You wrote i.a.
As to satire: Your sig is excellent, and it is satire and it is personal, and also it is a personal attack (for whoever can decode it). I don't mind in general in that I believe nobody has the right to impose their views on you or me other than a judge in a court (so things like rules of a forum, such as also on the present forum - which I agree should be there - are conventions, and I think they should first and foremost prevent infighting and next prevent the forum being legally liable for what any of its members post).
But as to getting personal again, Rachel: You are MAD! Stark raving INSANE! You have Munchhausen by proxy, tons of dysfunctional beliefs (that may end up destroying your spine, just as the doctors told us males long ago: don't you dare touch it again!), and you're just a poor dysfunctional loonie - IF you are not a malingerer, that is! Courtesy of professor Simon, The Honest One. So there, and now that I and the whole world, and all English bureaucrats KNOW this, I and they will treat you accordingly, filled with the good faith of professor Simon - who is an honourable man - W.'s wise teachings, for they all have learned this from our good and noble British professors Weasely, Whitewash, Chaldatan en Sharke, who never lie, never speak doubletalk, and always mean as well as saints may do, on a fine day. So don't YOU - fraudulent sort of thief from the public money that you must be - dare to protest against these noble profs! They wouldn't needed to have spoken of the doubledealing fraudulent likes of you, if YOU - yes YOU! - had proper selfcontrol and no dysfunctional beliefs! It's all YOUR fault, if not of your parents also! You dysfunctional dysfunctional!
See why I take it personal? O, moderators... I think your IQs are easily up to it, but the above is what lit.crit. students learn to distinguish as "satire". (That is: The writer may be sick, but he means well. And the poor raver just read too much Swift and Hazlitt, also clearly sick men, who unwisely dared to take things personal and to believe they had their own mind to think with, in a world that seeks enlightenment from the Frauds and Weaselys.)
And of course you take it personal too - this clever psychologist educes from your sig, and don't you protest for We Psycho-folks all know about Resistance, The Unconscious, and Compensation for Complexes - and I think you are perfectly justified in doing so.
But indeed no... this does NOT mean one needs to always personally attack somebody who personally attacks one. Yet sometimes it is or may be justified, and as it happens yon trickcylists not only offended me personally but their pseudoscience also overlaps with fields I have a lot of knowledge about.
In any case, when I feel my satire-glands itch, I always can relieve them on my own site, which was built for the purpose (and my own protection, in fact: I may well have been dead without it, though indeed such dangers as threaten me do not come only from ME).
As to psychology: You wrote yourself
most psychology, if done well ( - important caveats) there is a legitimate science
With the caveats, and a ton of pinches of salt...yes, perhaps. But to show what I mean, and why I have been active as regards university education, you also add, wisely and correct in principle:
Most psychologists (...) receive proper training in the scientific method, experimental design and statistics.
Ehrmm (<-psychological cough)...no. I did not. And I took the full 6 year course for an M.Sc. in psychology. NOBODY did learn this, already thirty years ago. What they got was a travesty of it, a parody, a homeopathically diluted selection from a ghost of an abstract from it. The average IQ of the students in my time - quite a few who are now Lectures, Professors, indeed Psychotherapists - was ... 115.
And that's 30 years ago. These days, the study length has been halved, the IQs are still lower (50% of the population can now attend and finish a university, in Holland, if their parents can pay it, and become a Doctor in some supposed science that is no science, such as "European Studies", "Business Administation", "Freedom Theology with a minor in Sports" a.s.o. I kid you not: Literal truth).
How do I then know what I know? By acquiring it myself, mostly, which I had done already before I started studying in the university for a degree age 27. And yes, there are some good psychologists, just as there are some good psychiatrists, and some good men and women: They were born with some talent for it and trained it properly by their own efforts.
Finally - and this is not the theme of this forum, except to explain to the naive that psychologists are not what they like to pretend, very often - although I don't know by far as much about the English universities, I have seen a fair amount of books used in the teachting of it in English universities, and most of it was bad, simply bad, and much of it also managed to look bureaucratic, in language and presentation.
And the best book in psychology - much recommended, but a long read - is on my site, and is indeed what originally lured me into studying psychology, since I was and am interested in human reasoning of all kinds, and hoped for more of the same:
- William James, The Principles of Psychology
This is a good as it can get, and since this was published it rarely or never got as good, though yes... there is some sensible psychology e.g. by Goffman, Milgram, Miller, Piaget (with qualifications) and some more. But these were all individual people far beyond the level of any ordinary psychologist one will meet as an ordinary patient. He or she may be honest and mean well, but I can't believe he or she got anything like a decent scientific education or knowledge, and if they are thus qualified nevertheless, as may happen, it was mostly by their own efforts.