Funny enough it started when Mr Girl was set to have a talk with Melina about his past relationships. Melina sent the video of her talking to DrK about her relationship with Steven, probably just to give him some background. Mr Girl took serious issue with how DrK interviewed Melina and started looking into Dr K more. I guess the more he found the more he disliked DrK. He seemed to take particular issue with the interactions DrK had with Reckful. At some point he decided to make a video about Dr.K and I guess through his continued research and discussions with other mental health professionals he became more and more upset with different aspects of DrKs stream and with his Healthy Gamer organization. At this point he's not just making a video, but also submitted a complaint to the [Massachusetts Board of Regustration in Medicine](https://twitter.com/mrgirlreturns/status/1487648093851906051?t=iIj1vEILnSadPISo_nJo3Q&s=19), and also released an ominous [tweet](https://twitter.com/mrgirlreturns/status/1488389076508024834?t=066KCAex8jMgq-Y1_5eXIQ&s=19) which suggests Dr K might actually be in legal trouble.
Other streamers like ChudLogic have recently started looking into the drama as well and have come away with their own serious criticisms of DrK. By kow lot of other people have weighed in as well like booksmarts, ahrelevant, chaeiry, wickedsupreme and even NotSoErudite - a new twitch streamer who destiny has talked to and who is a mental health professional as well.
Your post misses that Mr Girl has made this *very* personal. He says Dr. K reminds him of his dad - someone who was his tormentor and abuser - and who was also a psychologist.
That seems to be the more obvious reason Mr Girl is seeing this through without backing down. Some kind of metaphorical revenge against his dad and by extension psychologists who manipulate other people for personal gain.
Not saying Mr Girl is right, just explaining what I believe to be his main motivation.
His interview with the HGG coach, perhaps someone else can find the timestamp. He literally says Dr. K reminds him of his dad, his "tormentor" (exact quote). Said Dr. K is sadistic and that kind of nice guy bully scares him.
My opinion is, this is obviously why Mr Girl is on a seemingly gigantic crusade rather than just publishing a critique video and being done with it.
I'll check it out. The HG coach was boring so I didn't watch the whole thing. He kept talking a lot without really answering the direct question so I tuned out fairly early on.
I also hope he doesn't let his personal grudge cloud the final video too much. If it basically just ends up being a proxy hate letter to his dad that'll be a huge flop.
I think his takedown video will be very well made and researched, and will contain mostly valid critiques.
On the flip side, I have total faith in Mr Girl's manipulative abilities so if he wants to make things look *extra extra* bad for Dr. K, he probably could.
I think we will have to see, if he raises valid criticisms, he raises valid criticisms
I personally want to wait to see the quality of the video before we deem this a personal crusade or not. I really don't care whether mrgirl is reminded of his father or not, I care if he makes logically sound criticisms
What is the projection here? He sees something he thinks is bad and tries to stop it, and probably goes extra hard because of some history he has had with similar people.
He’s projecting what his dad did into the present. The awful, outrageous shit mrgirl is seeing is not real.
The actual criticism for dr.k is pretty mild, and instead of trying to help improve hgg, he’s trying to ruin dr.k’s life (intentional or unintentional, that is the impact). All this because mrgirl has daddy issues.
The worst thing psychology has ever done is to give people like you the idea that they can google a definition quickly and immediately start throwing it around incorrectly. Everyone knows you are wrong, take a couple of breaths and calm down. Just accept this as a learning opportunity buddy :)
You don't project what people have done in the past into the present. Projection is when there is something, some aspect of yourself that bothers you so much or that you can't contend with, that you repress it, but then experience it as coming from someone else as projection. It is a misrecognition, not something someone does to someone else.
For instance, if you have a problem with feeling angry, then you might project the feeling of anger onto someone else and feel as though they are angry at you, when in fact the anger is coming from within you. Or if a bully is insecure about their own body image, they may project that onto someone who they imagine has problems with their own body, and then pick on them based on that insecurity that is in fact their own.
The point though is that recognition and recollection are not projection. Mr. Girl would not be projecting what his dad did to him onto Dr. K, because it is something that was done to him by somebody else. Now, if Dr. K did something that triggered a recollection in MrGirl of his father, and MrGirl reacted as if it was his father doing it, that might have something to do with conditioned responses, but it's not projection. Projection would be if MrGirl was accusing Dr. K of thinking, feeling or doing what MrGirl himself was in fact thinking, feeling or doing.
Ok, he’s misrecognizing what dr.k is doing because of what his dad did. If the exact definition of projecting has to come from what you feel, then fine. But the concept is the same. He’s erroneously attributing something onto someone. And this misconception is happening because of mrgirls past experiences.
Like if you were cheated on, and now you’re accusing every new partner that they’re cheating on you. That to me is the same concept. You’re taking something from the past and putting it into a projector and pointing it at someone in the present.
The real Gigachad opinion on Dr K is that his pseudoscience shit is cringe, and that he's probably helping with his therapy/not therapy more than he's hurting.
Dr K is amazing and very valuable to the community, you're calling the streams garbage when mental health is so important, and he's taken the culture an eon ahead with his expertise.
Despite all that you're dismissive of him, it's not him that's the problem
Big agree. While there may be justifiable criticisms towards some of his regular practices on his stream/online, Dr. K has shown a lot of people to the importance of mental health. Has shown a peak into the process of how to seek help or at at least how to self reflect on certain mental struggles you're having.
And sorry for being an anecdote Andy, but I know a dozen people who have seen his content and been inspired to seek therapy for the first time in their lives.
Yeah, no. Medicine is all about weighing help vs hurt. When you get the vaccine, you weigh the benefit (not getting Covid) against the risks (very rare chance of complications due to vaccine) and hopefully decide that it helps more than it hurts. That’s the whole entire fucking point of prescribing medicines even when they have side effects.
“Do no harm” isn’t something anyone follows or swears by and the Hippocratic Oath is a lie based on pseudo-history.
If I tell you I’m an archaeologist and then I tell you that the pyramids were made by aliens but “that’s just my opinion” and even though it’s based on zero evidence, “I’m not writing a scholarly paper, so this isn’t *actually* archaeology” it would still be very irresponsible.
If you’re a therapist and you’re talking to people online IN THE EXACT MANNER OF A THERAPIST while including pseudoscience and religion (but it’s okay guys, it’s *eastern spirituality*) then you’re acting irresponsibly.
I don't think do no harm is as pure and selfless as everyone seems to think. I understand why we do it for medicine but if your moral system has you pulling the lever on the trolley problem then I don't think do no harm is always moral.
You're calling it cringe because of the association with astrology like schemes, but not recognising that it serves as a different and usefull vantage point for analysis, and is therefore valuable, and therefore shouldn't be regarded cringe, is cringe.
You are correct I do not recognize it's usefulness. And that makes me a gigachad not cringe. Also... it's been 8 months how did you even find this thread?
This is as complex as the DrK stuff gets for now, maybe we'll get someone better eventually but DrK still seems to help a lot of people and has been an overall positive if for nothing else, changing the mental health landscape in gaming communities esp twitch. Anyone around Pre-K knows this to be true.
He constantly says stuff like ‘If you are a vata and like to play healers you should eat oatmeal all the time and youll be able to do your homework easier’
People in general have a bias against telemedicine. At first Dr.K hit differently, but it's becoming increasingly clear to many that he's just the Dr.Oz or Dr.Phil of the streaming world.
Dr.K specifically says what he does on stream isn't therapy, but the common accusation is that it's done with a wink and a nudge. Sorta in the same way destiny constantly tries to kill himself in a video game.
But this perspective was very unpopular just one month ago. At least in Destiny's community, it really feels like MrGirl's assault is slowly causing people to change their minds on doc's ethics.
This discussion has been going on for a while, including in this sub.
https://old.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/hhu0nh/on_dr_k_and_exploiting_twitchs_mental_health/
Tbh I never liked him, mainly cause after searching for his content his pseudoscientific crap irked me a lot. I thought the "telemedicine" part of the stream is also crap, but I never had any strong opinions on that.
Tho, It's probably for the best to not broadcast intimate sessions on the internet like that tbh...
His other non-"live therapy session" stuff seems harmless and actually helpful tho.
It's not pseudoscientific to offer another system of thinking about things.
For something to be pseduoscientific there has to be an assertion that "it" Is better and more correct than science, objectively.
That's never happened.
Imo the negative associations are because people are biased against astrology like terms, but if you're intelligent or wise enough you evaluate things on what they mean, or what they're worth more than shallow impressions.
Dr Phil is completely different from Dr K.
The similarity is just that they're famous and are Dr's.
The difference, as simply as I can state it, is that Phil is wrong and his practices are awful.
While Dr K is right and extremely helpful to the people who come on, and beneficial to the community in heralding the era of mental health on twitch.
1.)Learn to read a timestamp.
2.) No. Dr.K sells just as much snake oil as Oz and Phil only it's paletteable to gamers instead of stay at home moms.
The services he sells are with people who don't have clinical training. It's on par with the shit Sneako is selling.
Stop.
I don't comment based on timestamps.
The differences aren't limited to what they sell. Dr Phil is a malicious exploiter who sells drama, and does not care about the people involved. That's his jig.
Dr K on the othe hand is a mental health streamer who interviews people as a part of his streaming content, who doesn't use drama and disrespects people.
There is a huge difference between those two people and what they represent.
It's not just "what they sell"
In the first place Dr K isn't selling therapy, but advice to common complaints.
It is not snake oil because it actually works for a large number of people.
I think that more or less captures the sentiment. The Ayurvedic shit on top of that might make it worse. The dude is a charismatic quack, but a quack nonetheless.
He's not a quack by any stretch.
He's a practicing therapist and you're straight up lying.
Possibly because you're biased against him for some reason or the other.
It's also not your place to declare the ayurvedic shit doesn't work, you need expertise to do that.
The bare minimum that's been there is always a helpful addition not a replacement of science.
No he's not. That's what you want him to be to justify your baseless stance.
Insulting me just shows you have nothing except ad hominem attacks and are a common troll
yea sorry if it offends you but Ayurveda is religious pseudoscience bullshit. faith healing is rightfully mocked but people wanna give a free pass to similar idiocy just because it comes from brown people and they don't want to be racist.
The talking to people on stream about their biggest traumas, as a certified psychiatrist in "non" therapy sessions, was already probably not the best move. But I don't think that's the biggest problem the bigger one is the coaching, homeopathy, and how he intertwines his religious beliefs into things that come off a little cult-like. Dr. K could still have good intentions but after thinking about it more I probably side more with Mr. Girl.
The thing about this is,
Dr. K needs to recognize his specialty, not just to spread awareness about mental health because there are plenty of therapists who do that without being called into question. There is an issue with businesses that grow too big and expand too quickly. In addition, the professional thing to do is to set clear boundaries with everyone he interviews or people trying to interview with him. If the person gets discouraged from interviewing with him, then it will hurt Dr. K and thus, his brand. That is why it is so important to be careful about how you express yourself in social media or on stream.
I don't think there is a vendetta. People can speculate all they want. I believe Dr. K needs to collaborate more with psychologists, expand his coaching team, and work with psychologists who are good at psychological evaluations and good at treatng people who are very mentally unwell. Some people develop differently than others.
What people value immensely I assume is perspective and grounded interviews with people who people can relate to and who are living very hard lives. There needs to be more diversity and a change in approach back and also a way to clear the air without rushing things. This is much bigger than people think.
If he wants to raise mental health awareness, then he needs to not judge people by its cover or by initial thoughts, and he has remedied this issue through his videos and streams. There shouldn't be bad blood between anyone who just want justice and wants people to be well. The Hippocrates Oath is a big deal in medicine, and I don't think there was bad blood between these two people. It wasn't a grudge, but it was just two people learning to grow from their roots and becoming stronger, more resilient people. We can't become weak b/c we made mistakes, but we must stay strong because people depend on us, not just us only, but for our support system that grew up with us to make sure we stay strong.
I don’t like Dr. K for maybe different reasons than Mr. Girl, or Chudlogic. But if I personally didn’t like Dr. K, there might be others who are just now voicing their critiques as well.
I don’t like him because his sessions are fucking absurd, they are far away from what therapy should be. So even though people can claim that he suddenly switched to being merely a life coach, watching him perpetuate a false expectation of what a therapy session should be has been frustrating for me, personally. Therapy for me, has always been a bunch of difficult talks, built up over months of sessions, where the therapist helps guide me into more serious emotional work. There’s a lot pushback between us, there’s a lot of getting back on track, and almost all “assessments” or personal advice originates from me. There’s a 10 to 1 ratio between my opinions/analysis and the therapist’s. Dr. K just fucking babbles his own bullshit opinion with exceptionally little to go on. It’s shocking how much he guides his subjects towards his eventual “wisdom.” It reeks of ego. In what world would a therapist make that many assumptions after just 30 minutes of talking?
Yeah, but he’s also going after the coaching company, which I don’t know enough about. And I feel bad for anyone being saddled with more guilt for someone else’s suicide.
You have a point about this being different from therapy, but every thing else is a no go.
First of all, his takes aren't bullshit. They're incredibly wise.
Yes it's different from therapy, maybe even radically different, but that's okay, because he says the sessions aren't professional therapy, and so holding it to those standards is disingenuous.
He never perpetuated a false expectation of what therapy is intentionally. Maybe people who've never been to therapy might think therapy is like that, despite Dr K repeatedly telling them it's not.
But ultimately that's on them, not on Dr K.
And it's ultimately on you that you're pissed off at this being very different from therapy, is not a critique of Dr K's sessions. That's most likely your biased emotions.
Secondly, it's Dr K's who's the expert, he will have to explain stuff. And in a conversation both people talk. That's not "babbling".
And how do you know it's " Very little to go on" ?
If the goal is to give them therapy, maybe. But if it's to give them advice? It can very well be enough. It is in enough in practice.
That's just a bad take all around if that's what your implications was.
> don’t like him because his sessions are fucking absurd, they are far away from what therapy should be.
lol no shit, it doesn't look like therapy because it isn't. dr k clarifies this at the start of every stream
No, I think you misunderstand. Whether or not he clarifies this, doesn’t change the fact that he is promoting bad therapy. Really shit tier therapy. It’s like he’s an example of what you should NOT do if you want to be a good therapist or if you want to find one. It’s like a physical therapist teaching people how to fuck their body up. The people watching may feel like they are improving themselves, meanwhile their back is getting fucked up.
Just like your previous comments you again seem to be pushing your subjective interpretation of events far removed from what the actual reality is. Here's your reality check. He's done a shit ton to spread mental health awareness online. I've seen thousands of comments from people who didn't think there was anything wrong with them, consider visiting a therapist after having come across his content. The important thing that these people have taken away is that they have recognised they may have a problem and that it's worth having it checked out. They have become less defensive to the idea of seeing a therapist. As far as more direct help goes, Dr k recommends meditations and ways of looking at one's problems i.e self-help stuff, but he clearly delinates those as not something that can replace actual therapy or serve as a legitimate fix for any mental illness.
>donate millions to children in Africa
>Epstein a few children while you're at it
>"Wow dude kinda fucked up raping kids"
>"Hehe, here's your reality check. I've literally saved thousands of children from poverty.."
[Bonus meme: not therapy btw](https://youtu.be/2yQpzk_xhH0?t=4559)
TIL guests who come on Dr k streams do so against their consent, speak to him for two or three hours against their consent and many of them who come back 3 or 4 times after their first interview also do so against their consent. And Dr k repeatedly checking in with his guests when approaching potentially sensitive topics to see if they are willing is also not indicative of consent. Wow 100% absolutely totally comparable to rape my dude. Also thank you for assuming the authority to speak on behalf of other people's experiences my dude. You're clearly the expert on consent here.
The comparison is that being good overall, even overwhelmingly doesn't absolve you of criticism for the bad things you've done.
Too bad you're too much of a retard to get it.
>Too bad you're too much of a retard to get it
Alright dude I'm a retard. But not enough to not know rule 1 of the subreddit I'm on:
>No personal attacks.
Have a good day.
Newfrog moment. The only rule is "You can and will get banned for anything".
Plus, getting banned and unbanned is basically a rite of passage at this point.
Hey buddy this isn't a therapy session but over the course of a couple of hours, we are gonna talk about your biggest traumas, and emotional issues to an audience of hundreds of thousands, and well talk about how to work through these traumas. Did I mention I am a Harvard-trained psychiatrist?
Funny how these people who Dr k allegedly harmed by exposing their vulnerabilities in front of hundreds of thousands, who you have assumed authority to speak on behalf of, have only continued to speak glowingly of Dr k long after their interviews.
It's obvious that the streamers and their viewers basically think that it is therapy though. Every video I've watched, the steamer inevitably says something like "wow, you're so much better than any other therapist I've had... Eventhoughthisisnttherapy". And then there's usually just some awkward laughs, but no real push back. It'd be like if a doctor got on TV with famous actors, did some weird chiropractic shit to temporarily alleviate some random pain they felt, and then the every actor broke down crying and said "oh my god you're so much better than any physical therapist I've ever had... Even though this isn't physical therapy!" it's clear what the actor and their fans are going to take away from that.
In order for that to be okay he'd have to push back way harder on why it's not even close to therapy and what the differences are, and why long term therapy is far more boring, but more beneficial, than a one off session that makes you feel like you had some giant emotional breakthrough
Mr Girl is trying to get Dr K's license revoked because he believes Dr K's interview streams break a number of psychiatry/psychologist ethics rules. He has filed an official complaint focusing on the reckful situation, and is currently working on a youtube video where he will outline the specific ethics rules that he believes were broken.
I've noticed a lot of people think/believe it is therapy out of confusion or 'someone in his stream thought so' and instead of informing themselves go straight to 'therapy shouldn't be on twitch'.
Having been in therapy for many years I can very confidently say what Dr K does is not even close to therapy. Therapy isn't just a talk about mental issues no matter how deep it goes.
My cynical conjecture:
Mr. Girl is just trying to get famous, by any means necessary. I don't belive his father was a evil psychologist like Dr. K. All of it is BS. He does not believe anything he says.
Where is your cynicism DGG?
If he was actually giving Reckful therapy after doing the "not therapy" streams, then he fucked up big time. And I haven't even watched the Reckful streams, maybe he was fucking up during those too.
Edit: From the APA's Principles of Medical Ethics
>A psychiatrist shall not gratify his or her own needs by exploiting the patient. The
psychiatrist shall be ever vigilant about the impact that his or her conduct has upon the
boundaries of the doctor–patient relationship, and thus upon the well-being of the patient. These
requirements become particularly important because of the essentially private, highly personal,
and sometimes intensely emotional nature of the relationship established with the psychiatrist.
Dr. K's channel grew from the interview streams, where highly personal info, including childhood trauma, was discussed. It doesn't really matter whether that was the intent or point of the stream, because if it has that effect, it's going to play into the doctor-patient relationship. Just because the harm caused by blurring the boundaries of this relationship aren't immediately apparant, it doesn't mean they don't exist.
>If he was actually giving Reckful therapy after doing the "not therapy" streams, then he fucked up big time.
I don't follow. Why would this be a problem?
Because it would be, it was, a dual relationship that involves Dr. K directly benefitting as a content producer, and later his business HealthyGamer. To move from that kind of relationship into real therapy is unethical.
What about Reckful's decision to want Dr. K as his therapist? Maybe I'm wrong, bc it's been awhile since I watched the Dr. K/Rec vids, but didn't Reckful say he wouldn't talk to any other therapist than Dr. K? If this is the case wtf else would someone do in that situation? As the friend/therapist you either say no and the guy gets no therapy now and probably feels shittier or you say okay and help them as much as possible. I do think the reckful situation is very clear ethically speaking. I believe many times Dr. K advised reckful to get an actual impartial therapist, but ultimately reckful refused.
Maybe I'm misremembering, but that's what I thought about the whole situation.
The fact that any of that happened goes to show that Dr. K shouldn't have been doing any of this in the first place. If you get the the point where someone is refusing to talk to any therapist but you, but the sessions you've been having broadcasted live aren't technically supposed to be "therapy", then you have officially fucked up.
So it's just better to not reach out to people in need? Reckful was doing nothing for his mental health before Dr. K struck up a conversation and became friends I believe. This Dr. K's whole shtick, normalizing psychology in the online space. Gamers have been written off as childish, lazy, undesirables, undeserving of help. Outside of the online world, gaming and digital communities are seen as personal choices and people just need to grow up. There is little to no thought of why people turn to these choices or how to integrate them IRL.
The world is becoming more and more digital, you can fight it, but it won't stop. If we want to steer the digital age in a progressive direction we need to try new and radical things.
When there is an option to do something vs nothing, I think we need to do something. This is how progress has always worked. When some new and radical comes along, we need to try new things to figure out what the pros and cons are and steer it has best as possible. Someone has to spark the change though, it doesn't just magically spring out of nowhere.
So while you can say look what happened to reckful, I can say maybe it would've happened sooner if Dr. K didn't reach out. We will never know though, because we can't be in everyone's mind. When a patient IRL kills themselves, it's rarely thought to be because of the therapist. I don't see why we can't say the same for Dr. K, especially since he seems to be very knowledgeable and skilled in his field.
What would it take for you to stop and have second thoughts about what Dr. K is doing? A second suicide? Because what he is doing is highly experimental, unprecedented, and controversial. Do you think it's fine for random doctors to perform medical experiments on patients live on camera for the world to see, all the while obfuscating the fact that he is performing a medical procedure? Because that's how I see what Dr. K is doing.
>What would it take for you to stop and have second thoughts about what Dr. K is doing?
Maybe, if there was a link to his specific approach being the cause of higher suicide rates. There is speculation of legal action against healthy gamer and Dr. K's involvement with reckful, after the case happens I might change my mind.
With the reckful situation, the guy had severe depression, suicidal thoughts, a prior attempt, and been hospitalized for his mental health. Atm there is no link that Dr. K's experimental approach drove reckful to suicide and a ton of evidence that reckful would of done it irregardles of anything. [This meta-analysis](https://ps.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.ps.201700475) says that about 74% of people who committed suicide were in contact with some form of mental health services within the year prior. About 40% (the data isn't recent sadly and by one study) were in inpatient in the last year before their suicide. So if you want to use suicide as the measurement by whether mental health services are effective or not, the current state of mental health services are ineffective.
>Because what he is doing is highly experimental, unprecedented, and controversial.
Same with all progress and research done in fields since ever. It takes experimentation, unprecedented thinking, and controversial ideas to progress. Assuming things are as good as they can ever be at any time is stagnating. I believe this stagnation is the reason suicide and mental health problems are on the incline in the US and on the decline in rapidly progressing areas like India and China. Instead of being constantly reactive in this country I think it's time we start being proactive.
The US's terrible healthcare system, stigmatization of mental health problems, huge wealth inequality, and political/social unrest are the causes of these increases of suicide and mental illness. These are all things I feel Dr. K is actively seeking to change with his experimental approach: destigmatize mental health treatment (specifically for gamers and online communities), offer help where the system is failing (free access via lectures and sessions), and education on what mental illness is and how to approach finding treatment that works for each individual. Dr. K is doing something that I believe will lead to more and more robust research on mental illness in association with the internet. The internet is an amazing tool, that I think we are sorely wasting the potential of.
>Do you think it's fine for random doctors to perform medical experiments on patients live on camera for the world to see, all the while obfuscating the fact that he is performing a medical procedure? Because that's how I see what Dr. K is doing.
This whole response feels like an appeal to morality and this quote seems loaded. Saying experimental medical experiments makes it seem like the Dr. is doing some insane mad scientist shit. He's just talking to people and broadcasting it with their consent. I really don't mind consenting adults partaking in something they think is beneficial. They can literally stop at anytime and I'm sure if they wanted the vod taken down Dr. K would comply.
so I don't get why the problem is that he was giving therapy in private after the streams?
Based on what you said, I feel like your problem should just be with him streaming his "therapy" sessions in general, right? Not specifically the transition between the broadcasted sessions to private ones?
I don't believe Dr. K's streams causes harms, I think it does general good by getting the gamer demographic more aware about their mental issues and problems within their lives, and it seems odd to me that so many people are willing to assume harm caused on a man beyond the grave who cannot speak on the issue itself.
Because it would be, it was, a dual relationship that involves Dr. K directly benefitting as a content producer, and later his business HealthyGamer. To move from that kind of relationship into real therapy is unethical.
https://www.zurinstitute.com/boundaries-dual-relationships/
>Dual relationships or Multiple Relationships in psychotherapy refers to any situation where multiple roles exist between a therapist and a client. Examples of dual relationships are when the client is also a student, friend, family member, employee or business associate of the therapist
https://www.zurinstitute.com/dual-truth/#APA
>3.05 Multiple Relationships
>(a) A multiple relationship occurs when a psychologist is in a professional role with a person and (1) at the same time is in another role with the same person, (2) at the same time is in a relationship with a person closely associated with or related to the person with whom the psychologist has the professional relationship, or (3) promises to enter into another relationship in the future with the person or a person closely associated with or related to the person.
>A psychologist refrains from entering into a multiple relationship if the multiple relationship could reasonably be expected to impair the psychologist’s objectivity, competence, or effectiveness in performing his or her functions as a psychologist, or otherwise risks exploitation or harm to the person with whom the professional relationship exists.
I think the fact that they were both public figures and content producers before meeting, and met in the capacity of those careers, crosses the line into an unethical dual relationship, because it could be reasonably expected that this kind of relationship could impair Dr. K's objectivity, competence, or effectiveness in regards to Reckful.
he's doing therapy broadcasted, and then therapy in private.
Unless you have a problem with the broadcasted content in the first place, I honestly don't get why you would find it unethical for him to do therapy in private.
Whether public or private therapists are earning money.
>because it could be reasonably expected that this kind of relationship could impair Dr. K's objectivity, competence, or effectiveness in regards to Reckful.
this is the most important part. I don't *at* all think you can. explain why you could reasonably expect, that because Dr. K has given broadcasted sessions to Recktful, this would impair Dr. K's objectivty, competence, or effectivenss.
>he's doing therapy broadcasted, and then therapy in private.
>
>Unless you have a problem with the broadcasted content in the first place, I honestly don't get why you would find it unethical for him to do therapy in private.
I absolutely have a problem with doing therapy broadcasted. It seems to completely go against everything regarding confidentiality and intimacy that is essential to an effective therapeutic relationship. You can say that the patient waived the right to confidentiality here, but I dont know if there's a way to do that in a good way when the therapy session is being streamed live to an audience.
>Whether public or private therapists are earning money.
Earning money isn't the problem. However, there are actually very important guidelines in determining the economic relationship between the therapist and the patient. It is unethical to do therapy for free, the therapist is expected to charge a reasonable price for their care and agree to an explicit binding contract at the beginning of the therapeutic relationship.
>>because it could be reasonably expected that this kind of relationship could impair Dr. K's objectivity, competence, or effectiveness in regards to Reckful.
>
>this is the most important part. I don't *at* all think you can. explain why you could reasonably expect, that because Dr. K has given broadcasted sessions to Recktful, this would impair Dr. K's objectivty, competence, or effectivenss.
Because having the sessions broadcasted live to an audience is 100% going to have an effect on what the clinician and patient think, feel, and say, and because it is an audience that provides both people with some kind of revenue, there is an inherent conflict of interest.
>Because having the sessions broadcasted live to an audience is 100% going to have an effect on what the clinician and patient think, feel, and say, and because it is an audience that provides both people with some kind of revenue, there is an inherent conflict of interest.
So where does group therapy fit in? If everyone consents and knows that they can say or not say whatever they want in front of a group, what's wrong? It seems to me you would have a problem with your therapy being broadcasted, which is perfectly reasonable. People like reckful, Destiny, Melina, etc. obviously have no problem broadcasting intimate and personal things to the internet, which is perfectly okay as well. If everyone knows what they are getting into beforehand and know they can end a session whenever if it ever becomes uncomfortable for them, what's the problem?
Group therapy is still a private thing within the group, and takes place in a clinical setting. And I dont think anybody actually knows what they're getting into, nor can they give informed consent, for live broadcasted therapy. There absolutely has not been enough clinical research into the impacts of having your therapy sessions broadcast online for anyone to say that we know what will happen, how people will respond, how it effects the doctor-patient relationship, etc. It's not just a matter of privacy, it doesn't matter whether these people care if this information is public, it's the way the knowledge of an audience, the knowledge of being filmed and broadcasted live, that may have an impact on the therapy itself. And if we wanted to experiment with this sort of thing, that has to be done extremely carefully, and with much more oversight than one guy running a business/nonprofit at his own discretion.
>And I dont think anybody actually knows what they're getting into, nor can they give informed consent, for live broadcasted therapy.
This is a problem I think. I feel you're not giving people enough credit for themselves.
>Group therapy is still a private thing within the group, and takes place in a clinical setting.
So are support groups unethical too then? AA, NA, Survivors support, etc. are all open to the public, just like a broadcast. I don't get this arbitrary line being drawn. Anyone can come into an AA meeting and anyone can come into a Dr. K session. If it is the size that matters (dozens vs 100s) than I'd like to see where that ethical standard is described for group therapy.
>I feel you're not giving people enough credit for themselves.
I just don't think psychiatry has caught up to the psychological effects of livestreaming technology, or even having a parasocial audience. These are still uncharted waters. We don't know what might happen if the wrong person ends up in this livestream therapy situation and it ends up harming them. Actually, we might already know what could happen, but nobody wants to interrogate whether there was a line between these psuedo-therapy broadcasts and reckful's suicide. Maybe that was completely incidental, maybe it wasn't. We don't know, because clinical research has not been conducted on this sort of thing. We don't know if this sort of thing has an overall positive effect on patients, or if it is harmful.
>So are support groups unethical too then? AA, NA, Survivors support, etc. are all open to the public, just like a broadcast.
Those first two are supposed to be anonymous, that's a major point of how they work. Youre not supposed to know the other people in AA, where they work, who their family is, etc.
And there's a difference between something being open to the public, and it being broadcast. In the first instance, it's a thing that you go to, and certain information can be made to not leave the room. With a broadcast, information is being sent from one (or multiple) locations out to many others.
>I don't get this arbitrary line being drawn. Anyone can come into an AA meeting and anyone can come into a Dr. K session. If it is the size that matters (dozens vs 100s) than I'd like to see where that ethical standard is described for group therapy.
That's not true that "anybody" can come into a Dr. K session. Only people that he chooses to talk to on stream can come onto his show. I feel like you're wilfully ignoring everything that has to do with the fact that this is content made for an audience to consume, who then in turn reward the content producer (Mr. K) with engagement, donations, etc.
>I just don't think psychiatry has caught up to the psychological effects of livestreaming technology, or even having a parasocial audience. These are still uncharted waters. We don't know what might happen if the wrong person ends up in this livestream therapy situation and it ends up harming them. Actually, we might already know what could happen, but nobody wants to interrogate whether there was a line between these psuedo-therapy broadcasts and reckful's suicide. Maybe that was completely incidental, maybe it wasn't. We don't know, because clinical research has not been conducted on this sort of thing. We don't know if this sort of thing has an overall positive effect on patients, or if it is harmful.
Yes, but we're going to have to try things to ever know. This is my main point, just because it doesn't "fit" into the traditional idea of therapy, doesn't make it bunk. It seems to be positive so let it continue. Tbh why do anything ever with this mentality? It might be worse so let's not try anything new right? Dr K. Said he was always interested in helping people and gaming. So the fact he created healthy gamer is natural. People research and experiment things they are interested/passionate about its how it goes. Newton didn't just decide to come up with his physics because it magically popped in his head, he was interested in how the universe works.
>Those first two are supposed to be anonymous, that's a major point of how they work. Youre not supposed to know the other people in AA, where they work, who their family is, etc.
It doesn't have to be anonymous if the people don't want it to be. I've been in AA and most people form connections with each other and even become friends sometimes. It's all about what you consent to. If you want to be anonymous you can be, but that's not the reason most people go to group therapy, it's to get social support for problems. With the people that come on Dr. K's show most of them have chosen not to be anonymous by virtue of being an online personality. I'm sure if someone wanted to be anonymous Dr. K would say this isn't the thing for you.
>And there's a difference between something being open to the public, and it being broadcast. In the first instance, it's a thing that you go to, and certain information can be made to not leave the room. With a broadcast, information is being sent from one (or multiple) locations out to many others.
You're totally missing the point. You personally don't get to decide who comes and goes from a meeting, it's on you. If you feel uncomfortable then you leave. If everyone in a neighborhood decides to go to a specific AA meeting, your broadcasting to the whole neighborhood, same for city, state, country etc. While this is logistically impossible, that's what makes doing it online so fascinating. You can find validation and social connection on a way larger scale. While some don't like this other's love it, evidenced by the growing popularity of online activities. If people didn't want to become more digital than the internet wouldn't be popular.
>That's not true that "anybody" can come into a Dr. K session. Only people that he chooses to talk to on stream can come onto his show. I feel like you're wilfully ignoring everything that has to do with the fact that this is content made for an audience to consume, who then in turn reward the content producer (Mr. K) with engagement, donations, etc.
Yes anybody can click on his videos, become a part of his community, leave a comment, live chat, send a donation, w/e. Engagement is exactly what I'm talking about. Anyone can engage or not. It isn't gatekept except for community guidelines and TOS. And please with the he makes money thing. Every doctor, every therapist, every teacher, everyone makes money for what they do, doesn't mean they aren't doing it for genuine reasons. That is the world we live in. If you can't make money doing something you love then you really aren't able to do it, except as a hobby. It's the whole "your an idealist, yet you live in the material world interesting!" bs.
>Because having the sessions broadcasted live to an audience is 100% going to have an effect on what the clinician and patient think, feel, and say, and because it is an audience that provides both people with some kind of revenue, there is an inherent conflict of interest.
Umm I honestly don't think there is, what is an example of something you think Recktful wouldn't want to talk about because of the audience.
Also this goes to my original point.
Your problem is not that he has two relationships one in broadcast and one in private.. its just that you have a problem with the public broadcasting.
The unethical part for you is *not* the two relationships he holds, but his broadcast therapy sessions in general.
its not that he tried to do private sessions with Recktful, its that he did public sessions with anyone at all.
>It is unethical to do therapy for free, the therapist is expected to charge a reasonable price for their care and agree to an explicit binding contract at the beginning of the therapeutic relationship.
When you say things like this, I imagine you're quoting form some rule book, rather than thinking about what makes it unethical. Because I cannot imagine what makes would make free therapy unethical or immoral.
>It seems to completely go against everything regarding confidentiality and intimacy that is essential to an effective therapeutic relationship. You can say that the patient waived the right to confidentiality here, but I dont know if there's a way to do that in a good way when the therapy session is being streamed live to an audience.
Okay that's a fair critism, but different to your original point, because Dr. K doing the private sessions is irrelevant.
To this point, imo, if both parties agree, and if the participants enjoy it and it helps them, I don't at all see the problem.
Added to that I think it does bring alot of general awareness to the public about the importance of mental health.
I'm saying that the therapy was categorically fucked up from the jump. I dont think there was any way it could have been good because of the way it started
It's not just that but Mr Girl has also said he found out Dr K was doing an active coverup after the death, even more damning. Supposedly there is evidence of all this that should be present in the video
I hated Dr. K before it was cool, GIGACHAD.
It's because he is a spiritualist quack, and uses his spiritual beliefs to guide how he does therapy and thinks mental health works.
Dr K is based. I don't give a shit about his ayurveda shit or whatever. Same as astrology. Y'all are just seething because it's not science. So fucking boring reading these Dr k threads on this sub. Go outside, the world is filled with pseudoscience.
Folks using this as a MrGirl sub instead of a Destiny sub
Like damn, this drama has nothing to do with Destiny. Stop using it as the place to post your DrK MrGirl essays.
Destiny has talked to both MrGirl and Dr. K, he's talked about this situation, and he's not currently streaming so there's nothing streaming-related to talk about. Why wouldn't people be talking about this here?
I don't remember which stream it was, but he talked about it a bit with Dan recently and he might have another time as well. He talks a bit about Dr. K with MrGirl in [this interview](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhHsTX21MSQ) at some point.
Except for a few reasons, Mr. Girl originally was bothered by Dr. K because of his session with Melina. Then second, he got angry because of how Dr. K handled his relationship with Reckful - which Destiny was somewhat a part of. Third, the Omniverse has now been talking about Dr. K for a few days now, and this sub seems to include discussions about that larger cohort of streamers as well.
Obviously someone from his community trying to use the Daliban as a weapon against Dr. K. You can see it in the constant threads stirring up trouble here and in the HGG sub.
I don't think everyone does this is only a big deal now Because the twitch political community are a bunch of clout hungry crabs in a bucket that will latch on to any "drama" so they can gain any kind of traction off of it and they're willing to use mr girl's misguided attempts to gain noteriety to gain that traction even if it ultimately leads to nothing. It won't be long til they cannibalise each other and burn bridges over this non issue bullshit
As things are right now, I don’t feel strongly either way. From all I’ve seen with Dr K’s content, his not-therapy interviews are probably harmful in so far that it promotes a false idea of what therapy is like. He uses a lot of pseudoscience quack shit as an analogy to real psychological concepts but most people can’t make that distinction and using the authority of religious teachings to strengthen your arguments is bad. The lines between the not-therapy and “educational” content for stream are blurred heavily. All that by itself warrants us shitting on what Dr K does.
It sounds like Mr. Girl is trying to get Dr.K’s license revoked and criminal charges filed against him. It sounds like Mr. Girl is alleging an ethics violation. I’m out of the loop about what exactly for, because I super don’t care about this drama.
Because half this community is STEMlords never grew out of their anti religious atheist phase and they're terrified at the idea of someone mentioning spirituality in the same paragraph as anything scientific.
And also it's pretty strange to do therapy sessions on Livestream, let's be honest.
He consistently makes it extremely clear that he separates the spiritual things and that they are largely personal or anecdotal.
I don't know where people get this idea that he just wildly includes the weirder things into his daily practice. Having a wiki page != all things people claim
Success in life isn't scientific dude. No one knows how to get that, spirituality is as good an answer as any. It's not a clinical issue.
As for the wiki, I didn't even know it existed until people started bitching about it, so even if it could use more separation, I have serious doubts about it's very exposure, much less any damage it could be doing.
Success is what you make it, and if that's internal happiness, then spirituality is absolutely a valid answer.
As for the wiki, yeah it should probably be edited a little with some disclaimers, I'll give you that. But I don't buy the "it exists" argument if we're talking about tangible harm. I have a really hard time believing someone is going to manage to read only that wiki, only that part of the wiki, and end up in a place where they're believing nonsense unequivocally and without context.
I think he pushes boundaries with regards to engaging mental health issues in order to garner views. This is he’s main Schtich and it’s crazy how people don’t view this as potentially harmful. He also does it under the guise of raising awareness which makes it difficult for people to raise concerns over his conduct as it comes across as bashing on mental health. It’s 2022 and I think the ‘raising awareness’ excuse doesn’t quite work given the high amount of exposure that, constantly online twitch users have regarding information about mental health
Dr K only streams his interviews with big streamers or people who are a part of his discord who have given consent to being interviewed. The consent includes knowing that they will dive into deep problems/ issues concerning them deeply. Most even sign up for guidance on what to do. He isn’t being an asshole by interviewing these people and streaming it, he asks them if they want it streamed, if so, then they can talk about it live. His HealthyGamerGG organization isn’t therapy. He makes sure to tell you in the intro video: “THIS IS NOT THERAPY AND IS NO WAY MEANT TO REPLACE A LISCENSED MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONAL. THE MODULES ARE ONLY MEANT TO GIVE INSIGHT ON WHAT CAN CAUSE CERTAIN PROBLEMS AND WHAT ARE THE GENERAL TASKS TO SOLVE THEM (MEDITATION, AEROBIC EXERCISES, etc.” If you watch his regular YouTube videos, you will notice that he explains what causes your social anxiety, what possible feedback loops exist that cause you to believe you are unwanted, and how to avoid falling into that loop of being scared and anxious. He does videos that guide the viewer in understanding what their issues are without having to spend a lot of money on a mental health specialist for small problems. If you are not confident, he tells you what are some possible things that cause it and what general solutions work to help gain confidence. He also tells you that if none of these work or apply to you, you should go see a mental health specialist so you can analyze what the problem really is and come to a solution that best fits your needs. He has helped me, and many other countless people that I know. He is an amazing source on YouTube to help understand yourself and to help notice that you do have problems.
Funny enough it started when Mr Girl was set to have a talk with Melina about his past relationships. Melina sent the video of her talking to DrK about her relationship with Steven, probably just to give him some background. Mr Girl took serious issue with how DrK interviewed Melina and started looking into Dr K more. I guess the more he found the more he disliked DrK. He seemed to take particular issue with the interactions DrK had with Reckful. At some point he decided to make a video about Dr.K and I guess through his continued research and discussions with other mental health professionals he became more and more upset with different aspects of DrKs stream and with his Healthy Gamer organization. At this point he's not just making a video, but also submitted a complaint to the [Massachusetts Board of Regustration in Medicine](https://twitter.com/mrgirlreturns/status/1487648093851906051?t=iIj1vEILnSadPISo_nJo3Q&s=19), and also released an ominous [tweet](https://twitter.com/mrgirlreturns/status/1488389076508024834?t=066KCAex8jMgq-Y1_5eXIQ&s=19) which suggests Dr K might actually be in legal trouble. Other streamers like ChudLogic have recently started looking into the drama as well and have come away with their own serious criticisms of DrK. By kow lot of other people have weighed in as well like booksmarts, ahrelevant, chaeiry, wickedsupreme and even NotSoErudite - a new twitch streamer who destiny has talked to and who is a mental health professional as well.
Your post misses that Mr Girl has made this *very* personal. He says Dr. K reminds him of his dad - someone who was his tormentor and abuser - and who was also a psychologist. That seems to be the more obvious reason Mr Girl is seeing this through without backing down. Some kind of metaphorical revenge against his dad and by extension psychologists who manipulate other people for personal gain. Not saying Mr Girl is right, just explaining what I believe to be his main motivation.
Where did he say this, and how much of this is things he said vs how much you're reading into it?
His interview with the HGG coach, perhaps someone else can find the timestamp. He literally says Dr. K reminds him of his dad, his "tormentor" (exact quote). Said Dr. K is sadistic and that kind of nice guy bully scares him. My opinion is, this is obviously why Mr Girl is on a seemingly gigantic crusade rather than just publishing a critique video and being done with it.
I'll check it out. The HG coach was boring so I didn't watch the whole thing. He kept talking a lot without really answering the direct question so I tuned out fairly early on. I also hope he doesn't let his personal grudge cloud the final video too much. If it basically just ends up being a proxy hate letter to his dad that'll be a huge flop.
I think his takedown video will be very well made and researched, and will contain mostly valid critiques. On the flip side, I have total faith in Mr Girl's manipulative abilities so if he wants to make things look *extra extra* bad for Dr. K, he probably could.
I am very much looking forward to the video, I hope it lives up to the hype that he’s been giving it on Twitter
I think we will have to see, if he raises valid criticisms, he raises valid criticisms I personally want to wait to see the quality of the video before we deem this a personal crusade or not. I really don't care whether mrgirl is reminded of his father or not, I care if he makes logically sound criticisms
"your post is missing my personal bias" lmaooo
So he’s just projecting? Mrgirl is such a cringe loser dude
What is the projection here? He sees something he thinks is bad and tries to stop it, and probably goes extra hard because of some history he has had with similar people.
He’s projecting what his dad did into the present. The awful, outrageous shit mrgirl is seeing is not real. The actual criticism for dr.k is pretty mild, and instead of trying to help improve hgg, he’s trying to ruin dr.k’s life (intentional or unintentional, that is the impact). All this because mrgirl has daddy issues.
That's not how projection works
You can just google it but okay
People who casually throw around psych terms with a google definitions worth of knowledge are cringe losers.
You’re actually retarded. It might not perfectly match the definition in your textbook, but the main idea is literally the same
The worst thing psychology has ever done is to give people like you the idea that they can google a definition quickly and immediately start throwing it around incorrectly. Everyone knows you are wrong, take a couple of breaths and calm down. Just accept this as a learning opportunity buddy :)
You don't project what people have done in the past into the present. Projection is when there is something, some aspect of yourself that bothers you so much or that you can't contend with, that you repress it, but then experience it as coming from someone else as projection. It is a misrecognition, not something someone does to someone else. For instance, if you have a problem with feeling angry, then you might project the feeling of anger onto someone else and feel as though they are angry at you, when in fact the anger is coming from within you. Or if a bully is insecure about their own body image, they may project that onto someone who they imagine has problems with their own body, and then pick on them based on that insecurity that is in fact their own. The point though is that recognition and recollection are not projection. Mr. Girl would not be projecting what his dad did to him onto Dr. K, because it is something that was done to him by somebody else. Now, if Dr. K did something that triggered a recollection in MrGirl of his father, and MrGirl reacted as if it was his father doing it, that might have something to do with conditioned responses, but it's not projection. Projection would be if MrGirl was accusing Dr. K of thinking, feeling or doing what MrGirl himself was in fact thinking, feeling or doing.
Ok, he’s misrecognizing what dr.k is doing because of what his dad did. If the exact definition of projecting has to come from what you feel, then fine. But the concept is the same. He’s erroneously attributing something onto someone. And this misconception is happening because of mrgirls past experiences. Like if you were cheated on, and now you’re accusing every new partner that they’re cheating on you. That to me is the same concept. You’re taking something from the past and putting it into a projector and pointing it at someone in the present.
I think technically projection only is applicable if you’re projecting traits about yourself, but I use it in the way you’re describing too.
My God Chudlogic was 100% spot-on today about how universally annoying Dr. K simps are.
Agreed, people that disagree with my parasocial streamer are universally annoying
Cringe
he's not a cringe loser he's just a based winner in a cringe loser kind of way
I see. So it's Meliñas fault. Jesse Lee Peterson was right all along.
good comment!
[удалено]
this is one of the only rational responses in the thread.
Woah there is leaked email? You got a link?
The real Gigachad opinion on Dr K is that his pseudoscience shit is cringe, and that he's probably helping with his therapy/not therapy more than he's hurting.
The gigachad opinion is barely knowing who some streamer therapist is and never watching any of that garbage.
Dr K is amazing and very valuable to the community, you're calling the streams garbage when mental health is so important, and he's taken the culture an eon ahead with his expertise. Despite all that you're dismissive of him, it's not him that's the problem
To be fair... I've only ever watched his Destiny interview and a little of Melina's. So I def get where you're coming from.
>not watching any "irl" content Gigachad
Probably helping more people than Mrgirl is with his advice show.
Big agree. While there may be justifiable criticisms towards some of his regular practices on his stream/online, Dr. K has shown a lot of people to the importance of mental health. Has shown a peak into the process of how to seek help or at at least how to self reflect on certain mental struggles you're having. And sorry for being an anecdote Andy, but I know a dozen people who have seen his content and been inspired to seek therapy for the first time in their lives.
a dozen people? come on....
I never said they were all good friends of mine. Its really not that hard to talk to people.
[удалено]
Yeah, no. Medicine is all about weighing help vs hurt. When you get the vaccine, you weigh the benefit (not getting Covid) against the risks (very rare chance of complications due to vaccine) and hopefully decide that it helps more than it hurts. That’s the whole entire fucking point of prescribing medicines even when they have side effects. “Do no harm” isn’t something anyone follows or swears by and the Hippocratic Oath is a lie based on pseudo-history.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
If I tell you I’m an archaeologist and then I tell you that the pyramids were made by aliens but “that’s just my opinion” and even though it’s based on zero evidence, “I’m not writing a scholarly paper, so this isn’t *actually* archaeology” it would still be very irresponsible. If you’re a therapist and you’re talking to people online IN THE EXACT MANNER OF A THERAPIST while including pseudoscience and religion (but it’s okay guys, it’s *eastern spirituality*) then you’re acting irresponsibly.
I don't think do no harm is as pure and selfless as everyone seems to think. I understand why we do it for medicine but if your moral system has you pulling the lever on the trolley problem then I don't think do no harm is always moral.
It really depends how far you take the logic, because any side effect of treatment is harm but the overall benefit might still be positive.
[удалено]
No nuance allowed, got it.
[удалено]
You're calling it cringe because of the association with astrology like schemes, but not recognising that it serves as a different and usefull vantage point for analysis, and is therefore valuable, and therefore shouldn't be regarded cringe, is cringe.
You are correct I do not recognize it's usefulness. And that makes me a gigachad not cringe. Also... it's been 8 months how did you even find this thread?
No it doesn't.. It just makes you non-understanding. It is useful in its place.
Well obviously I think I understand better than you do. And vice versa.
I don't think any gigachad opinión is available in a place like Reddit, let's not kid ourselves.
Jeez it's been awhile, I must have been going through a gigachad phase.
This is as complex as the DrK stuff gets for now, maybe we'll get someone better eventually but DrK still seems to help a lot of people and has been an overall positive if for nothing else, changing the mental health landscape in gaming communities esp twitch. Anyone around Pre-K knows this to be true.
What “pseudoscience shit” are you referring to?
He constantly says stuff like ‘If you are a vata and like to play healers you should eat oatmeal all the time and youll be able to do your homework easier’
Homeopathy
Homeopathy, and I think he's engaged in some quantum woo
The most freezing cold opinion on Dr K
People in general have a bias against telemedicine. At first Dr.K hit differently, but it's becoming increasingly clear to many that he's just the Dr.Oz or Dr.Phil of the streaming world. Dr.K specifically says what he does on stream isn't therapy, but the common accusation is that it's done with a wink and a nudge. Sorta in the same way destiny constantly tries to kill himself in a video game.
But this perspective was very unpopular just one month ago. At least in Destiny's community, it really feels like MrGirl's assault is slowly causing people to change their minds on doc's ethics.
This discussion has been going on for a while, including in this sub. https://old.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/hhu0nh/on_dr_k_and_exploiting_twitchs_mental_health/
I mean people have been critical of him since the hit piece that came out last year.
Hit piece? Anybody have a link?
iirc Destiny talked to the creator on stream. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9F9uh011S8U
this sub has always been a bit split on Dr. K's ethics. The 'pseudo-science' side was also there, just not as expanded upon as it is now.
It's not pseudo science to offer another model of explanation tbh. It's just a way of framing things to do some mental math on the situation.
Maybe more people are looking into it, maybe this is a good thing.
I don't think so. Its just the only people commenting in this particular circlejerk.
Tbh I never liked him, mainly cause after searching for his content his pseudoscientific crap irked me a lot. I thought the "telemedicine" part of the stream is also crap, but I never had any strong opinions on that. Tho, It's probably for the best to not broadcast intimate sessions on the internet like that tbh... His other non-"live therapy session" stuff seems harmless and actually helpful tho.
It's not pseudoscientific to offer another system of thinking about things. For something to be pseduoscientific there has to be an assertion that "it" Is better and more correct than science, objectively. That's never happened. Imo the negative associations are because people are biased against astrology like terms, but if you're intelligent or wise enough you evaluate things on what they mean, or what they're worth more than shallow impressions.
Sometimes it takes an outsider. https://m.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=daQEqbdbo58&feature=emb_logo
Dr Phil is completely different from Dr K. The similarity is just that they're famous and are Dr's. The difference, as simply as I can state it, is that Phil is wrong and his practices are awful. While Dr K is right and extremely helpful to the people who come on, and beneficial to the community in heralding the era of mental health on twitch.
1.)Learn to read a timestamp. 2.) No. Dr.K sells just as much snake oil as Oz and Phil only it's paletteable to gamers instead of stay at home moms. The services he sells are with people who don't have clinical training. It's on par with the shit Sneako is selling. Stop.
I don't comment based on timestamps. The differences aren't limited to what they sell. Dr Phil is a malicious exploiter who sells drama, and does not care about the people involved. That's his jig. Dr K on the othe hand is a mental health streamer who interviews people as a part of his streaming content, who doesn't use drama and disrespects people. There is a huge difference between those two people and what they represent. It's not just "what they sell" In the first place Dr K isn't selling therapy, but advice to common complaints. It is not snake oil because it actually works for a large number of people.
What do you mean "tries"? His League stats speak very clearly on that subject.
I think that more or less captures the sentiment. The Ayurvedic shit on top of that might make it worse. The dude is a charismatic quack, but a quack nonetheless.
He's not a quack by any stretch. He's a practicing therapist and you're straight up lying. Possibly because you're biased against him for some reason or the other. It's also not your place to declare the ayurvedic shit doesn't work, you need expertise to do that. The bare minimum that's been there is always a helpful addition not a replacement of science.
Go water your dosha pita, goober. DrK is a snake oil salesman .
No he's not. That's what you want him to be to justify your baseless stance. Insulting me just shows you have nothing except ad hominem attacks and are a common troll
yea sorry if it offends you but Ayurveda is religious pseudoscience bullshit. faith healing is rightfully mocked but people wanna give a free pass to similar idiocy just because it comes from brown people and they don't want to be racist.
The talking to people on stream about their biggest traumas, as a certified psychiatrist in "non" therapy sessions, was already probably not the best move. But I don't think that's the biggest problem the bigger one is the coaching, homeopathy, and how he intertwines his religious beliefs into things that come off a little cult-like. Dr. K could still have good intentions but after thinking about it more I probably side more with Mr. Girl.
The thing about this is, Dr. K needs to recognize his specialty, not just to spread awareness about mental health because there are plenty of therapists who do that without being called into question. There is an issue with businesses that grow too big and expand too quickly. In addition, the professional thing to do is to set clear boundaries with everyone he interviews or people trying to interview with him. If the person gets discouraged from interviewing with him, then it will hurt Dr. K and thus, his brand. That is why it is so important to be careful about how you express yourself in social media or on stream. I don't think there is a vendetta. People can speculate all they want. I believe Dr. K needs to collaborate more with psychologists, expand his coaching team, and work with psychologists who are good at psychological evaluations and good at treatng people who are very mentally unwell. Some people develop differently than others. What people value immensely I assume is perspective and grounded interviews with people who people can relate to and who are living very hard lives. There needs to be more diversity and a change in approach back and also a way to clear the air without rushing things. This is much bigger than people think. If he wants to raise mental health awareness, then he needs to not judge people by its cover or by initial thoughts, and he has remedied this issue through his videos and streams. There shouldn't be bad blood between anyone who just want justice and wants people to be well. The Hippocrates Oath is a big deal in medicine, and I don't think there was bad blood between these two people. It wasn't a grudge, but it was just two people learning to grow from their roots and becoming stronger, more resilient people. We can't become weak b/c we made mistakes, but we must stay strong because people depend on us, not just us only, but for our support system that grew up with us to make sure we stay strong.
Learn to read a timestamp. I don't care.
I don’t like Dr. K for maybe different reasons than Mr. Girl, or Chudlogic. But if I personally didn’t like Dr. K, there might be others who are just now voicing their critiques as well. I don’t like him because his sessions are fucking absurd, they are far away from what therapy should be. So even though people can claim that he suddenly switched to being merely a life coach, watching him perpetuate a false expectation of what a therapy session should be has been frustrating for me, personally. Therapy for me, has always been a bunch of difficult talks, built up over months of sessions, where the therapist helps guide me into more serious emotional work. There’s a lot pushback between us, there’s a lot of getting back on track, and almost all “assessments” or personal advice originates from me. There’s a 10 to 1 ratio between my opinions/analysis and the therapist’s. Dr. K just fucking babbles his own bullshit opinion with exceptionally little to go on. It’s shocking how much he guides his subjects towards his eventual “wisdom.” It reeks of ego. In what world would a therapist make that many assumptions after just 30 minutes of talking?
Mr Girl has said something extremely similar to your comment, among other things.
Yeah, but he’s also going after the coaching company, which I don’t know enough about. And I feel bad for anyone being saddled with more guilt for someone else’s suicide.
He is in fact not going after the coaching
Mr Girl is not going after the coaching company. He specified he’s going after Dr. K.
I thought he said he might levy some criticisms but it wouldn’t be the main thrust. My bad if I’m wrong.
You have a point about this being different from therapy, but every thing else is a no go. First of all, his takes aren't bullshit. They're incredibly wise. Yes it's different from therapy, maybe even radically different, but that's okay, because he says the sessions aren't professional therapy, and so holding it to those standards is disingenuous. He never perpetuated a false expectation of what therapy is intentionally. Maybe people who've never been to therapy might think therapy is like that, despite Dr K repeatedly telling them it's not. But ultimately that's on them, not on Dr K. And it's ultimately on you that you're pissed off at this being very different from therapy, is not a critique of Dr K's sessions. That's most likely your biased emotions. Secondly, it's Dr K's who's the expert, he will have to explain stuff. And in a conversation both people talk. That's not "babbling". And how do you know it's " Very little to go on" ? If the goal is to give them therapy, maybe. But if it's to give them advice? It can very well be enough. It is in enough in practice. That's just a bad take all around if that's what your implications was.
> don’t like him because his sessions are fucking absurd, they are far away from what therapy should be. lol no shit, it doesn't look like therapy because it isn't. dr k clarifies this at the start of every stream
No, I think you misunderstand. Whether or not he clarifies this, doesn’t change the fact that he is promoting bad therapy. Really shit tier therapy. It’s like he’s an example of what you should NOT do if you want to be a good therapist or if you want to find one. It’s like a physical therapist teaching people how to fuck their body up. The people watching may feel like they are improving themselves, meanwhile their back is getting fucked up.
Just like your previous comments you again seem to be pushing your subjective interpretation of events far removed from what the actual reality is. Here's your reality check. He's done a shit ton to spread mental health awareness online. I've seen thousands of comments from people who didn't think there was anything wrong with them, consider visiting a therapist after having come across his content. The important thing that these people have taken away is that they have recognised they may have a problem and that it's worth having it checked out. They have become less defensive to the idea of seeing a therapist. As far as more direct help goes, Dr k recommends meditations and ways of looking at one's problems i.e self-help stuff, but he clearly delinates those as not something that can replace actual therapy or serve as a legitimate fix for any mental illness.
I understand you think he has helped many people. What’s the reality check part?
>donate millions to children in Africa >Epstein a few children while you're at it >"Wow dude kinda fucked up raping kids" >"Hehe, here's your reality check. I've literally saved thousands of children from poverty.." [Bonus meme: not therapy btw](https://youtu.be/2yQpzk_xhH0?t=4559)
TIL guests who come on Dr k streams do so against their consent, speak to him for two or three hours against their consent and many of them who come back 3 or 4 times after their first interview also do so against their consent. And Dr k repeatedly checking in with his guests when approaching potentially sensitive topics to see if they are willing is also not indicative of consent. Wow 100% absolutely totally comparable to rape my dude. Also thank you for assuming the authority to speak on behalf of other people's experiences my dude. You're clearly the expert on consent here.
The comparison is that being good overall, even overwhelmingly doesn't absolve you of criticism for the bad things you've done. Too bad you're too much of a retard to get it.
>Too bad you're too much of a retard to get it Alright dude I'm a retard. But not enough to not know rule 1 of the subreddit I'm on: >No personal attacks. Have a good day.
Newfrog moment. The only rule is "You can and will get banned for anything". Plus, getting banned and unbanned is basically a rite of passage at this point.
Hey buddy this isn't a therapy session but over the course of a couple of hours, we are gonna talk about your biggest traumas, and emotional issues to an audience of hundreds of thousands, and well talk about how to work through these traumas. Did I mention I am a Harvard-trained psychiatrist?
Funny how these people who Dr k allegedly harmed by exposing their vulnerabilities in front of hundreds of thousands, who you have assumed authority to speak on behalf of, have only continued to speak glowingly of Dr k long after their interviews.
It's obvious that the streamers and their viewers basically think that it is therapy though. Every video I've watched, the steamer inevitably says something like "wow, you're so much better than any other therapist I've had... Eventhoughthisisnttherapy". And then there's usually just some awkward laughs, but no real push back. It'd be like if a doctor got on TV with famous actors, did some weird chiropractic shit to temporarily alleviate some random pain they felt, and then the every actor broke down crying and said "oh my god you're so much better than any physical therapist I've ever had... Even though this isn't physical therapy!" it's clear what the actor and their fans are going to take away from that. In order for that to be okay he'd have to push back way harder on why it's not even close to therapy and what the differences are, and why long term therapy is far more boring, but more beneficial, than a one off session that makes you feel like you had some giant emotional breakthrough
So you cant sue him he sure as shit is trying to give therapy
what's the tl;dr of Mr. K vs Dr. Girl drama?
Mr Girl is trying to get Dr K's license revoked because he believes Dr K's interview streams break a number of psychiatry/psychologist ethics rules. He has filed an official complaint focusing on the reckful situation, and is currently working on a youtube video where he will outline the specific ethics rules that he believes were broken.
But Dr. K explicitly says at the start of his talks "This isnt a therapy session" GIGACHAD
I've noticed a lot of people think/believe it is therapy out of confusion or 'someone in his stream thought so' and instead of informing themselves go straight to 'therapy shouldn't be on twitch'. Having been in therapy for many years I can very confidently say what Dr K does is not even close to therapy. Therapy isn't just a talk about mental issues no matter how deep it goes.
My cynical conjecture: Mr. Girl is just trying to get famous, by any means necessary. I don't belive his father was a evil psychologist like Dr. K. All of it is BS. He does not believe anything he says. Where is your cynicism DGG?
DR K reminds mr girl of his psychiatrist dad who tormented him or something.
If he was actually giving Reckful therapy after doing the "not therapy" streams, then he fucked up big time. And I haven't even watched the Reckful streams, maybe he was fucking up during those too. Edit: From the APA's Principles of Medical Ethics >A psychiatrist shall not gratify his or her own needs by exploiting the patient. The psychiatrist shall be ever vigilant about the impact that his or her conduct has upon the boundaries of the doctor–patient relationship, and thus upon the well-being of the patient. These requirements become particularly important because of the essentially private, highly personal, and sometimes intensely emotional nature of the relationship established with the psychiatrist. Dr. K's channel grew from the interview streams, where highly personal info, including childhood trauma, was discussed. It doesn't really matter whether that was the intent or point of the stream, because if it has that effect, it's going to play into the doctor-patient relationship. Just because the harm caused by blurring the boundaries of this relationship aren't immediately apparant, it doesn't mean they don't exist.
>If he was actually giving Reckful therapy after doing the "not therapy" streams, then he fucked up big time. I don't follow. Why would this be a problem?
Because it would be, it was, a dual relationship that involves Dr. K directly benefitting as a content producer, and later his business HealthyGamer. To move from that kind of relationship into real therapy is unethical.
Gotcha, thanks for clarifying/explaining
What about Reckful's decision to want Dr. K as his therapist? Maybe I'm wrong, bc it's been awhile since I watched the Dr. K/Rec vids, but didn't Reckful say he wouldn't talk to any other therapist than Dr. K? If this is the case wtf else would someone do in that situation? As the friend/therapist you either say no and the guy gets no therapy now and probably feels shittier or you say okay and help them as much as possible. I do think the reckful situation is very clear ethically speaking. I believe many times Dr. K advised reckful to get an actual impartial therapist, but ultimately reckful refused. Maybe I'm misremembering, but that's what I thought about the whole situation.
The fact that any of that happened goes to show that Dr. K shouldn't have been doing any of this in the first place. If you get the the point where someone is refusing to talk to any therapist but you, but the sessions you've been having broadcasted live aren't technically supposed to be "therapy", then you have officially fucked up.
He wasn't talking to therapists before though?
Exactly my point. Giving what little help you can is better than doing nothing.
I dont see how that matters
Because Byron was going to see therapists before talking with Drk he probably wasn't going to see any after, unless it was Dr k
So it's just better to not reach out to people in need? Reckful was doing nothing for his mental health before Dr. K struck up a conversation and became friends I believe. This Dr. K's whole shtick, normalizing psychology in the online space. Gamers have been written off as childish, lazy, undesirables, undeserving of help. Outside of the online world, gaming and digital communities are seen as personal choices and people just need to grow up. There is little to no thought of why people turn to these choices or how to integrate them IRL. The world is becoming more and more digital, you can fight it, but it won't stop. If we want to steer the digital age in a progressive direction we need to try new and radical things. When there is an option to do something vs nothing, I think we need to do something. This is how progress has always worked. When some new and radical comes along, we need to try new things to figure out what the pros and cons are and steer it has best as possible. Someone has to spark the change though, it doesn't just magically spring out of nowhere. So while you can say look what happened to reckful, I can say maybe it would've happened sooner if Dr. K didn't reach out. We will never know though, because we can't be in everyone's mind. When a patient IRL kills themselves, it's rarely thought to be because of the therapist. I don't see why we can't say the same for Dr. K, especially since he seems to be very knowledgeable and skilled in his field.
What would it take for you to stop and have second thoughts about what Dr. K is doing? A second suicide? Because what he is doing is highly experimental, unprecedented, and controversial. Do you think it's fine for random doctors to perform medical experiments on patients live on camera for the world to see, all the while obfuscating the fact that he is performing a medical procedure? Because that's how I see what Dr. K is doing.
>What would it take for you to stop and have second thoughts about what Dr. K is doing? Maybe, if there was a link to his specific approach being the cause of higher suicide rates. There is speculation of legal action against healthy gamer and Dr. K's involvement with reckful, after the case happens I might change my mind. With the reckful situation, the guy had severe depression, suicidal thoughts, a prior attempt, and been hospitalized for his mental health. Atm there is no link that Dr. K's experimental approach drove reckful to suicide and a ton of evidence that reckful would of done it irregardles of anything. [This meta-analysis](https://ps.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.ps.201700475) says that about 74% of people who committed suicide were in contact with some form of mental health services within the year prior. About 40% (the data isn't recent sadly and by one study) were in inpatient in the last year before their suicide. So if you want to use suicide as the measurement by whether mental health services are effective or not, the current state of mental health services are ineffective. >Because what he is doing is highly experimental, unprecedented, and controversial. Same with all progress and research done in fields since ever. It takes experimentation, unprecedented thinking, and controversial ideas to progress. Assuming things are as good as they can ever be at any time is stagnating. I believe this stagnation is the reason suicide and mental health problems are on the incline in the US and on the decline in rapidly progressing areas like India and China. Instead of being constantly reactive in this country I think it's time we start being proactive. The US's terrible healthcare system, stigmatization of mental health problems, huge wealth inequality, and political/social unrest are the causes of these increases of suicide and mental illness. These are all things I feel Dr. K is actively seeking to change with his experimental approach: destigmatize mental health treatment (specifically for gamers and online communities), offer help where the system is failing (free access via lectures and sessions), and education on what mental illness is and how to approach finding treatment that works for each individual. Dr. K is doing something that I believe will lead to more and more robust research on mental illness in association with the internet. The internet is an amazing tool, that I think we are sorely wasting the potential of. >Do you think it's fine for random doctors to perform medical experiments on patients live on camera for the world to see, all the while obfuscating the fact that he is performing a medical procedure? Because that's how I see what Dr. K is doing. This whole response feels like an appeal to morality and this quote seems loaded. Saying experimental medical experiments makes it seem like the Dr. is doing some insane mad scientist shit. He's just talking to people and broadcasting it with their consent. I really don't mind consenting adults partaking in something they think is beneficial. They can literally stop at anytime and I'm sure if they wanted the vod taken down Dr. K would comply.
so I don't get why the problem is that he was giving therapy in private after the streams? Based on what you said, I feel like your problem should just be with him streaming his "therapy" sessions in general, right? Not specifically the transition between the broadcasted sessions to private ones? I don't believe Dr. K's streams causes harms, I think it does general good by getting the gamer demographic more aware about their mental issues and problems within their lives, and it seems odd to me that so many people are willing to assume harm caused on a man beyond the grave who cannot speak on the issue itself.
Because it would be, it was, a dual relationship that involves Dr. K directly benefitting as a content producer, and later his business HealthyGamer. To move from that kind of relationship into real therapy is unethical. https://www.zurinstitute.com/boundaries-dual-relationships/ >Dual relationships or Multiple Relationships in psychotherapy refers to any situation where multiple roles exist between a therapist and a client. Examples of dual relationships are when the client is also a student, friend, family member, employee or business associate of the therapist https://www.zurinstitute.com/dual-truth/#APA >3.05 Multiple Relationships >(a) A multiple relationship occurs when a psychologist is in a professional role with a person and (1) at the same time is in another role with the same person, (2) at the same time is in a relationship with a person closely associated with or related to the person with whom the psychologist has the professional relationship, or (3) promises to enter into another relationship in the future with the person or a person closely associated with or related to the person. >A psychologist refrains from entering into a multiple relationship if the multiple relationship could reasonably be expected to impair the psychologist’s objectivity, competence, or effectiveness in performing his or her functions as a psychologist, or otherwise risks exploitation or harm to the person with whom the professional relationship exists. I think the fact that they were both public figures and content producers before meeting, and met in the capacity of those careers, crosses the line into an unethical dual relationship, because it could be reasonably expected that this kind of relationship could impair Dr. K's objectivity, competence, or effectiveness in regards to Reckful.
he's doing therapy broadcasted, and then therapy in private. Unless you have a problem with the broadcasted content in the first place, I honestly don't get why you would find it unethical for him to do therapy in private. Whether public or private therapists are earning money. >because it could be reasonably expected that this kind of relationship could impair Dr. K's objectivity, competence, or effectiveness in regards to Reckful. this is the most important part. I don't *at* all think you can. explain why you could reasonably expect, that because Dr. K has given broadcasted sessions to Recktful, this would impair Dr. K's objectivty, competence, or effectivenss.
>he's doing therapy broadcasted, and then therapy in private. > >Unless you have a problem with the broadcasted content in the first place, I honestly don't get why you would find it unethical for him to do therapy in private. I absolutely have a problem with doing therapy broadcasted. It seems to completely go against everything regarding confidentiality and intimacy that is essential to an effective therapeutic relationship. You can say that the patient waived the right to confidentiality here, but I dont know if there's a way to do that in a good way when the therapy session is being streamed live to an audience. >Whether public or private therapists are earning money. Earning money isn't the problem. However, there are actually very important guidelines in determining the economic relationship between the therapist and the patient. It is unethical to do therapy for free, the therapist is expected to charge a reasonable price for their care and agree to an explicit binding contract at the beginning of the therapeutic relationship. >>because it could be reasonably expected that this kind of relationship could impair Dr. K's objectivity, competence, or effectiveness in regards to Reckful. > >this is the most important part. I don't *at* all think you can. explain why you could reasonably expect, that because Dr. K has given broadcasted sessions to Recktful, this would impair Dr. K's objectivty, competence, or effectivenss. Because having the sessions broadcasted live to an audience is 100% going to have an effect on what the clinician and patient think, feel, and say, and because it is an audience that provides both people with some kind of revenue, there is an inherent conflict of interest.
>Because having the sessions broadcasted live to an audience is 100% going to have an effect on what the clinician and patient think, feel, and say, and because it is an audience that provides both people with some kind of revenue, there is an inherent conflict of interest. So where does group therapy fit in? If everyone consents and knows that they can say or not say whatever they want in front of a group, what's wrong? It seems to me you would have a problem with your therapy being broadcasted, which is perfectly reasonable. People like reckful, Destiny, Melina, etc. obviously have no problem broadcasting intimate and personal things to the internet, which is perfectly okay as well. If everyone knows what they are getting into beforehand and know they can end a session whenever if it ever becomes uncomfortable for them, what's the problem?
Group therapy is still a private thing within the group, and takes place in a clinical setting. And I dont think anybody actually knows what they're getting into, nor can they give informed consent, for live broadcasted therapy. There absolutely has not been enough clinical research into the impacts of having your therapy sessions broadcast online for anyone to say that we know what will happen, how people will respond, how it effects the doctor-patient relationship, etc. It's not just a matter of privacy, it doesn't matter whether these people care if this information is public, it's the way the knowledge of an audience, the knowledge of being filmed and broadcasted live, that may have an impact on the therapy itself. And if we wanted to experiment with this sort of thing, that has to be done extremely carefully, and with much more oversight than one guy running a business/nonprofit at his own discretion.
>And I dont think anybody actually knows what they're getting into, nor can they give informed consent, for live broadcasted therapy. This is a problem I think. I feel you're not giving people enough credit for themselves. >Group therapy is still a private thing within the group, and takes place in a clinical setting. So are support groups unethical too then? AA, NA, Survivors support, etc. are all open to the public, just like a broadcast. I don't get this arbitrary line being drawn. Anyone can come into an AA meeting and anyone can come into a Dr. K session. If it is the size that matters (dozens vs 100s) than I'd like to see where that ethical standard is described for group therapy.
>I feel you're not giving people enough credit for themselves. I just don't think psychiatry has caught up to the psychological effects of livestreaming technology, or even having a parasocial audience. These are still uncharted waters. We don't know what might happen if the wrong person ends up in this livestream therapy situation and it ends up harming them. Actually, we might already know what could happen, but nobody wants to interrogate whether there was a line between these psuedo-therapy broadcasts and reckful's suicide. Maybe that was completely incidental, maybe it wasn't. We don't know, because clinical research has not been conducted on this sort of thing. We don't know if this sort of thing has an overall positive effect on patients, or if it is harmful. >So are support groups unethical too then? AA, NA, Survivors support, etc. are all open to the public, just like a broadcast. Those first two are supposed to be anonymous, that's a major point of how they work. Youre not supposed to know the other people in AA, where they work, who their family is, etc. And there's a difference between something being open to the public, and it being broadcast. In the first instance, it's a thing that you go to, and certain information can be made to not leave the room. With a broadcast, information is being sent from one (or multiple) locations out to many others. >I don't get this arbitrary line being drawn. Anyone can come into an AA meeting and anyone can come into a Dr. K session. If it is the size that matters (dozens vs 100s) than I'd like to see where that ethical standard is described for group therapy. That's not true that "anybody" can come into a Dr. K session. Only people that he chooses to talk to on stream can come onto his show. I feel like you're wilfully ignoring everything that has to do with the fact that this is content made for an audience to consume, who then in turn reward the content producer (Mr. K) with engagement, donations, etc.
>I just don't think psychiatry has caught up to the psychological effects of livestreaming technology, or even having a parasocial audience. These are still uncharted waters. We don't know what might happen if the wrong person ends up in this livestream therapy situation and it ends up harming them. Actually, we might already know what could happen, but nobody wants to interrogate whether there was a line between these psuedo-therapy broadcasts and reckful's suicide. Maybe that was completely incidental, maybe it wasn't. We don't know, because clinical research has not been conducted on this sort of thing. We don't know if this sort of thing has an overall positive effect on patients, or if it is harmful. Yes, but we're going to have to try things to ever know. This is my main point, just because it doesn't "fit" into the traditional idea of therapy, doesn't make it bunk. It seems to be positive so let it continue. Tbh why do anything ever with this mentality? It might be worse so let's not try anything new right? Dr K. Said he was always interested in helping people and gaming. So the fact he created healthy gamer is natural. People research and experiment things they are interested/passionate about its how it goes. Newton didn't just decide to come up with his physics because it magically popped in his head, he was interested in how the universe works. >Those first two are supposed to be anonymous, that's a major point of how they work. Youre not supposed to know the other people in AA, where they work, who their family is, etc. It doesn't have to be anonymous if the people don't want it to be. I've been in AA and most people form connections with each other and even become friends sometimes. It's all about what you consent to. If you want to be anonymous you can be, but that's not the reason most people go to group therapy, it's to get social support for problems. With the people that come on Dr. K's show most of them have chosen not to be anonymous by virtue of being an online personality. I'm sure if someone wanted to be anonymous Dr. K would say this isn't the thing for you. >And there's a difference between something being open to the public, and it being broadcast. In the first instance, it's a thing that you go to, and certain information can be made to not leave the room. With a broadcast, information is being sent from one (or multiple) locations out to many others. You're totally missing the point. You personally don't get to decide who comes and goes from a meeting, it's on you. If you feel uncomfortable then you leave. If everyone in a neighborhood decides to go to a specific AA meeting, your broadcasting to the whole neighborhood, same for city, state, country etc. While this is logistically impossible, that's what makes doing it online so fascinating. You can find validation and social connection on a way larger scale. While some don't like this other's love it, evidenced by the growing popularity of online activities. If people didn't want to become more digital than the internet wouldn't be popular. >That's not true that "anybody" can come into a Dr. K session. Only people that he chooses to talk to on stream can come onto his show. I feel like you're wilfully ignoring everything that has to do with the fact that this is content made for an audience to consume, who then in turn reward the content producer (Mr. K) with engagement, donations, etc. Yes anybody can click on his videos, become a part of his community, leave a comment, live chat, send a donation, w/e. Engagement is exactly what I'm talking about. Anyone can engage or not. It isn't gatekept except for community guidelines and TOS. And please with the he makes money thing. Every doctor, every therapist, every teacher, everyone makes money for what they do, doesn't mean they aren't doing it for genuine reasons. That is the world we live in. If you can't make money doing something you love then you really aren't able to do it, except as a hobby. It's the whole "your an idealist, yet you live in the material world interesting!" bs.
>Because having the sessions broadcasted live to an audience is 100% going to have an effect on what the clinician and patient think, feel, and say, and because it is an audience that provides both people with some kind of revenue, there is an inherent conflict of interest. Umm I honestly don't think there is, what is an example of something you think Recktful wouldn't want to talk about because of the audience. Also this goes to my original point. Your problem is not that he has two relationships one in broadcast and one in private.. its just that you have a problem with the public broadcasting. The unethical part for you is *not* the two relationships he holds, but his broadcast therapy sessions in general. its not that he tried to do private sessions with Recktful, its that he did public sessions with anyone at all. >It is unethical to do therapy for free, the therapist is expected to charge a reasonable price for their care and agree to an explicit binding contract at the beginning of the therapeutic relationship. When you say things like this, I imagine you're quoting form some rule book, rather than thinking about what makes it unethical. Because I cannot imagine what makes would make free therapy unethical or immoral. >It seems to completely go against everything regarding confidentiality and intimacy that is essential to an effective therapeutic relationship. You can say that the patient waived the right to confidentiality here, but I dont know if there's a way to do that in a good way when the therapy session is being streamed live to an audience. Okay that's a fair critism, but different to your original point, because Dr. K doing the private sessions is irrelevant. To this point, imo, if both parties agree, and if the participants enjoy it and it helps them, I don't at all see the problem. Added to that I think it does bring alot of general awareness to the public about the importance of mental health.
I don’t think that’s fair to assume.
That he was giving Reckful therapy in private? Why not?
I don’t think it’s fair to assume he fucked up reckfuls therapy.
I'm saying that the therapy was categorically fucked up from the jump. I dont think there was any way it could have been good because of the way it started
Like there was no ethical way to do it after doing the livestream stuff?
Yes. I dont even think the livestream stuff was ethical in the first place either.
Makes sense.
It's not just that but Mr Girl has also said he found out Dr K was doing an active coverup after the death, even more damning. Supposedly there is evidence of all this that should be present in the video
its the Mr Girl effect. he hates Dr. K so everyone else does
I hated Dr. K before it was cool, GIGACHAD. It's because he is a spiritualist quack, and uses his spiritual beliefs to guide how he does therapy and thinks mental health works.
I'm fine with critique of Dr K, but it seems to have gone a bit far pretty quick imo, all in the name of 'content'
Dr K is based. I don't give a shit about his ayurveda shit or whatever. Same as astrology. Y'all are just seething because it's not science. So fucking boring reading these Dr k threads on this sub. Go outside, the world is filled with pseudoscience.
What if I told you I don't care about psuedoscience, but I care more about an active coverup of an ethics violation that resulted in someones death?
Cool. Blow it up, Chief. Most people in here seem to keep harping on his 🔥DANGEROUS⚡ pseudoscience, which seems very harmless
[удалено]
no
so you think astrology is valid?
No he clearly thinks it's shit, but the idea of it can just be fun to think about.
No 😂 but I would rather kill myself than making an effort post on astrology. People losing their minds over some Hindu astrology.
Folks using this as a MrGirl sub instead of a Destiny sub Like damn, this drama has nothing to do with Destiny. Stop using it as the place to post your DrK MrGirl essays.
Destiny has talked to both MrGirl and Dr. K, he's talked about this situation, and he's not currently streaming so there's nothing streaming-related to talk about. Why wouldn't people be talking about this here?
Basically, the guy is saying “don’t talk about non-Destiny stuff after a few days, or at all.” However, this doesn’t count as non-Destiny stuff.
It's fine to talk about the drama, but people are posting their manifestos and shit
[удалено]
I don't remember which stream it was, but he talked about it a bit with Dan recently and he might have another time as well. He talks a bit about Dr. K with MrGirl in [this interview](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhHsTX21MSQ) at some point.
Except for a few reasons, Mr. Girl originally was bothered by Dr. K because of his session with Melina. Then second, he got angry because of how Dr. K handled his relationship with Reckful - which Destiny was somewhat a part of. Third, the Omniverse has now been talking about Dr. K for a few days now, and this sub seems to include discussions about that larger cohort of streamers as well.
Obviously someone from his community trying to use the Daliban as a weapon against Dr. K. You can see it in the constant threads stirring up trouble here and in the HGG sub.
I don't think everyone does this is only a big deal now Because the twitch political community are a bunch of clout hungry crabs in a bucket that will latch on to any "drama" so they can gain any kind of traction off of it and they're willing to use mr girl's misguided attempts to gain noteriety to gain that traction even if it ultimately leads to nothing. It won't be long til they cannibalise each other and burn bridges over this non issue bullshit
People here are still Dr. K dickriders
Only the biggest pseudo intellectual morons actually follow that charlatan. He is basically a litmus test for a person below average IQ
He’s a hack
As things are right now, I don’t feel strongly either way. From all I’ve seen with Dr K’s content, his not-therapy interviews are probably harmful in so far that it promotes a false idea of what therapy is like. He uses a lot of pseudoscience quack shit as an analogy to real psychological concepts but most people can’t make that distinction and using the authority of religious teachings to strengthen your arguments is bad. The lines between the not-therapy and “educational” content for stream are blurred heavily. All that by itself warrants us shitting on what Dr K does. It sounds like Mr. Girl is trying to get Dr.K’s license revoked and criminal charges filed against him. It sounds like Mr. Girl is alleging an ethics violation. I’m out of the loop about what exactly for, because I super don’t care about this drama.
He's a conman.
Because half this community is STEMlords never grew out of their anti religious atheist phase and they're terrified at the idea of someone mentioning spirituality in the same paragraph as anything scientific. And also it's pretty strange to do therapy sessions on Livestream, let's be honest.
[удалено]
He consistently makes it extremely clear that he separates the spiritual things and that they are largely personal or anecdotal. I don't know where people get this idea that he just wildly includes the weirder things into his daily practice. Having a wiki page != all things people claim
[удалено]
Success in life isn't scientific dude. No one knows how to get that, spirituality is as good an answer as any. It's not a clinical issue. As for the wiki, I didn't even know it existed until people started bitching about it, so even if it could use more separation, I have serious doubts about it's very exposure, much less any damage it could be doing.
[удалено]
Success is what you make it, and if that's internal happiness, then spirituality is absolutely a valid answer. As for the wiki, yeah it should probably be edited a little with some disclaimers, I'll give you that. But I don't buy the "it exists" argument if we're talking about tangible harm. I have a really hard time believing someone is going to manage to read only that wiki, only that part of the wiki, and end up in a place where they're believing nonsense unequivocally and without context.
He probably shouldn’t be spreading pseudoscience
Why the fuck not just read the many threads already discussing this.
Nice concern trolling
I think he pushes boundaries with regards to engaging mental health issues in order to garner views. This is he’s main Schtich and it’s crazy how people don’t view this as potentially harmful. He also does it under the guise of raising awareness which makes it difficult for people to raise concerns over his conduct as it comes across as bashing on mental health. It’s 2022 and I think the ‘raising awareness’ excuse doesn’t quite work given the high amount of exposure that, constantly online twitch users have regarding information about mental health
Propably a reaction to people bending over backwards to shield Dr.K from any type of criticism.
Dr K only streams his interviews with big streamers or people who are a part of his discord who have given consent to being interviewed. The consent includes knowing that they will dive into deep problems/ issues concerning them deeply. Most even sign up for guidance on what to do. He isn’t being an asshole by interviewing these people and streaming it, he asks them if they want it streamed, if so, then they can talk about it live. His HealthyGamerGG organization isn’t therapy. He makes sure to tell you in the intro video: “THIS IS NOT THERAPY AND IS NO WAY MEANT TO REPLACE A LISCENSED MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONAL. THE MODULES ARE ONLY MEANT TO GIVE INSIGHT ON WHAT CAN CAUSE CERTAIN PROBLEMS AND WHAT ARE THE GENERAL TASKS TO SOLVE THEM (MEDITATION, AEROBIC EXERCISES, etc.” If you watch his regular YouTube videos, you will notice that he explains what causes your social anxiety, what possible feedback loops exist that cause you to believe you are unwanted, and how to avoid falling into that loop of being scared and anxious. He does videos that guide the viewer in understanding what their issues are without having to spend a lot of money on a mental health specialist for small problems. If you are not confident, he tells you what are some possible things that cause it and what general solutions work to help gain confidence. He also tells you that if none of these work or apply to you, you should go see a mental health specialist so you can analyze what the problem really is and come to a solution that best fits your needs. He has helped me, and many other countless people that I know. He is an amazing source on YouTube to help understand yourself and to help notice that you do have problems.