Dr K's Dishonesty

[Raptorsin7]

I thought his response to the allegations was very robotic and scripted, and I did not sense integrity or honesty how he responded to his critics. 

I like the idea of Dr K as a bridge between many different groups, but this video has really made me think about how to assess people like this. I'm still not sure who is in the right in this drama but I definitely get a sense that Dr K and his wife have large shadow traits and so the fact that they would be irresponsible with ethics is very believable.

If I were in Dr K's position I would only refuse an open conversation if I had something to hide, and so his reluctance to answer the criticism directly is really telling. 

[Preety_India]

In what exact way has he behaved unethical? What law or goodwill did he violate/break? 

A person can be a bit shady in their general attitude/disposition yet ethical in their practice. Conversely a person can be unethical in their practice but frank, kind, open to debates and appear remarkably moral and neat, clean cut in their attitude. 

 

Edited February 21, 2022 by Preety_India

[Raptorsin7]

11 minutes ago, Preety_India said:

In what exact way has he behaved unethical? What law or goodwill did he violate/break? 

 

There are a lot of things to discuss.

But when he told reckful that he would love him for 2 years and then took it back that was very irresponsible and harmful.

I also have an issue with his back story and relationship with spirituality. He talks about how he went to an ashram, but he left prematurely because he realized he was running from life, which is fine. But he speaks like he's an authority on meditation, spirituality, etc which he isn't. He should be referring people to quality sources, not misleading people with his half baked meditation techniques. 

He strikes me as someone who cares about success, his self image, etc. I also think his wife seems like a sociopathic business woman, and I bet a lot of the problematic elements of the healthy gamer business model can be traced to her.

He also calls reckful a very close towards the end of the video, and the way he describes him is very suspect imo. Reckful was not a clear thinking individual, and yet Dr K is trying to portray him as someone who he was not.

Edited February 21, 2022 by Raptorsin7

[undeather]

Oof.

Dont you see that your "opinion" is entirely based on crude assumptions? 

Edited February 21, 2022 by undeather

[Scholar]

1 hour ago, Raptorsin7 said:

I thought his response to the allegations was very robotic and scripted, and I did not sense integrity or honesty how he responded to his critics. 

I like the idea of Dr K as a bridge between many different groups, but this video has really made me think about how to assess people like this. I'm still not sure who is in the right in this drama but I definitely get a sense that Dr K and his wife have large shadow traits and so the fact that they would be irresponsible with ethics is very believable.

If I were in Dr K's position I would only refuse an open conversation if I had something to hide, and so his reluctance to answer the criticism directly is really telling. 

Well, it's understandable that he would respond in a scripted manner considering how serious the allegations are and the fact that everything he says can be used against him in court, his lawyers probably discouraged him from saying anything at all about this.

I think the framing of "Who is in the right" is fundamentally wrong, and it is a framing that is encouraged by people like Mr Girl. While Dr K might have acted irresponsibly and made mistakes (that might even justify to take away his license), I think people go a bit far with their bad faith. Just because the guy makes mistake, or has different ethical believes, or even is deluded in some manner, doesn't mean he holds bad intention or consciously goes against "ethics". You want Dr K to be bad, this is why you can't imagine a reason why he would refuse an open conversation about this.

Someone who is unbiased will probably come up with a reason in a few seconds (remember, your cognition will only give you answers towards the bias you hold), for example like I said that everything he says, or maybe even refuses to say in a conversation, could be used against him in a serious manner in the future, legally speaking. Or he just doesn't want to have a conversation like this knowing that he is not very confrontational and wouldn't really be able to handle it. There could be many reasons why he does not hae an open conversation, and not all of them entail that he consciously is trying to hide something because he is a genius manipulator.

 

Again, an unbiased person will come to this within seconds. You did not, which is how you know you have a bias here, which if resolved will help you to see things more objectively.

Edited February 21, 2022 by Scholar

[Preety_India]

40 minutes ago, Raptorsin7 said:

There are a lot of things to discuss.

But when he told reckful that he would love him for 2 years and then took it back that was very irresponsible and harmful.

I also have an issue with his back story and relationship with spirituality. He talks about how he went to an ashram, but he left prematurely because he realized he was running from life, which is fine. But he speaks like he's an authority on meditation, spirituality, etc which he isn't. He should be referring people to quality sources, not misleading people with his half baked meditation techniques. 

He strikes me as someone who cares about success, his self image, etc. I also think his wife seems like a sociopathic business woman, and I bet a lot of the problematic elements of the healthy gamer business model can be traced to her.

He also calls reckful a very close towards the end of the video, and the way he describes him is very suspect imo. Reckful was not a clear thinking individual, and yet Dr K is trying to portray him as someone who he was not.

This is the whole problem with such things. I mean in the field of mental, psychology and psychiatry. People without adequate qualifications (even if they do have) should not be trying to have an authority on what's the right treatment for a mentally ill person. 

I myself had my own share of predatory behavior on this forum alone. Someone approached me saying that they will be my therapist(and friend) and help me (with zero qualifications in the field) and straight up began to invalidate my trauma and then proceeded that I sign a pact with them whereby I share all my personal information with them for the supposed service they're trying to offer. I found it very creepy, fishy and shady and blocked that person. 

It's difficult online where everyone who is not experienced or qualified is giving advice. Now we do that even on this forum, but here it's understood that we are not qualified and nothing comes with guarantee. However Dr K should be careful with clients. He could tell them to use 911, psych wards if things are serious. He does mention that what he does not constitute mental health treatment but what I find unethical practice in his situation is that he is trying to be a friend to his clients. That's the number one unethical behavior any psychologist would do. In my mind I'm trying to come to a conjecture that he is probably not getting many clients in real life as in the official sense of clinical practice so he decided to use online platforms to get a wider reach and use donations. Low key it's a grift to use twitch for his popularity and entertainment and then insert his business agenda into it in the effort to create a base for himself meanwhile preying on vulnerable people who become his Guinea pigs. Maybe his advice is helpful to some people but I did see him neglecting basic protocol, for example telling his BPD client that he is not suffering from it, (like some people on the forum told me that I don't suffer from trauma, when I have been independently diagnosed with CPTSD by two different qualified psychologists. That's some pop psychology stuff). 

I think Dr K telling Reckful who is/was  suffering BPD that he was going to love him for 2 years is extremely awful and unethical because you literally can't say that to someone with abandonment issues. 

That's why I don't like authoriarian people who act like they know better. They're very reckless. 

Much of his behavior is discussed here. 

 

 

 

[Preety_India]

1 hour ago, Raptorsin7 said:

He also calls reckful a very close towards the end of the video, and the way he describes him is very suspect imo. Reckful was not a clear thinking individual, and yet Dr K is trying to portray him as someone who he was not.

I did see him laughing a couple of times in the video as the client speaks. Although it's not a very big issue, his overall approach and demeanor speaks of disregard, insensitivity and lack of empathy. Sorry but he is not a decent fit for counseling. I find Dr Ramani on YouTube to be a great source on psychological research. 

 

[Raptorsin7]

2 hours ago, Scholar said:

Well, it's understandable that he would respond in a scripted manner considering how serious the allegations are and the fact that everything he says can be used against him in court, his lawyers probably discouraged him from saying anything at all about this.

I think the framing of "Who is in the right" is fundamentally wrong, and it is a framing that is encouraged by people like Mr Girl. While Dr K might have acted irresponsibly and made mistakes (that might even justify to take away his license), I think people go a bit far with their bad faith. Just because the guy makes mistake, or has different ethical believes, or even is deluded in some manner, doesn't mean he holds bad intention or consciously goes against "ethics". You want Dr K to be bad, this is why you can't imagine a reason why he would refuse an open conversation about this.

Someone who is unbiased will probably come up with a reason in a few seconds (remember, your cognition will only give you answers towards the bias you hold), for example like I said that everything he says, or maybe even refuses to say in a conversation, could be used against him in a serious manner in the future, legally speaking. Or he just doesn't want to have a conversation like this knowing that he is not very confrontational and wouldn't really be able to handle it. There could be many reasons why he does not hae an open conversation, and not all of them entail that he consciously is trying to hide something because he is a genius manipulator.

 

Again, an unbiased person will come to this within seconds. You did not, which is how you know you have a bias here, which if resolved will help you to see things more objectively.

I wouldn't say I'm a big Mr Girl fan, I think the way he's going about this crusade is problematic, and his own shadow is shining through in some of his criticisms of Dr K.

I'm definitely biased, but I think the question is whether the bias is coming after a critical mass of red flags were observed.

I'm not saying Dr K is consciously engaging in deception. I just think hes unconcsious to the insidious elements of his own behavior and organization 

[Raptorsin7]

3 hours ago, undeather said:

Oof.

Dont you see that your "opinion" is entirely based on crude assumptions? 

Parts of my opinion are, but I think there is a strong case against Dr K here.

Its possible I'm wrong on certain points, I guess the next step will be either a 1-1 conversation between them or if there's an update from the ethica board 

[Preety_India]

10 minutes ago, Raptorsin7 said:

Parts of my opinion are, but I think there is a strong case against Dr K here.

Its possible I'm wrong on certain points, I guess the next step will be either a 1-1 conversation between them or if there's an update from the ethica board 

I agree with you. His approach is problematic. 

 

[Raptorsin7]

10 minutes ago, Preety_India said:

I agree with you. His approach is problematic. 

 

Yeah, something definitely seems off about the whole thing imo

[undeather]

30 minutes ago, Raptorsin7 said:

Parts of my opinion are, but I think there is a strong case against Dr K here.

Its possible I'm wrong on certain points, I guess the next step will be either a 1-1 conversation between them or if there's an update from the ethica board 

I can almost guarantee you that none of that will happen. 
Thats just not how ethics committees work. Those instituations get hundreds of complaints every week and you really need to do some really crazy stuff before they get enganged. 

Edited February 21, 2022 by undeather

[Raptorsin7]

1 minute ago, undeather said:

I can almost guarantee you that none of that will happen. 
Thats just not how ethics committees work. Those instituations get hundreds of complaints every week and you really need to do some really crazy stuff before they get enganged. 

Ahh interesting. Do you have an idea about how long it will take before we will know one way or another how the ethics board decided on Dr K's conduct?

I think mrgirl said he will attack the ethics board if they don't take action, but I think part of the reason he is doing this is because of a personal vendetta against Dr K so i'm curious to see how he would follow up

[Scholar]

39 minutes ago, Raptorsin7 said:

I wouldn't say I'm a big Mr Girl fan, I think the way he's going about this crusade is problematic, and his own shadow is shining through in some of his criticisms of Dr K.

I'm definitely biased, but I think the question is whether the bias is coming after a critical mass of red flags were observed.

I'm not saying Dr K is consciously engaging in deception. I just think hes unconcsious to the insidious elements of his own behavior and organization 

I say it again, because it is the most important dynamic here: Why were you unable to conceive of a possibility outside of this:

Quote

If I were in Dr K's position I would only refuse an open conversation if I had something to hide, and so his reluctance to answer the criticism directly is really telling. 

 

You are justifying your bias, my point is your bias is literally making you unable to reason.

[Raptorsin7]

Just now, Scholar said:

I say it again, because it is the most important dynamic here: Why were you unable to conceive of a possibility outside of this:

Quote

I don't understand your point. If I point out x,y, and z problematic behaviors of a person why is the onus on me to then also conceive of alternative options that account for the problematic behaviors? Isn't it possible he is just engaging in those behaviors because of a lack of awareness around the harm they cause, and thus it warrants a response.

What is the harmonious view on this topic then? What are you seeing that I am not?

 

[Scholar]

16 minutes ago, Raptorsin7 said:

I don't understand your point. If I point out x,y, and z problematic behaviors of a person why is the onus on me to then also conceive of alternative options that account for the problematic behaviors? Isn't it possible he is just engaging in those behaviors because of a lack of awareness around the harm they cause, and thus it warrants a response.

What is the harmonious view on this topic then? What are you seeing that I am not?

 

You are still doing it. This isn't a debate, this isn't about onus of anything. You failed to conceive of any other possibility outside of him having something to hide for why he avoids open/non-scripted conversation about this. What I am pointing out here is not whether or not Dr K is doing something wrong, or why he is or isn't wrong, what I am doing is pointing our that you are clearly biased. This bias will, like I said, make it difficult for you to see any of this objectively. As long as you are biased, no amount of evidence will convince you.

Once you are unbiased you can still come to conclude that Dr K is evil or wrong, but the fact that you could not come up with a simple possibility tells me you are not engaging in this rationally, and therefore there is no point engaging with you rationally. Rational engagement only works if both parties are unbiased. This is why debates fundamentally do not work in convincing people, unless both are good faith and lack bias, atleast enough so they can think and see clearly what is going on.

[Danioover9000]

@Preety_India

On 21/02/2022 at 10:28 AM, Preety_India said:

This is the whole problem with such things. I mean in the field of mental, psychology and psychiatry. People without adequate qualifications (even if they do have) should not be trying to have an authority on what's the right treatment for a mentally ill person. 

I myself had my own share of predatory behavior on this forum alone. Someone approached me saying that they will be my therapist(and friend) and help me (with zero qualifications in the field) and straight up began to invalidate my trauma and then proceeded that I sign a pact with them whereby I share all my personal information with them for the supposed service they're trying to offer. I found it very creepy, fishy and shady and blocked that person. 

It's difficult online where everyone who is not experienced or qualified is giving advice. Now we do that even on this forum, but here it's understood that we are not qualified and nothing comes with guarantee. However Dr K should be careful with clients. He could tell them to use 911, psych wards if things are serious. He does mention that what he does not constitute mental health treatment but what I find unethical practice in his situation is that he is trying to be a friend to his clients. That's the number one unethical behavior any psychologist would do. In my mind I'm trying to come to a conjecture that he is probably not getting many clients in real life as in the official sense of clinical practice so he decided to use online platforms to get a wider reach and use donations. Low key it's a grift to use twitch for his popularity and entertainment and then insert his business agenda into it in the effort to create a base for himself meanwhile preying on vulnerable people who become his Guinea pigs. Maybe his advice is helpful to some people but I did see him neglecting basic protocol, for example telling his BPD client that he is not suffering from it, (like some people on the forum told me that I don't suffer from trauma, when I have been independently diagnosed with CPTSD by two different qualified psychologists. That's some pop psychology stuff). 

I think Dr K telling Reckful who is/was  suffering BPD that he was going to love him for 2 years is extremely awful and unethical because you literally can't say that to someone with abandonment issues. 

That's why I don't like authoriarian people who act like they know better. They're very reckless. 

Much of his behavior is discussed here. 

 

 

 

   That explains a whole lot. I had a suspicious feeling about that guy. I intuitively didn't like how he presented himself in conversations with his other twitch clients. It felt deeply manipulative, in a nice way, like white collar crime.