<p>The news that precipitated this question is <a href="https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/exclusive-jordan-peterson-loses-fight-with-psychology-college-over-mandatory-social-media-training" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Jordan Peterson loses fight with psychology college over mandatory social media training</a>.</p>
<p>My question is <em>not</em> about free speech and is <em>not</em> about which party is right in this case.  I also affirm a board's right to introduce limiting conditions for its members for the good of the profession, which is <em>not</em> the question here.</p>
<p>I'm interested in how a regulatory board of psychologists define</p>
<ul>
<li>the <strong>goal</strong> of establishing these social media policies (which may or may not coincide with a more general &quot;personal PR&quot; policy encompassing interviews with TV / magazine, for example),</li>
<li>the <strong>character</strong> of the policies (i.e. <em>how</em> the policies are worded), and</li>
<li>the <strong>parameters</strong> of the policies when balancing free expression vs. representing the profession in the public.</li>
</ul>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-01-17T16:30:02.687Z
If the question is not on topic where, I appreciate a suggestion where I should post this question.  I also cannot find a proper tag for it, which I would think should be something like "practicioners", "governing-body", etc.
GratefulDisciple
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-01-17T21:56:14.853Z
I won't mod-hammer the question, but I don't really think it's on-topic. Unfortunately there is no other SE site I can think of that would be. I don't think this is something you can reason from general principles except that regulatory boards are *people*, and *people* have motivations. Those motivations are unique to each person and situation. Usually you can guess at someone's motivation but only know it if they tell you what it is; even then, you can be skeptical that their answer is accurate.
Bryan Krause
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-01-17T21:57:36.690Z
I would *guess* that a motivation here is that psychologists tend to think helping people with their mental health is a good thing, so a psychologist who says things that are harmful to mental health is like a doctor walking around assaulting people.
Bryan Krause
<ethics>
What is the goal and the rationale of a governing body for psychologists to require its members to adopt certain posture in social media?
GratefulDisciple
# What is the goal and the rationale of a governing body for psychologists to require its members to adopt certain posture in social media?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2024-01-17)

The news that precipitated this question is [Jordan Peterson loses fight with psychology college over mandatory social media training](https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/exclusive-jordan-peterson-loses-fight-with-psychology-college-over-mandatory-social-media-training).

My question is *not* about free speech and is *not* about which party is right in this case. I also affirm a board's right to introduce limiting conditions for its members for the good of the profession, which is *not* the question here.

I'm interested in how a regulatory board of psychologists define

* the **goal** of establishing these social media policies (which may or may not coincide with a more general "personal PR" policy encompassing interviews with TV / magazine, for example),
* the **character** of the policies (i.e. *how* the policies are worded), and
* the **parameters** of the policies when balancing free expression vs. representing the profession in the public.

**Tags:** ethics

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: If the question is not on topic where, I appreciate a suggestion where I should post this question.  I also cannot find a proper tag for it, which I would think should be something like "practicioners", "governing-body", etc.  
> **username_1**: I won't mod-hammer the question, but I don't really think it's on-topic. Unfortunately there is no other SE site I can think of that would be. I don't think this is something you can reason from general principles except that regulatory boards are *people*, and *people* have motivations. Those motivations are unique to each person and situation. Usually you can guess at someone's motivation but only know it if they tell you what it is; even then, you can be skeptical that their answer is accurate.  
> **username_1**: I would *guess* that a motivation here is that psychologists tend to think helping people with their mental health is a good thing, so a psychologist who says things that are harmful to mental health is like a doctor walking around assaulting people.  

---

## 0 answers

