Dr. Todd Grande "Celebrity psychologist" diagnosing people he never met for likes& clicks

1
fwooper said:
Strange how it's always brand new accounts with no post history that come here to defend him. :unsure: If you "looked closer" (as you put it), you'd know that the University of Wilmington is a bottom of the barrel university. Teaching there for 7 years isn't really something to brag about.
Click to expand...
An acceptance rate of 100% and a graduation rate of 50%...Wilmington University (not to be confused with the University of North Carolina Wilmington) doesn't seem to have great numbers.
 
I googled Dr. Grande, and saw the critique. I registered for the sole purpose of sharing my own feedback. Hence, why I'm a new member. Dr. Grande shares a disclaimer. His analysis is overall very short. And they appeal to common sense. So I mostly agree with him. He analyzes people who have already brought attention to themselves, so it's not as though he has placed these people into the limelight. He quantifies his assessment, as well.


If you want a perfect example of exploitation, you may want to write an essay on Dr. Phil who is running a major show, interviewing people, agitating them, and causing more agony than good.
Dr. Grande addresses his subject with mostlt objectivity and undeniable kindness. There are some sarcasm applied, but my bias agrees to them being appropriate.

If there is a Pharmacist with a penchant for videos, I am sure he or she may start a youtube channel. But that's a different subject you cant compare to a mental counselor's material.
 
I had to sign up just to respond to these comment regarding Todd Grande. I am a PhD in Clinical Psych and taught psychopathology for several years. Todd Grande claims to know things that are untrue. Advice to any students following him for educational purposes...please find a new teacher/mentor. That is, providing you want to pass licensing exams. Personally, he makes my skin crawl with his hubris. I was trained that even when using psych testing, you must be objective by taking a good history rather than blindly accepting the results without knowing the person the assessment describes. This guy not only doesn’t know those he speaks of, but states his opinion without merit. His comments about Marilyn Monroe are simply off, and he thinks he knows why her doctors described her as they did? He is projecting! Learn something about psychological defenses Mr. Grande! Oh, maybe too psychodynamic for you, huh? He reminds me of Dr Laura. He calls himself Dr misleading his followers into thinking he is either an MD or PhD in psychology. I would accept his verbiage as opinion if he stated his credentials clearly and spoke to the limits of him scope. But, nowhere on his YouTube does he state what his PhD is in. I had to search, which was also how I found this page. Yay! But like I said, he is like Dr Laura, a right wing blow hard that wants to tell people how to judge people. Yes, that right wing bias as subtle as Tucker Carlson.
 
He makes it clear hes not diagnosing anyone, hes just speculating. Also, i like his calming voice, and some of his interviews are really good. Out of all the mental health channels, he's one of my favourites, as hes extremely analytical and professional. He also makes it clear hes a counselor and not a psych. All of the people he talks about are huge cases in the media, so its not like its small cases that havnt already been disclosed to the public, and many people without any PHD have already publicly discussed them. Look at JCS criminal psychology for example, hes already discussed these cases, even further indepth, his channel is pretty great as well, but his videos are also extremely long, and require some investment.

Another thing i love about his channel, is its not dramatized, or designed to maximize entertainment. Someone people would say his content is on the drier side, but in this genre, i would perfer it to be dry and educational, over fake and dramatized. Sure, maybe hes not supposed to make public comments about someone hes never met in person, but with a case like JEFFERY DAHMER, who was plastered all over the media, idk how harmful any claims will be. Wether its for his self gain or not, his like to dislike ratio is really quite good, and i know ive personally gained a lot of insight from his videos.
 
I always felt a little off about him, so I subbed and have been watching his content for a while now. As light entertainment, his videos are pretty neutral and can encapsulate certain historical events and people relatively well, and if you don't take it too seriously, I doubt there is much harm in watching him. Looking to him for some type of deep analysis however might not be a good idea, and I never thought anyone would take him as anything more than a regular commentator on Youtube.

I began to wonder about his upload rate. There is no way anyone could do a thorough analysis of anything at the rate he is going at it. This makes me believe, that he is very quick to pick up on words and lingo to portray himself as an expert, but that he lacks any thorough understanding on subjects. This would mean that he is intelligent to some degree, but lazy, and possibly suffers from some of the issues he himself has spoken on.

I eventually caught him slipping in one of his videos. I can't remember what it was exactly, but it had something to do with weapons. He spoke as if he knew something about firearms. He seemed to repeat a lot facts about weapons, but then he totally messed up on a very obvious point about what he was talking about. This happens a lot to people who pretend to know, but who haven't done any actual research or have no actual background in the subject they are speaking of. It happens to all of us sometimes, where we repeat something we take for granted, but this was actually something that I had subconsciously picked up on when it came to him, but I hadn't been able to articulate it to myself. I feel as if he is pretending to know a lot, but in actuality knows very little about what he is saying. He is intelligent enough to pick up on the solid ideas of someone else compared to some incoherent claims of others, but he seems to mess up when it comes to some counter intuitive or experience and knowledge based reasoning. Like if an experienced chess player just knows that some moves are not great, and no matter how high your intelligence is, you wouldn't be able to figure it out without actual experience.

Also, I have commented on his videos only once to my recollection, and it was about the depth of his analyses. I had just spent a week following an actual trial. Grande did an analysis on the trial, and it was very superficial. The response from his followers was a bit unnerving. One of them went on my channel, tried to find information on me, and then tried to weaponize this information against me, simply for calling the analyses relatively superficial due to the upload rate, and my knowledge of the actual trial. This comment from his follower seemed to gain traction, which also unsettled me. If this was the type of crowd he was gathering, there had to be something really wrong about his presentation that I wasn't completely picking up on.

His examples and opinions on certain mental disorders have seemed to have a very personal touch, like he might have been accused of some of the traits that he is critiquing. It was in one of this older videos about narcissism or something that had a particularly personal vibe to it.

He has often criticized Dr. Phil on his channel, but I do feel that even though he is definitely not as bad as McGraw simply because his has less or an impact on society, he is treading the same path. The difference is seriousness pretty much comes down to Grande not having the power McGraw does. I also feel that McGraw actually has a lot more personal experience in psychology than Grande does.

All in all, I would avoid watching him solely based on the huge question marks that surround him. If you are knowledgeable in these subjects, like law, psychology, and so on, you should watch him, and critique him on his channel as much as possible.
 
LawH said:
I always felt a little off about him, so I subbed and have been watching his content for a while now. As light entertainment, his videos are pretty neutral and can encapsulate certain historical events and people relatively well, and if you don't take it too seriously, I doubt there is much harm in watching him. Looking to him for some type of deep analysis however might not be a good idea, and I never thought anyone would take him as anything more than a regular commentator on Youtube.

I began to wonder about his upload rate. There is no way anyone could do a thorough analysis of anything at the rate he is going at it. This makes me believe, that he is very quick to pick up on words and lingo to portray himself as an expert, but that he lacks any thorough understanding on subjects. This would mean that he is intelligent to some degree, but lazy, and possibly suffers from some of the issues he himself has spoken on.

I eventually caught him slipping in one of his videos. I can't remember what it was exactly, but it had something to do with weapons. He spoke as if he knew something about firearms. He seemed to repeat a lot facts about weapons, but then he totally messed up on a very obvious point about what he was talking about. This happens a lot to people who pretend to know, but who haven't done any actual research or have no actual background in the subject they are speaking of. It happens to all of us sometimes, where we repeat something we take for granted, but this was actually something that I had subconsciously picked up on when it came to him, but I hadn't been able to articulate it to myself. I feel as if he is pretending to know a lot, but in actuality knows very little about what he is saying. He is intelligent enough to pick up on the solid ideas of someone else compared to some incoherent claims of others, but he seems to mess up when it comes to some counter intuitive or experience and knowledge based reasoning. Like if an experienced chess player just knows that some moves are not great, and no matter how high your intelligence is, you wouldn't be able to figure it out without actual experience.

Also, I have commented on his videos only once to my recollection, and it was about the depth of his analyses. I had just spent a week following an actual trial. Grande did an analysis on the trial, and it was very superficial. The response from his followers was a bit unnerving. One of them went on my channel, tried to find information on me, and then tried to weaponize this information against me, simply for calling the analyses relatively superficial due to the upload rate, and my knowledge of the actual trial. This comment from his follower seemed to gain traction, which also unsettled me. If this was the type of crowd he was gathering, there had to be something really wrong about his presentation that I wasn't completely picking up on.

His examples and opinions on certain mental disorders have seemed to have a very personal touch, like he might have been accused of some of the traits that he is critiquing. It was in one of this older videos about narcissism or something that had a particularly personal vibe to it.

He has often criticized Dr. Phil on his channel, but I do feel that even though he is definitely not as bad as McGraw simply because his has less or an impact on society, he is treading the same path. The difference is seriousness pretty much comes down to Grande not having the power McGraw does. I also feel that McGraw actually has a lot more personal experience in psychology than Grande does.

All in all, I would avoid watching him solely based on the huge question marks that surround him. If you are knowledgeable in these subjects, like law, psychology, and so on, you should watch him, and critique him on his channel as much as possible.
Click to expand...
This was a great post about him!

I have watched a lot of his videos but something about him seems off to me now. Also, there is no real substance to his videos anymore.
 
I really enjoy Dr Grande’s videos. He doesn’t diagnose anyone. He clearly says that he is ‘talking about what might be happening in a situation like this’.

I particularity like his dry sense of humour.

The recent video about ‘Prince’ Andrew is pretty funny. Alien lizard humanoids would never have made the mistakes that Andrew has. 🤣🤣
 
I'm still amazed people are still swooning over this guy for his "scientific analysis" even though he's a complete quack. Something tells me if it was a woman making these videos and her only qualifications were a 1 year Bachelor's degree from an online university and a 3 year PhD from a conservative Christian university, people wouldn't be buying into it. But Grande has that obnoxious ~I am a scientific objective man governed by LOGIC and not EMOTIONS" aura so people seem to uncritically accept what he says.

I recommend watching this video - I'd skip to the 9.30 mark. She's doing an actual psychology PhD. If anyone still isn't aware, Grande is "trained" in counselling, not psychiatry/psychology.




I've always got a weird vibe from his videos, particularly whenever he talks about women. The most sickening example being when he victim blamed a 15 year old girl who had intimate pictures leaked. There's something off about him and he gives me the heebie-jeebies.
 
fwooper said:
I'm still amazed people are still swooning over this guy for his "scientific analysis" even though he's a complete quack. Something tells me if it was a woman making these videos and her only qualifications were a 1 year Bachelor's degree from an online university and a 3 year PhD from a conservative Christian university, people wouldn't be buying into it. But Grande has that obnoxious ~I am a scientific objective man governed by LOGIC and not EMOTIONS" aura so people seem to uncritically accept what he says.

I recommend watching this video - I'd skip to the 9.30 mark. She's doing an actual psychology PhD. If anyone still isn't aware, Grande is "trained" in counselling, not psychiatry/psychology.




I've always got a weird vibe from his videos, particularly whenever he talks about women. The most sickening example being when he victim blamed a 15 year old girl who had intimate pictures leaked. There's something off about him and he gives me the heebie-jeebies.
Click to expand...


Well I have to confess that I’ve not seen all of his videos. And I hate victim blaming. So yeah that’s bad.
 
Here's my take. People here crying "He's not a psychiatrist!" Psychiatry is the field of brain diseases such as schizophrenia, clinical depression, Bi Polar. I've watched 95% of his videos, he's never so far as I've seen discussed or attempted to explain these diseases. He discusses Narcissism, Psychopathy and Personalty Disorders which fall under psychology. He has since reinvented his channel and discusses current affairs from celebrities to cause cèlébre.

As for his qualifications. Knowledge can go beyond formal qualifications. I'm satisfied that he knows what he doesn't know. I find many of his analysis' to be on point. He's very elegant at wording his analysis. Many people here are simply being personal - "He's weird" "There's something off about him". That doesn't have anything to do with his content. I don't agree with absolutely everything he says but he is knowledgeable and qualified as a counsellor.

Another point of contention is "No respected psychologist would do a YouTube channel." Well that's not true. Emma Kenny is a British psychologist who has a similar channel.
To finish he clearly states that he is just 'speculating' isn't that something we all do?
 
Melloj said:
Here's my take. People here crying "He's not a psychiatrist!" Psychiatry is the field of brain diseases such as schizophrenia, clinical depression, Bi Polar. I've watched 95% of his videos, he's never so far as I've seen discussed or attempted to explain these diseases. He discusses Narcissism, Psychopathy and Personalty Disorders which fall under psychology. He has since reinvented his channel and discusses current affairs from celebrities to cause cèlébre.

As for his qualifications. Knowledge can go beyond formal qualifications. I'm satisfied that he knows what he doesn't know. I find many of his analysis' to be on point. He's very elegant at wording his analysis. Many people here are simply being personal - "He's weird" "There's something off about him". That doesn't have anything to do with his content. I don't agree with absolutely everything he says but he is knowledgeable and qualified as a counsellor.

Another point of contention is "No respected psychologist would do a YouTube channel." Well that's not true. Emma Kenny is a British psychologist who has a similar channel.
To finish he clearly states that he is just 'speculating' isn't that something we all do?
Click to expand...
I can literally find multiple videos where he discusses schizophrenia, depression, and bipolar disorder, so I'm confused at your claim that he has never discussed or tried to explain these diseases. Being "elegant at wording his analysis" doesn't make him a good psychologist; most pop "psychologists" are eloquent and good at making complex topics sound simple to the general public, that's why they get popular! But just because he's articulate and you personally perceive him to be 'knowledgable', doesn't mean that his commentary is accurate and doesn't mean his commentary reflects that of an actual clinical psychologist.

And sorry, but when it comes to topics like psychology and psychiatric medicine - fields which are rife with misinformation, and take years of difficult practice to be allowed to deal with patients - a formal qualification means a lot and sets you apart from the quacks. I agree that a qualification on paper doesn't automatically mean you're an expert, but when it comes to certain fields (particularly related to medicine/health), it absolutely does. Would you trust someone who made commentary videos about medicine/healthcare who didn't have a MBBS/MD? I just think it's very telling that all of Grande's diplomas are from tit-tier universities - if he was so knowledgable and adept at psychology, why wasn't he able to get any qualifications at a more respected institution? Being a counsellor is not at all interchangeable with being a psychologist; the latter requires far more research and clinical work, and in some places the title is even protected (because dodgy counsellors love to claim they're a psychologist when they aren't).

It's a bit baffling that you bring up Emma Kenny to try defend Todd Grande - she's as much of a quack as he is. She is not a qualified or respected psychologist; she has an undergraduate degree in psychology and a postgrad degree in counselling. She's also a bit of a nutcase, her Twitter is just bizarre anti-vaxx ramblings. In any case, where has anyone on this thread said "no respected psychologist would do a YouTube channel"? It seems you might have wildly misquoted something I said, which was that "no decent medical professional would make YT commentary videos which go to the level of speculation that he does", which is a quote I stand by - there's no clinical psychologists on YouTube victim blaming 15 year old girls.

We all speculate, but not all of us misrepresent our three-year bullshit PhD to claim we're a "Dr." and then use that title to make people think we're an actual psychologist.
 
fwooper said:
I can literally find multiple videos where he discusses schizophrenia, depression, and bipolar disorder, so I'm confused at your claim that he has never discussed or tried to explain these diseases. Being "elegant at wording his analysis" doesn't make him a good psychologist; most pop "psychologists" are eloquent and good at making complex topics sound simple to the general public, that's why they get popular! But just because he's articulate and you personally perceive him to be 'knowledgable', doesn't mean that his commentary is accurate and doesn't mean his commentary reflects that of an actual clinical psychologist.

And sorry, but when it comes to topics like psychology and psychiatric medicine - fields which are rife with misinformation, and take years of difficult practice to be allowed to deal with patients - a formal qualification means a lot and sets you apart from the quacks. I agree that a qualification on paper doesn't automatically mean you're an expert, but when it comes to certain fields (particularly related to medicine/health), it absolutely does. Would you trust someone who made commentary videos about medicine/healthcare who didn't have a MBBS/MD? I just think it's very telling that all of Grande's diplomas are from tit-tier universities - if he was so knowledgable and adept at psychology, why wasn't he able to get any qualifications at a more respected institution? Being a counsellor is not at all interchangeable with being a psychologist; the latter requires far more research and clinical work, and in some places the title is even protected (because dodgy counsellors love to claim they're a psychologist when they aren't).

It's a bit baffling that you bring up Emma Kenny to try defend Todd Grande - she's as much of a quack as he is. She is not a qualified or respected psychologist; she has an undergraduate degree in psychology and a postgrad degree in counselling. She's also a bit of a nutcase, her Twitter is just bizarre anti-vaxx ramblings. In any case, where has anyone on this thread said "no respected psychologist would do a YouTube channel"? It seems you might have wildly misquoted something I said, which was that "no decent medical professional would make YT commentary videos which go to the level of speculation that he does", which is a quote I stand by - there's no clinical psychologists on YouTube victim blaming 15 year old girls.

We all speculate, but not all of us misrepresent our three-year bullshit PhD to claim we're a "Dr." and then use that title to make people think we're an actual psychologist.
Click to expand...
I agree with everything you say here!
 
I used to be a "fan" of Grande's older content on Cluster B PDs since he came across as nonjudgmental, knowledgeable, and educational. I confess I got duped into thinking he was qualified. Fortunately, not for too long though, due to multiple factors coming together which painted a different picture.

Although he never specifically stated that he holds a PhD in psychology, he did nothing to dispell such assumptions either, nor did he clarify his "credentials."
If I had the time (and if I wasn't too lazy), I'd go back and remove every single comment I had posted on his videos.
After everything I've learned, I've come to see him as a quack.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top