pitch something where its main virtue is that it makes ignorance feel good actually.
There’s a reason peer reviewed studies are so important.
It’s literally other people with knowledge on the subject questioning the results of a study until everyone agrees to the conclusion.
It’s not just one person pulling something out of their ass and saying “Look! This thing!” and everyone just going along with it. It’s questioned and proven multiple times.
I’ve gone to college. I’ve been taught buy people who are supposed to know this shit how to find scholarly sources. I’ve cited such sources in essays. Something I’ve never been shown are those peer reviews. Hell, it seems like half the experiments I was taught about in school come with a “And here’s why we ethically CAN’T repeat this study” like the Stanford Prison Experiment.
There are many peer reviewed studies subsequently retracted. The problem is most journals do not value the expertise or time of reviewers. Not a perfect system.
I generally agree, but there is a level of ignorance where you don’t even really know what questions to ask, and subjects complicated enough that you just aren’t equipped to understand an answer without needing a lot of background education first because they just aren’t intuitive at all by nature. At that point, is there really much value in asking the question?
Determining where that line is is hard sometimes, but I do think it’s there.
Asking questions doesn’t hurt. If the answer still confuses someone, they then need the humility to admit it instead of covering their ears and yelling “I CAN’T HEAR YOU”
This breaks down pretty quickly though because laypeople fundamentally don’t engage with the world scientifically. The default mode is “can I believe this” but science requires “have I excluded everything else”. The former feels like the job is done, so why put in more work?
I just want people to trust. Being skeptical and wanting to learn is perfectly fine, but also, people do go to school for these things for years, you know? Have a little a faith they aren’t lying to you.
By “you” I just mean people generally, of course.
You’re both spot on. We live in a deliberately low trust society with grief merchants heckling experts for the sole intention of division.
I don’t know how we can get back to a high trust society, but it did exist once, and I think the first step to it is education and the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine in the media
Counterpoint: a group of MDs in Toronto published a peer-reviewed paper in 2020 claiming SARS/Cov2 was from outer space.
MDs are not scientists. They pretend they are.
This is kind of the attitude I’m talking about.
Is this story even notable? Like, how much attention is this even getting?
I am not interested in propaganda that sews distrust in our institutions and collective efforts when I’ve already said that being skeptical is fine.
When you have enough charlatans trying to push corporate or religious agendas, you’ve got two choices:
-
Every single human being needs to repeat every single experiment they rely on for their work or pleasure because there is no such thing as trust, only the scientific method and the power of repeating experiments to verify results, or
-
We need to have institutions to do this shit for us whose reputations MATTER at the flesh and bone level. What that looks like, at this point I’m not sure, because criminals always win.
-
We need to bring back actual learning. Sorry, but an accredited source will always be better than anything emerging from nazi owned X.com.
Not just influencers, but also politicians and news media. I have a master’s degree in statistics, and it’s not at all uncommon for politicians and media to misrepresent scientific results. Correlation does not equal causation. If a study hasn’t been peer reviewed, I wouldn’t say that it proves anything just yet. Studies on a non-representative sample aren’t generalizeable to the population as a whole. And so on…
And science is more about disproving things anyway. It’s more of a “this is the best we can tell right now, given the information and observations we currently have”
Not “zomg vaccines cause puppy deaths! My dog died after getting hit by a car but wouldn’t have if he hadn’t been vaccinated! See? I proved it!”
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: this kind of “elitism” is literally just division of labor which is basically required for a modern society to function.
Why don’t we structure our political systems around the scientific method? That is all of the policies are testable and the goal is the optimization of the HDI, GDPPP, and environmental impact. Why employ policies based on beliefs or feelings when we can just test them.
Sure, as soon as politicians have to have minimal education requirements.
It’s a tough problem. Those who are intelligent typically do not want to be politicians. A problem as old as society, the best rulers are typically the last people who would want the position.
Because then the capital class wouldn’t be able to control us, and steal the value of our work from us. If governments ran on tested and proven data, then we would have wind and solar farms, vast public transportation networks, infrastructure for cycling as transportation, national healthcare, 2-3 years of paid family/maternal leave for the birth/placement of a new child, and low cost post secondary education. Drops mic
Most likely. I think we’ve lost the plot globally. Society was meant to increase the quality of life of humans. In the origin when a society or more so a town failed to benefit people could just transition back into hunter gatherers and leave.
I think the other part of this is we don’t need to be beholden to a political philosophy devised by people who were essentially unconcerned by the scientific method or not even aware of it in their time. That is it really doesn’t matter if a policy is quote unquote socialist or capitalist or anything if it measurably optimizes the HDI, GDPPP, and environmental impact better than another policy. A lot of this political philosophical infighting seems more like a divide and conquer tactic than people collectively working towards a more fruitful society. I think we can step back from myopic world views and embrace a multimodal system that’s a little of whatever literally works the best.
That’s just what mega-corporations are doing right now. And you can see the results of that. IMHO it’s not that easy.
I don’t think E-corps are structured similarly, that is if they are using a scientific method to discern their policies it’s towards the end goal of increasing profits and market dominance more so than human and environmental wellbeing. So you may be right in one aspect but the target is totally different.
Look, I have no qualifications at all, but I did read a blog post. So I’m pretty sure I know what I’m talking about
Well at least you’ve read something which puts you ahead of most anti-vaxxers, who just rely on Facebook videos.
I hate to disagree with you, but I’be honestly got a feeling and I can’t think of a better reason than that.
Masters degree in AI here.
Every day I feel like medical specialist during highest anti-vax craze. No matter what I say, no matter what kinda research and articles I cite social media and advertising simply scream louder and more often.
Maybe if the people in control of AI weren’t quite literally the most evil people currently on the planet, more people would understand. Also the fact that they’re all trying to cram it into every aspect of our lives, despite it being a demonstrable failure doesn’t help.
Same. AI/ML background long pre-dating GPT; trying to navigate my career is sending me to an early grave from the number of charlatans and rich idiots flooding every part of the industry, talking complete nonsense, and getting an army of devoted fans who make shit memes dissing “luddites”.
I can’t participate in any AI-related forums any more because of the sheer number of twats pontificating about nature of sentience, who think “backpropagating” is something you’d find at a swingers’ party.
Yeah AI-related forums are absolutely apeshit. Online discourse is pretty much either “AGI is here, use AI for everything, no questions asked, no criticism accepted” or “AI is the coming of anti-christ, end to humanity and even looking at AI products should be punishable by death”.
No in-between online.
IMHO “Appeal to Authority” is a very bad mindset, but conspiracy theory thinking is worse.
The funniest part about conspiracy theories is that, while yes, professionals can absolutely be wrong, but how is it better just to make up random nonsense and see what sticks? Preaching critical thinking and then failing to engage in it is the peak of comedy.
You’re talking about the logical fallacy. Or maybe you’re not, I don’t know. It’s only a bad mindset when the authority isn’t qualified.
The problem right now is there’s nothing but false claims to authority. Hence the original post.
Even the fucking witches know to trust the virologists
I like the witches who tell people to buy carbon monoxide detectors. One time I told a patient with abusive auditory hallucinations that her nighttime zyprexa was gonna shut the stupid bastard up and she was welcome to ascribe whatever spiritual interpretation she liked to that.
I see the point, but I don’t think intellectual elitism is the same as anti-anti-intellectualism. I think intellectual elitism creates a sense of alienation from science that in fact leads to anti-intellectualism. “I have more specialized knowledge than you” is not the same as “I’m better than you,” and acknowledging that is the solution
I think they’re joking about the elitism part. People just need to stop to listen to idiots
I’m afraid, unfortunately, that it is precisely the idea that anyone could understand everything without much effort that makes people so susceptible to utter nonsense.
This also gives rise to the impression that so-called intellectual elites are nothing more than charlatans who want to pull the wool over the public’s eyes with their incomprehensible “intellectual secret language.” So people end up looking to idiots who, while having not the slightest clue about the subject, explain things in a way that anyone can follow—even without knowing anything about it themselves—or at least believe they understand all the “nonsense” those snobby scientists are spouting.
In my view, this effect—which definitely exists—also clearly reveals who is primarily responsible for it: namely, the operators of the major social media platforms, all of whom are billionaires that have a genuine interest in ensuring that the masses allow themselves to be duped.
If that were not the cause, this effect would have to occur particularly among the financial elite as well, and people would be asking en masse whether their vast power might be unjustified—yet this does not seem to be the case at all among the general public.
This in turn gives rise to the schizophrenic state whose effects we are witnessing today: People distrust science, but they do not question the goals pursued, for example, by climate change deniers, who by no means came up with their narratives on their own, but are well paid to spread them as widely as possible.
I fear that this problem could only be solved by significantly reducing the influence of billionaires on public opinion—but in our system, where they wield almost unrestricted power, this unfortunately seems virtually impossible.
completely tangential, but this is actually an interesting grammatical point. I’m guessing you’re German by your username; “stop to listen to idiots” would mean “aufhören, um Idioten zuzuhören.” “aufhören Idioten zuzuhören” would be “stop listening to idiots.” it’s interesting because “to [verb]” and “[verb]ing” are often interchangeable, but in this case they actually mean the opposite
Richtig, danke.
I understood absolutely zero of the German, but for other non native English speakers who didn’t pick up on the issue here:
The usual phrase here would be “stop listening to idiots”. The sentence that was used, “stop to listen to idiots” means the contrary, that you’ll stop what you’re doing so that you can listen to what the idiot has to say.
Which is a valid option, but an ill advised one.
For the non-Germans who want to know the source of the confusion: It’s basically the same sentence structure in German meaning something different than in English.
to has distinct meanings in “I want to listen to them” and “you should stop to listen to them”. In the first sentence, it’s effectively an article for the activity “listen to them”. In the second sentence, it implies an intent, which could be made explicit like “stop in order to listen to me”.
English uses the progressive (“stop listening”) to disambiguate with words like stop. German instead uses an additional preposition “um” for the intent meaning of to.
(In this case, the meaning difference between “interrupting something” and “stop for good” also has different words, “anhalten” and “aufhören”).
Word for word, “Aufhören zuzuhören” would mean “stop to listen”, but actually means “stop listening” while “stop to listen” would be correctly translated as “anhalten, um zuzuhören”.
For the non-Germans who want to know the source of the confusion
🙋♂️ how’d you know we were here?!
I have a Spinnie-sense for when people are confused about our language, but whether you were curious was a lucky guess. Volltreffer (“Full hit”; bullseye), it seems.
The issue is that anti-intellectualists think that the very concept of knowing more than them about any given topic is elitism.
My conspiracy theorist mom would go on and on about how her spending an afternoon googling something put her ideas at a higher level than someone who got a degree studying it, and if I agreed with the person with the degree, then I was an idiot for not following her. She thought that right up until she died trying to treat her cancer with quack therapies.
Regardless of whether we frame it as “I’m better than you because I know more than you,” the anti-intellectualists will still be framing it as “I’m better than you because my ‘gut feeling’ knows more than you.” It’s a competition to them, not because someone told them they were lesser, but because they already believed they were greater.
My mom is on that path, but still alive. She won’t drink regular tap water because she’s scared of fluoride. She no longer believes germs exist. She won’t get vaccinated or get flu shots (and won’t vaccinate her dog either). Her “doctor” is an hour’s drive away because she had to search far and wide for one who wasn’t part of the “big medicine” conspiracy.
It’s all so exhausting.
Well at least your anti vaccine mom is dead
There are still way too many people like her who exist unfortunately
IDK if we wanna go that aggressive if the parent commenter didn’t exactly go that far first
I will.
Every dead antivaxxer makes the world a slightly better place
I agree!
I see the point, but I don’t think intellectual elitism is the same as anti-anti-intellectualism. I think intellectual elitism creates a sense of alienation from science that in fact leads to anti-intellectualism.
That is just the inferiorily informed trying to justify their lack of knowledge by calling the people more knowledgeable than they are in that field “elitism”.
In the modern day, They could EASILY educate themselves with the actual current and up to date scientific research, the internet exists.
The fact that they would rather “educate” themselves with populist YouTube bullshit videos that simply validate their incorrect beliefs instead of looking up the actual research papers that are 100% **ALSO available on the internet ** is entirely their fault and no one else’s, you can’t blame the fact that they won’t read the research on “elitism”
In the modern day, They could EASILY educate themselves with the actual current and up to date scientific research, the internet exists.
The people putting out actual scientific information are not rewarded for making their information easy to digest for the uneducated. They’re rewarded for publishing scientific papers in journals that are read by other scientists.
I don’t know about you, but I very rarely read scientific papers, especially in a field that isn’t one I know well. Even if you know the field well there are all kinds of terms and math that mean reading a paper is hard. If you don’t know the field, even understanding the terminology they use is a huge challenge. It’s not realistic to expect someone with only a high school education to read papers.
Making media that appeals to, and is easily digested by regular people is a completely different skill set. Some people doing that actually care about real science. There are heroes who spend their time reading and digesting scientific papers so that they can explain them to regular people. But, there seem to be far more people who just make shit up that they know will go viral. If you’re a product of the Mississippi educational system, you probably can’t tell the difference between a legitimate science communicator and an asshole who’s making shit up to go viral. For every David Attenborough, there are probably a dozen Dr. Mercolas. And, let’s not forget that one of the most well known scientists writing about honesty and ethical behaviour was found to have plagiarized her research. So, even if you were reading scientific papers she’d written you might have been misled.
You can’t blame anyone for being unable to sift through jargon.
As jt concerns a body of knowledge not only can we but I insist we must. If you can’t sift though the well studied and published data you are in no position to participate in an authorative capacity.
They want this same elitism. They want to have their own special secret knowledge only they (and a small handful of internet people “in the know”) have access to. This makes them feel special and superior.
Humans feeling a need to impose a hierarchy where they sit at the very top is why we can’t have nice things
Well then they should just join a mystery cult or practice alchemy
They are better than them, at that thing, and if you don’t defer, then they have every right to scoff at the stupidity before them.
With respect to the subject at hand, they are better than you. Rejecting that is problematic.
Right, but people will call nearly anything elitism these days. The reason schools don’t offer accelerated learning programs for students who aren’t challenged by the average coursework is because people were calling that type of thing elitist.
Instead, now we put the upper quartile in the same classes as the lower quartile so that nobody receives the particular level and kind of attention that they need, and everyone is held to “average” whether they’re predisposed to be above that expectation or below it.
If someone is talented at a sport, people shower them with praise and give them full rides to college. If someone is talented at math or writing, people tell them to be a team player and stop surpassing their peers by so far. Merit-based scholarships are rare nowadays too, so good luck going to a top university just because you excel at your subjects…
Merit-based scholarships are rare nowadays too, so good luck going to a top university just because you excel at your subjects…
At least that is not true.
'The rest of it is, highschools are an enforcer of conformity and woe be to anyone that bends the curve.When I was applying for financial aid I kept being told “We don’t offer merit-based scholarships. Everything is need-based and you’re considered for it automatically. No need to apply for one.”
There might be some for STEM fields, but rarely a full ride. More like a $1000 discount on your tuition each semester, which leaves you with only about several dozen thousand of debt by the time you graduate…
Except these programs are literally known to be abused by the elite for their benefit. It’s not elitist to want evidenced-based support for low income high achieving kids, and for that support not to be diverted to upper-middle class kids who don’t need it.
Merit based and sports scholarships are well-known to be specifically designed to attract upper middle class kids because of the benefit they have of tutors, coaches, and extensive personalized guidance through their entire schooling. Actually this is the exact reason top universities prefer need-based financial aid; they don’t need the extra money merit-based scholarships are known to bring. Low income kids tend to struggle navigating admissions systems and financial aid on their own in general, and these particular programs, especially the sports scholarships, don’t make themselves very accessible to prospective applicants.
I haven’t seen whatever studies have been done on accelerated learning programs, so I don’t know if they help/hurt anyone conclusively, but I will say from personal experience being both included and excluded from them, I absolutely hated them from both angles. If you test into them, you’re doing extra work and being segregated (with a target on your back for bullies) from your classmates. If you don’t test into them, but you learn at a faster pace than the average, you’re literally gatekept from the advanced material even if you want to learn it. I think what would do worlds of difference is bringing respect back to teaching by hiring more teachers and paying them more which would allow for more individualized learning, so each child gets their educational needs met without unnecessary segregation.
If you want to do further reading, there’s a lot of very passionate people who have dedicated themselves to this topic for decades. This is a slightly outdated, but seemingly comprehensive report I just found online, section 5 is specifically on systemic admissions hurdles for low income kids: https://www.jkcf.org/research/true-merit-ensuring-our-brightest-students-have-access-to-our-best-colleges-and-universities/
I was one of those “gifted children” according to every assessment I was subject to.
In my shitty crab bucket of an ex-mining town, “no child was left behind”. Meaning, every “top set” class has two or three knuckle dragging cunts whose every waking thought appeared to be “How can I be as much of a disruptive prick as possible?”
This led to 90% of our lessons being taken up by the poor teacher having to basically babysit three animals intent on destroying equipment and furnishings while we taught ourselves.
These dickhead should have all been in a remedial class together, where they could be taught at a level they all understood, with a length of 2"x2" as far as I give a fuck.
Edit: Those of us that didn’t give a shit about fucking football, or in fact were different in any way, shape, or form, had a huge bullseye already painted on us. Having the bullies in all of our classes just made it worse, there was no escape.
Just because merit-based scholarships are abused in the current system to disproportionally benefit the privileged doesn’t mean the concept of merit-based scholarships is flawed as a whole. Our system is caste-based and everything is designed to give the advantage to the oligarchy and their offspring. Pointing out that that includes how financial aid is divvied out isn’t much of an argument against financial aid, in my opinion.
Also, arguing that merit-based scholarships can’t benefit the students from low-income families is kinda fallacious, and very patronizing. Bright minds can come from low-income households. And those minds should receive merit-based scholarships, even if the way “merit” is determined needs to change.
And I never said we should get rid of need-based scholarships. I think those should be available for everyone who can’t afford tuition and fees (including dorm, books, meal plan, etc.) as long as they meet the minimum requirements for attendance (sorry, but if you can’t even write complete sentences then that needs to be remediated before you attend college. That’s not elitist (although I have seen people say that it is), it’s just a basic standard).
But in addition to need-based, there should be full rides available to the brightest minds in each field. And I don’t care if they have to take scholarships away from athletes in order to make it possible. College is about education, ffs, they should prioritize academics. They shouldn’t be profiting off of the exertions and injuries of their unpaid student athletes anyway.
Maybe the top 5% of every major, not based on standardized testing but maybe grades and a written essay, or each department could offer an entry test catered to their subject to determine internally who the top 5% first-years are. If someone receiving one drops below the top 10% at any point in their studies, they lose the scholarship and it goes to the next best in that subject for their year.
Like, there’s a way to do it without just subsidizing the tuition for the already-wealthy. Don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater.
And no, lumping the highest achievers and the lowest achievers into the same class does not benefit anybody, the teachers included. And it only further advantages the wealthy who can afford to send their children to private schools where they actually receive the particular kind of attention they need. Forcing everyone else into gen pop at public schools is a disadvantage, both for the higher quartiles and the lower quartiles.
Q2 and Q3 can be considered average and take up the largest part of the bell curve. They can all be in the standard classes and receive the basic level of attention and education. Q1 and Q4 both need smaller class sizes with different kinds of attention in order to thrive and achieve their fullest potential.
The top quartile needs more challenging coursework and a faster pace where they can cover more ground each year and be more advanced subjects by year 12. They also need closer mentorship where they can be encouraged to ask deeper questions and investigate answers and a level that would be unnecessary and cumbersome to the average student.
The bottom quartile need a slower pace, simpler subjects, and a teacher who can take the time to ELI5 everything, often multiple times. The rest of the students shouldn’t be held back to the level these students can achieve, and it’s unfair to these students to expect them to keep up with the pace of the average student.
And expecting teachers to juggle all three types of student in one class with 30-40 students in it is unfair as well. You don’t have to convince me that society needs more respect for teachers, needs to pay them better and hire more, or even needs to fund higher education so that more people can afford master’s degrees in teaching (thus expanding the pool of available teachers). I already believe all that, and pretending that that somehow contradicts my arguments for merit-based scholarships and accelerated learning programs, is kinda disingenuous.
But:
I think what would do worlds of difference is bringing respect back to teaching by hiring more teachers and paying them more which would allow for more individualized learning, so each child gets their educational needs met without unnecessary segregation.
No, I disagree with that. Those are necessary steps, yes, and should absolutely be taken. But that alone won’t “allow for more individualized learning” if you still lump every student into the same classes. Teachers need to be able to cater their lesson plans to the abilities of their students, and that becomes impossible when you lump all four quartiles into the same classes. Part of “respecting teachers” means giving them the freedom to do that by placing students according to their abilities. Also, by hiring more teachers you make it possible to have smaller class sizes, particularly for the upper and lower quartiles which need specialized attention.
Therapist here w/ Masters. Sick of life coaches.
That is one of the most damaging scams in existence. Any jackhole can hang out a sign and call themselves a life coach. They are the homeopaths and chiropractors of psychology.
Says someone on alt right pedo platform Twitter. He’s not wrong, but come on. The irony.
With a blue check. Which means they paid the pedo techno fascist.
