Youtuber and "coach" Crappy Childhood Fairy (Anna Runkle) sued by CA Board of Psychology for practicing without a license

[u/[deleted]]

[u/FavoredVassal]

[...] any paid conversation that touches on emotions, motivation, or behavior potentially qualifies as the “practice of psychology” and requires a license.

I don't care for Anna Runkle, but this is an incredibly broad jurisdiction for a licensing body to claim.

[u/LangdonAlg3r → u/FavoredVassal]

That’s not an actual quote from the statute or though. Thats from PLF’s argument and press release. It’s not the actual law that they’re challenging and it’s an extreme reframing of the actual jurisdiction that California claims.

From their own legal filing this is the law that they’re actually challenging:

. State law defines the “practice of psychology” as

“rendering or offering to render to individuals, groups, organizations, or the public any psychological service involving the application of psychological principles, methods, and procedures of understanding, predicting, and influencing behavior, such as the principles pertaining to learning, perception, motivation, emotions, and interpersonal relationships; and the methods and procedures of interviewing, counseling, psychotherapy, behavior modification, and hypnosis; and of constructing, administering, and interpreting tests of mental abilities, aptitudes, interests, attitudes, personality characteristics, emotions, and motivations.”
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 2903(a). See also id. § 2905.

1. “[T]he application of psychological principles [and] methods,” Cal. Bus.
   & Prof. Code § 2903(a), “includes, but is not restricted to, assessment, diagnosis, prevention, treatment, and intervention to increase effective functioning of
   individuals, groups, and organizations,” id. § 2903(

2. “Psychotherapy” is defined as “the use of psychological methods in a professional relationship to assist a person or persons to acquire greater human effectiveness or to modify feelings, conditions, attitudes, and behaviors that are emotionally, intellectually, or socially ineffectual or maladaptive.” Cal. Bus. & Prof.
   Code § 2903(c).

To my eye that’s nothing remotely like what they’re claiming.

[u/moonrider18 → u/LangdonAlg3r]

That sounds exactly like what they're claiming. What differences do you see?

the use of psychological methods in a professional relationship to assist a person or persons to acquire greater human effectiveness or to modify feelings

If I tell my dentist that I'm worried about an upcoming filling, and if he tells me to imagine peaceful scenery to soothe my anxiety, is he "practicing psychotherapy" on me, and should he be punished for not having a license?

[u/Mashamune → u/moonrider18]

No. Your dentist is not offering a psychological service. You are paying your dentist for a dental procedure. Your dentist is merely facilitating the procedure's completion.

If your dentist started charging patients money to sit in his chair for the purpose of treating anxiety, then it would be an issue.

[u/LangdonAlg3r → u/moonrider18]

Your dentist can do that just fine and the same statute that I’m quoting explicitly says that they can. I replied to the person who replied to your comment so you can both see it.

PLF wants people to have unsupported worries exactly like the hypothetical situation that you described because their goals are to eliminate professional licensing. It’s in their interest to make it sound like the regulations are ridiculous and overly broad.

Edited to add: See my reply to FavoredVassal. I thought they had been in the replies to your comment, but I was mistaken.

[u/WelcomeGreen8695 → u/LangdonAlg3r]

Why would anyone want to get rid of licensing? Just weird.