Problematic John Dehlin, a short list

[Bought Yahoo]

Sour grapes. If Dehlin can get someone off of paint huffing good for him.

I haven't found a solution for my glue sniffing and horse.

[jpatterson]

But I can tell you exactly what I think of the people who dedicate so much time to moaning about Dehlin. I have vanishingly little respect for them and their moaning

What about the people who dedicate so much time to moaning about the people who moan about Dehlin? How much respect do you have for their moaning?

[Morley]

Taking a cue from Kishkumen, if Dehlin doesn't get much from coaching, why does he do it? If he wants to use his medical expertise to counsel people, why doesn't he get licensed? If he doesn't want to be in the public's crosshairs and deal with such conflict, why doesn't he just get his license and move on with his life?

My apologies if this has already been covered in this, or the other copious thread.

He may not have been able to pass the EPPP exam or have banked the required supervised clinical hours.

Just as one can graduate from law school, but still not be an attorney without passing the bar, one can have a PhD in psych and not be what the APA calls a psychologist. Sometimes getting the doctorate is the easy part. At least that was the case a few decades ago. But I doubt it's changed.
.

[Tator]

What about the people who dedicate so much time to moaning about the people who moan about Dehlin? How much respect do you have for their moaning?

After 10 years and 10 thousand posts of moaning on both sides I have no respect for either side. Jpbrosebud you are such a tool. I don't give a shitz never have and over 99.99% of the world's population doesn't give shitz.

[Kishkumen]

What about the people who dedicate so much time to moaning about the people who moan about Dehlin? How much respect do you have for their moaning?

More than I do for people who ask stupid questions with obvious answers!

[Kishkumen]

So people are stupid and can only blame themselves?

Sometimes definitely. Some people are stupid or they behave stupidly for one reason or another. And when they do, they really should blame themselves, especially when we are sitting at an electronic portal to a vast repository of information. We can check to see what JD's credentials actually mean (and don't), and there are plenty of people around who know.

Jeez, Kish, you can't really believe that people who use medical credentials shouldn't be held to high professional standards.

If they are engaging in medical services as licensed, board-certified professionals they should. If they are offering medical services without certification, then they should have the book thrown at them. In this case he was essentially offering life coaching and trading on his credentials in an adjacent area. It is not something I would do, but I am not going apoplectic over it. People mildy misuse their PhD credentials all the time. I don't see the point in trying to make a federal case out of it (metaphor).

Regulating bodies do exist for good reason. Dehlin is working outside of their supervision while advertising his medical credentials as an asset.

Which is a problem, as I said, if he is promising and offering the exact same services that regulating bodies police. Life coaching is not psychotherapy.

Taking a cue from Kishkumen, if Dehlin doesn't get much from coaching, why does he do it? If he wants to use his medical expertise to counsel people, why doesn't he get licensed? If he doesn't want to be in the public's crosshairs and deal with such conflict, why doesn't he just get his license and move on with his life? If he didn't depend upon public perception to make a living, he might be much less defensive and reactive to people who clash with him. And by taking his career out of the equation, he might ultimately be a better contributor to the communities he says he's trying to support.

What is your interest in life coaching? Why do you care? Are you saying that life coaching shouldn't be allowed? What business is it of yours if Dehlin does life coaching or not? Why are you nosing into his business on this front? Why don't you restrict yourself to a couple of key points that matter more than life coaching? Because, I have to tell you, the return on your investment here is going to be minimal.

Or, he could simply stop treating people like crap when they call him out, and make amends for when he has done so. See how easy that is, Kish?

You are welcome to contact him and ask him that question. I would say to the people who have found him to be a dick and are still steamed about it years afterward that the mirror of self-examination is probably in order at this point, not just their withering disdain for a guy who paid them poorly or let them down in some other way.

[Meadowchik]

I make this post with the permission of the woman in question.

A woman has reported some online behavior of Dehlin’s which has made her uncomfortable. It consisted of several instances where Dehlin liked certain social media pictures in a batch. At first, she found the first instance forgettable, even though the “likes” seemed to be careful selections of her “sexy” pictures while mostly skipping her other content.

When it happened again, and then again, including posts that he “liked” a second time—which means he had to unlike them and then like them again—she felt it was deliberate and pointed.

At the very least she felt very uncomfortable. She also felt a sense of loss, since over time she and her husband and Dehlin had talked about the possibility of appearing on Dehlin’s podcast to talk about their particular experiences leaving the church. She now felt she could no longer discuss these painful experiences and share her story through Dehlin, because he was showing signs of untrustworthiness.

Eventually, in at least one Facebook page Dehlin began a topic about the “do's and don'ts for exmo men to not be misogynistic.” This is when the woman in question decided to share her experience with Dehlin’s strange “likes” on her social media, as examples of don’ts.

Dehlin apologized to the woman privately, yet as many women commented in support of her, many of those supportive comments were deleted and posters blocked.

Dehlin subsequently wrote a 7-page Google doc (with the woman's and her husband's names and location redacted here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hTf ... edit?hl=en) going over the examples she shared on his post. He characterized the experience as her attacking him “in his workplace” and “brigading” him with other women. He implied that it was a “smear campaign” out of a “narcissist’s playbook.”

[consiglieri]

So a woman posts sexy pics of herself on Facebook and is offended that a man likes them?

Do I have that right?

[Meadowchik]

I make this post with the permission of the woman in question.

A woman has reported some online behavior of Dehlin’s which has made her uncomfortable. It consisted of several instances where Dehlin liked certain social media pictures in a batch. At first, she found the first instance forgettable, even though the “likes” seemed to be careful selections of her “sexy” pictures while mostly skipping her other content.

When it happened again, and then again, including posts that he “liked” a second time—which means he had to unlike them and then like them again—she felt it was deliberate and pointed.

At the very least she felt very uncomfortable. She also felt a sense of loss, since over time she and her husband and Dehlin had talked about the possibility of appearing on Dehlin’s podcast to talk about their particular experiences leaving the church. She now felt she could no longer discuss these painful experiences and share her story through Dehlin, because he was showing signs of untrustworthiness.

Eventually, in at least one Facebook page Dehlin began a topic about the “do's and don'ts for exmo men to not be misogynistic.” This is when the woman in question decided to share her experience with Dehlin’s strange “likes” on her social media, as examples of don’ts.

Dehlin apologized to the woman privately, yet as many women commented in support of her, many of those supportive comments were deleted and posters blocked.

Dehlin subsequently wrote a 7-page Google doc (with the woman's and her husband's names and location redacted here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hTf ... sp=sharing) going over the examples she shared on his post. He characterized the experience as her attacking him “in his workplace” and “brigading” him with other women. He implied that it was a “smear campaign” out of a “narcissist’s playbook.”

So, going from the woman's statements and Dehlin's:

1. Dehlin says he and his wife were friends with the woman and her husband.
2. The woman says there were several times when he liked batches of her "sexy" pics, including times when he re-liked the same images, which would have required him to unlike them in order to like them again.
3. When John defends himself, he mischaracterizes her concerns. She is in agreement with him in the sense that the first batch of likes was forgettable and not concerning. What he does not address, however, is the re-liking. As John says, liking and hearting her posts is done publicly and he uses this as a defense. However, he neglects to point out that if he is liking, unliking, and re-liking batches of posts, this is in all likelihood something only she would notice. So it would be a way for a person to send a message in plain sight.
4. While she did not bring this concern to him privately first, it is notable that she already felt that he had demonstrated untrustworthiness.
5. Dehlin opened up the topic of "do's and don'ts" in his own groups, and her reply was topical. And while he complains about her and "her friends" coming to his "workplace" it can also be noted that his relationship with her was directly connected to his "workplace," as they had been discussing the production of a podcast of their experiences.
6. Dehlin characterizes the support she received in his groups as some kind of planned brigade. Yet there is is simply another more plausible explanation. His groups are large and he opened a post about misogyny, therefore attracting the interest of people who are interested in anti-misogyny discourse.
7. There are two internet situations here. The first is what the woman's description of John's strangely-patterned likes of her posts. Arguably, she inferred his motivations from that behavior. The second situation is her airing the first situation in his Facebook group, and then many people replying in support of her. John presumes that it is some organized brigade on her part. I think that her inference is much more reasonable than Dehlin's presumptions.

[Meadowchik]

So a woman posts sexy pics of herself on Facebook and is offended that a man likes them?

Do I have that right?

No, you do not have it right, and you're glossing over the bit here:

At first, she found the first instance forgettable, even though the “likes” seemed to be careful selections of her “sexy” pictures while mostly skipping her other content.

When it happened again, and then again, including posts that he “liked” a second time—which means he had to unlike them and then like them again—she felt it was deliberate and pointed.