Do we trust professionals too much?

deannalfisher

kinesiologic wrote: »

There are professionals ... And then there are professionals.

I'm not sure how it works in other countries, but in Canada we have regulatory bodies ("Colleges") that professionals must register with. The purpose of the College is to protect the public from harm. They do this by only registering people who meet professional standards - i.e., someone who has education and training. They can also revoke licenses if professionals malpractice.

So: Tip 1 - always work with someone who is registered with a college.

I'm doing a MD-PhD program (well, sort of - long story) ... My specialty is exercise, health behaviour, and psychology. I can tell you that there is a big difference in training between someone who had a 4-year kinesiology degree and someone with a weekend personal trainer workshop. For one: the kin graduate will never admit to being a dietician. They might give general tips, but will refer you to another professional if you need more extensive help.

Education isn't a 100% guarantee of expertise ... Doctors are VERY poorly trained in exercise science, yet they're expected to counsel people.

... But, at least if you're dealing with a registered health professional, you have a legitimate body to complain to.

there are 2 ways that professionals could be determined

1) licensure - i.e. doctor/lawyer - you need a state license to practice
2) certification/accreditation programs - you have passed a test with a specified body of knowledge determined by subject matter experts in your field (i.e. being a fitness trainer)

yes, I'd be more apt to take someone with a license over a certification - but you don't always have the money/option to do that

MeanderingMammal

I'd make an observation that a lot depends on the profession that one is looking at, and applicability to other disciplines.

I've noticed that in the US medical fraternity the seem to be ever more esoteric sub-specialisations, almost as if being a generalist is a bad thing. It's not common here in the UK and clearly I'm observing a segment of the US population in a range of places that might misrepresent that.

Looking at other areas there are clearly subjects where there is cross discipline applicability. Here in the UK there are three running coaching fields. I wouldn't advocate a trail or fell coach leading on a county level 400 metre objective, but any of them could quite easily do the majority of mid level development. Similarly all three have some knowledge of strength and conditioning work, but wouldn't volunteer for developing someone who has specific strength objectives rather than running. The track coach is more likely to have a greater focus there.

Developing into other areas the applicability of a qualification may not be quite as obvious. Some misuse their qualifications by using them to imply credibility, others may not use qualifications as the lay person may not appreciate the applicability.

Going back to the original comments. A personal trainer may have nothing more than 7 days of training and assessment as a PT, but could bring a wealth of relevant experience thats not immediately obvious. Is, for example, a PhD in biochemical toxicology useful? Or an MA/ MSc in Psychotherapy?

Very much in the realms of caveat emptor, but it does need a degree of reflection on what one expects. Equally a recognition that in some areas one may not be competent to make a judgement, regardless of how intensely one might gain Google expertise.

Sivadee00

If I'm looking to hire someone as a trainer, and they tell me they were a "professional" at something, then I would call them on it by ask for any ligit certifications.

Same goes for their "experience" and ask for references. I would do it for safety reasons (CPR qualified/ Any previous convictions or lawsuits/ previous client complaints). These days we can't be too careful with people no matter what they say.

Even after they pass a background check I am going to observe how they train someone. I've done this with Yoga instructors. If they have bad ethics, rude, condiscending, or promote bad competitivness amoung fellow students then I'm not interested.

tiasommer

I went to a dietician at my local hospital as referred by my doctor at my request. I'm overweight, not obese, and have "exemplary" (docs words) cholesterol, excellent blood sugar / fasting and non-fasting, no high blood pressure, no disease. I just want to know how many calories, macros, nutrients to feed my body that runs 4/5 times a week for 3-4 miles, lose weight at a reasonable rate and not feel like "kittens".
She had little to say, up my carbs a little, a little more fiber, maybe a few less cals. Consider timing - eat early after waking, not too late.
Then she said to exercise less - stick to 30 mins. And handed me a list of foods and a sample menu. Jaw drop. There were so many processed foods, the protein recommended was just 40 grams (only low fat and lean) and the recommendation to drink things like diet soda and eat sugar free pudding and low fat ice cream I was like - what?!?!
Shouldn't the focus be on healthy foods, less processed stuff? Maybe the protein is debatable, but I thought it would be a bit higher. Not outrageous high protein, but not merely 40. That wasn't the killer for me though, it was the processed foods and sugar-free stuff that had my eye brows raised.
And she's a professional with a fancy degree at a prestigious hospital. I'm not impressed.

canadianlbs

xmichaelyx wrote: »

Information literacy is the ability to effectively evaluate information sources. There's nothing wrong with using Google if you're information literate, but few people are.

i think that's exactly the case whether your source is google or your pt, no? same thing, different input channels.

i'm not sure what the question is, actually. if it's 'we' as a collective culture, i have no idea. i don't think i do, but that's me. i do start with the information i'm given and work on expanding my knowledge from there, but it happens to be a niche where i have specific-enough interests and requirements to bother with that. there are other realms of consumption/being a customer where i don't give a damn and i'm perfectly happy to let someone else make the calls.

to me this is known as efficiency, i.e. prioritizing where my mental energy goes. so i guess i don't hold prescriptive opinions about how much or how little scrutiny someone else should use in a particular niche. some people like/want a very prescriptive style in a trainer. i happen to dislike that mode and be a little more picky about what i'm looking for but i don't think that's morality or ethics or anything. it's just a question of preference.

saltlakecitywestsider

The professionals who are trusted and relied upon too much are the ones with "M.D." after their names.

bmeadows380

I think that yes, as a whole, society is putting way too much faith in professionals, with the major problem being identifying who is truly an expert worth listening to, and who is nothing more than a parrot for the latest trend. And I get really tired of folks who will end all discussions with "scientists say" or "its the consensus of the scientific community", using a handful of studies that skew to their opinion as ironclad evidence that they are right and you are wrong.

I think the reason why we do that, however, are 1) conditioning - we're taught from childhood to respect authority and to not question it, and we carry that tendency into adulthood; we tend to want to accept as fact what we're told by those that we consider to be authorities over us and 2) there is such an information overload these days that just trying to find the actual truth can be overwhelming. You've got so many conflicting studies being published, while there is so much information available at our fingertips alongside peoples person opinions and blatantly biased articles that finding the unadulterated, unvarnished truth can be quite the challenge and almost impossible. that's especially true when we are trying to be informed on something that we are not familiar with - we are trying to learn, but who do we trust? As said above, doctors and scientists are the products of their professors and teachers, those who were in authority over them, and they are only as good as their ability to reason logically and intelligently inform themselves. And too many times, those in the health profession don't keep themselves up-to-date on the most recent research and trends. I saw this with my old endocrynologist!

stormcrow2

stealthq wrote: »

In general, I'd say yes. It's not just professionals in the diet industry, either. How many people turn their finances over to a financial advisor without (much) question, or do whatever their doctor tells them no matter what - even when the treatment doesn't seem to be working or the symptoms don't fit the diagnosis?

But then, I'm cynical. I've run into too many instances where doctors do things like prescribe drugs that have potentially fatal interactions with other drugs the person is already taking, or have a GP and a specialist be at odds - and it turns out either the GP is more knowledgeable than the specialist or neither knows current best standards.

Unfortunately the reverse is also true. Too many people ignore doctor's advise and instead follow some woo they found online.

stevencloser

saltlakecitywestsider wrote: »

The professionals who are trusted and relied upon too much are the ones with "M.D." after their names.

The ones with M.D. after their names and TV shows.