Oh, so only members of your chosen club and holders of the certificates it chooses to hand out can be deemed to have valid and correct knowledge re: what is labelled "psychology" and what it determines to be good and true, eh ?
That it is you and your lot who hold the keys to that kind of sacred and secret knowledge and that it is you and your lot who determine who has "sick beliefs" (presumably requiring curing) and/or is "spewing hatred" (presumably requiring censorship) or not, yes ?
If that is the case, let's all hope that you and your lot never get the kind of support and recognition in Oz that Lysenko got in Russia under Stalin, which was to the detriment and death of many millions, and repeated slightly differently in China to the death of 30 million, hmmm ?
In short, one does not require so called "formal qualifications" to make accurate statements in relation to any particular field of statements.
One merely needs to know how to study and research and in this day and age, it can be as easy as typing a question into google then cross-checking results dontchaknow ?
Don't look now but I think your sacred and secret knowledge, just like the secrets of scientology and mormonism, is available for anyone to read and point and laugh at from near anywhere on the interwubz, and now near ANYONE can deliver an accurate statement in relation to what psychology deems to be accurate.
What is more, thanks to the internut (hi Tralalad), it is now easier than ever before for near ANYONE to expose and denounce the flaws in the thinking and ideologies of all sorts of
ivory-tower fundamentalisms, pschology included ... and no so called "formal qualifications" are required.
BTW, you're not suggesting that one must become a card caring sea-org graduate born again scientologist or bible college degreed mormon (etc, etc, etc) in order to have a correct and valid understanding of what those cults believe to be true do you ?
Anyhoo, as for formal qualification, from my quick bit of googling (ain't the interwubz wonderful ?) it would seem that Mr Abbott (who has already authored more books than presumably you or I have) studied for a Bachelor of Economics and a Bachelor of Laws at the University of Sydney and for a Master of Arts as a Rhodes Scholar at The Queen's College, Oxford and that he later trained as a seminarian and worked as a journalist, business manager, political advisor and Executive Director of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy, and all of this (aside from the aforemented authorship) prior to entering Australian parliarment.
Not hard to infer from that little collection of "formal" accomplishments, that Mr Abbott is no stranger to the discipline of research and study and figuring out what is what and what is likely or not, etc, yes ?
Anyhoo, because somebody isn't wielding the same diploma as you on the topic being talked about doesn't automatically make what they claim about it to be balderdash. Such a thing can only be reasonably claimed after the providing and examination and accepting of evidence, etc.
Something you've chosen not to do.
If you are so sure of yourself, what have you to lose by sharing in the forum that which you think supports your claim of "balderdash" ... or are you actually so arrogant or elitist to think that nobody other than folk who hold so called "formal qualifications" similar to your own would understand anyway and that the rest of us should just shut up and accept without any kind of testing that which you have accepted if not decreed to be gospel ?
Oh, and BTW, in Tony's quote, it is the word PHYSIOLOGICAL that is used ...
regarDS