Background

Yes, certain programs emphasize certain worldviews. I recognize that clinical psych does place a major emphasis on pathology. One just needs to look at studies like the famous Rosenhan study to see an example of this. At the same time, there is an evolving discourse within the field that places emphasis on human strengths and resiliency. I find this more compelling.

A program or field of study can emphasize something, but people are encouraged to think critically and not just blindly accept what they are told. Diversity of opinions is important and should be valued in any field. Unfortunately, it seems like society has become less tolerant over time to diversity and as you point out less trusting. There is immense panic about all sorts of things and our emotions seem to get the best of us.

I do believe in using research to generate evidence; however, I would argue that in scientific research there is no such thing as a hard fact. All researchers have biases that they bring into the research process and research is far from perfect. Even the most established researchers and strongest research designs have biases. Research builds incrementally on previous findings and at a very slow pace. We can have increased confidence if findings are replicated but at the same time nothing is certain. Tomorrow there could be a finding that counters all that nicely generated evidence. Our job when conducting research is to contribute to the advancement of knowledge and to acknowledge the limitations of what we think we know.

Overall, I appreciate why people are skeptical because of my background. There is nothing I can do to change that except encourage people to consider what I am saying. You are completely entitled to dismiss what I am saying and call bullshit. I am still happy that people have taken the time to engage with us on this platform.

I posted below about mandatory reporting (sorry still getting the hang of following & responding to the threads)