"Life Coaches" - time for regulation?

Following on from the thread about psychics. Are life coaches another group that are cashing in on the vulnerable, and usually with no real qualifications to do so, unlike say Psychiatrists or Psychologists?

Have had friends with issues in their lives recently go to so called life coaches. Like psychics, these were people who were recommended to them by others who said they were very good.

A couple of friends ended up far more distressed and full of self doubt that when they went in, and are now questioning their entire lives, serious decisions they made about careers and relationships (I didn't even know they went there, I thought they just gave career advice!). One has had to go on for much more counselling as a result, she was left devastated by the questions she was asked. Again unlike Psychiatrists or Psychologists, there were no solutions proferred or real assistance beyond a series of probing questions (that anyone could devise) that pretty much broke her down.

So is it time to regulate this area? And if so, in what way?

corner of hells

Do "life coaches " do an Airport run ? Ive an early flight next month.

smash

Deleted User wrote: »

Are life coaches another group that are cashing in on the vulnerable, and usually with no real qualifications to do so, unlike say Psychiatrists or Psychologists?

Pretty much.

Idiot: My life's a mess, I'm broke and unhappy.
Life coach: Well if you can manage to get some money and pay me €150 an hour I can change that. But I give no guarantees.

kneemos

BOMBARDMENT!!

smash

smash wrote: »

Pretty much.

Idiot: My life's a mess, I'm broke and unhappy.
Life coach: Well if you can manage to get some money and pay me €150 an hour I can change that. But I give no guarantees.

It wasn't even that. That would be a neutral outcome. One I know of has actually opened up serious issues and left them hanging.

One of my friends was asked a series of questions that focussed on her worries about getting married and having a family that were just...shocking. And again with no effort to tackle the worries, nothing that left her able to deal with negative thoughts, just the whole thing left hanging once it was out in the open.

NachoBusiness

It's an impossible area to regulate due to free speech.

You're right though. The vast majority of these people are cnuts.

Tony Quinn here made a mint telling people the power to heal lay within them and nothing else was needed, yet he then went on to pimp supplements, same story with the very charismatic Tony Robbins (Awaken The Giant Within) in the states.

I include Oprah Winfrey when I say that also, as she had a viewership of hundreds of millions for her shows when you take in syndication and she would pontificate to people that they had drawn their problems to them and had regular guests on telling people that their attitude had made them ill and God had a plan for them. She positioned herself as the life coach to Americans and yet she herself couldn't even muster enough will power to stop stuffing her own face.

Buona Fortuna

NachoBusiness wrote: »

It's an impossible area to regulate due to free speech.

You're right though. The vast majority of these people are cnuts.

Tony Quinn here made a mint telling people the power to heal lay within them and nothing else was needed, yet he then went on to pimp supplements, same story with the very charismatic Tony Robbins (Awaken The Giant Within) in the states.

I include Oprah Winfrey when I say that also, as she had a viewership of hundreds of millions for her shows when you take in syndication and she would pontificate to people that they had drawn their problems to them and had regular guests on telling people that their attitude had made them ill and God had a plan for them. She positioned herself as the life coach to Americans and yet she herself couldn't even muster enough will power to stop stuffing her own face.

Yes Oprah is a total cnut.

This post has no value to anyone, other than giving me huge pleasure.

D'wife laps up any twaddle that Oprah sprouts out.

zeffabelli

I know one who is amazing.

Like shrinks it will depend on who they are and how they trained.

kfallon

zeffabelli wrote: »

I know one who is an amazing bullshítter.

Like shrinks it will depend on who they are and how they trained.

OneOfThem

'Counselor' is the same. Can scrawl 'OneOfThem Counselling' on your front door in crayon in the morning and start charging vulnerable people 100 euro an hour for counselling. Lot of cowboys I'd imagine. It's an unregulated gold rush. Know of one counselor that recommended 'The Secret' as essential reading to someone. Know another that advised absolutely against someone else moving to a different city, despite they were unemployed, a major cause of unhappiness to them, and had friends living there, and had been offered a very good job in the other city. No conflict of interest there I'm sure considering them moving would have taken 120 euro a week out of the counselors pocket.

Lots of great ones too I'm sure. Just do plenty of research on any you choose to employ the services of.

sbsquarepants

Regulation? No, absolutely not. There's enough nanny state bullshít in this country as it is. If people want to pay strangers for advice so be it, what business is it of anyone elses.
Businesses do it all the time, with no regulation whatsoever - they shell out vast sums on consultants for this and that, some of them are worth the investment others are just chancers.
These so called life coaches are a bit too much americanised bolloxology for my tastes but ultimately how you spend your money is no ones business but your own.

eamonnq

OneOfThem wrote: »

'Counselor' is the same. Can scrawl 'OneOfThem Counselling' on your front door in crayon in the morning and start charging vulnerable people 100 euro an hour for counselling.

Can I ??:eek:

kneemos

eamonnq wrote: »

Can I ??:eek:

No.Not you.

eamonnq

kneemos wrote: »

No.Not you.

And how does that make you feel ?

OneOfThem

eamonnq wrote: »

Can I ??:eek:

Get your own name, that one's trademarked!

But yeah, no barrier to entry or regulation whatsoever.

kneemos

eamonnq wrote: »

And how does that make you feel ?

See.

sbsquarepants

OneOfThem wrote: »

'Counselor' is the same. Can scrawl 'OneOfThem Counselling' on your front door in crayon in the morning and start charging vulnerable people 100 euro an hour for counselling. .

Reminds me of Darragh O'Brian going on about protected names for professionals.

Dietician is to Dentist as Nutritionist is to Toothioligist:D:D

jamesbere

I'll become a life coach.

First advice, wear sunscreen

NachoBusiness

Buona Fortuna wrote: »

Yes Oprah is a total cnut.

This post has no value to anyone, other than giving me huge pleasure.

Oh I hate her so much.

She now has shows on her own network (no pun intended) and when she goes to celebs homes she always asks them how they cope with media intrusion into wanting to know about their personal relationships and then she goes on to that very think: asks about their personal relationship, as if her nosiness is somehow different to everyone else's nosiness. She will also then usually have a whine about how people are so celebrity obsessed and materialistic these days, as she sits there in her Guicci heels, on yet another A lister's sofa. She has to be one of the biggest hypocrites to ever have walked the Earth.

Back in the 89, when she was on a level with Jerry Springer, she used to have those nuts on her show that said they were sexually abused by satanists in the woods and seen children being sacrificed. She believed ever word of it. Around that time Letterman came to do his show in Chicago and invited her on (this is where their feud began, despite her repeatedly saying in many many interviews, until quite recently, that she had noooooooo idea how or why it had happened..shows she's a liar if nothing else) and 3 minutes into the interview she starts saying that black people are never seen in restaurants. Dave of course laughed at her, as did the crowd, and she was fuming. It went south from there. Next Dave brings the 'Satantic Dismemberment' guests she had on her show the week before and takes the royal piss. The crowd started encouraging Dave and she goes full wacko Here is that interview.

The woman in that infamous satanic ritual show has since gone on to to be shown as a hoaxer. In fact she later wrote a book claiming to be a Holcaust survivor. Que 25 years later and Letterman appears on her new show (can't find footage of it, she must have it pulled from YT) and she brings that '89 show up and twists the whole thing. Says the crowd were mean to her and infers that it was Dave's fault. Dave, the gentleman that he is and not wanting an argument, apologizes for the show. A toe up her arse is what he should have given her.

Lets not forget this is the woman that gave us Dr.Phil also.
She has a new life coach she wheels out these days. Equally as irritating I bet.

sbsquarepants

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Regulation? No, absolutely not. There's enough nanny state bullshít in this country as it is. If people want to pay strangers for advice so be it, what business is it of anyone elses.

I presume people who hold themselves out as Psychiatrists and Psychologists are regulated, precisely because they are strangers providing what may amount to medical advice for money.

the_monkey

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Reminds me of Darragh O'Brian going on about protected names for professionals.

Dietician is to Dentist as Nutritionist is to Toothioligist:D:D

haha was thinking of the same , classic

eamonnq

kneemos wrote: »

See.

I think you may need to 'put yourself' 'out there' a bit more.


How am I doing??

Gongoozler

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I presume people who hold themselves out as Psychiatrists and Psychologists are regulated, precisely because they are strangers providing what may amount to medical advice for money.

Psychiatrists are medical professionals, and are regulated by the Medical Council. Psychologists are unregulated. CORU will be regulating counsellors and psychotherapists in time.

JuliusCaesar

Gongoozler wrote: »

Psychiatrists are medical professionals, and are regulated by the Medical Council.

True. Up till very recently, medical doctors and nurses were the only statutorily regulated helping professions.

Gongoozler wrote: »

Psychologists are unregulated.

In the process of being regulated by CORU.

Gongoozler wrote: »

CORU will be regulating counsellors and psychotherapists in time.

But no time soon. They're not even on the list of professions that they will be regulating. The UK tried to regulate them, and failed. The EU tried it too, same story.

So be careful! (Long sticky post on my forum about this if I'm allowed mention it.)

kneemos

eamonnq wrote: »

I think you may need to 'put yourself' 'out there' a bit more.


How am I doing??

You got me.

Gongoozler

Gongoozler wrote: »

CORU will be regulating counsellors and psychotherapists in time.

I have to say I wince when I see the word psychotherapist.

zeffabelli

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I have to say I wince when I see the word psychotherapist.

Psycho the rapist.

ancapailldorcha

As much as I dislike Oprah, I have a massive amount of respect for her. She's pulled herself up from having absolutely nothing to becoming one of the most recognisable people in the world today. I've no interest in her show, what she endorses, her network or that nonsense, mind. I feel that it's remarkable, however that she's accomplished so much despite surely have to deal with racism when it was more acceptable and the complete lack of anything like a silver spoon.

Gongoozler

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

True. Up till very recently, medical doctors and nurses were the only statutorily regulated helping professions.


In the process of being regulated by CORU.


But no time soon. They're not even on the list of professions that they will be regulating. The UK tried to regulate them, and failed. The EU tried it too, same story.

So be careful! (Long sticky post on my forum about this if I'm allowed mention it.)

As far as I can see, registration isn't even open yet for psychologists.

I can see counsellors and psychotherapists aren't on the list on the website, wonder why that is. They are on their list anyway.

KomradeBishop

Deleted User wrote: »

I presume people who hold themselves out as Psychiatrists and Psychologists are regulated, precisely because they are strangers providing what may amount to medical advice for money.

Don't be so sure. The regulations are so bad, that they are handing out qualification certs for things like Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (a legitimately useful treatment, muddied by crackpot therapists), with more abandon than a psych throwing pills at you.

KomradeBishop

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

True. Up till very recently, medical doctors and nurses were the only statutorily regulated helping professions.




In the process of being regulated by CORU.




But no time soon. They're not even on the list of professions that they will be regulating. The UK tried to regulate them, and failed. The EU tried it too, same story.

So be careful! (Long sticky post on my forum about this if I'm allowed mention it.)

Why is this taking so long though, why does regulating this fail? Vulnerable people are being harmed by these people.

KomradeBishop

I'd add psychoanalysts to this list - they are trained and there are 'semi-official' registers, but they are not like psychologists/psychiatrists - there is zero real evidence, supporting claims of efficacy for their form of treatment, on many issues.

faceman

I'm a coach. I don't like the expression "Life Coach" as it sounds hippy. I use Personal Coach instead. However most of my work is in the corporate world.

A coach however is not a counsellor, a therapist, a psychologist or a psychotherapist. If any client came to me and it was obvious that it was one of them above he/she required, that is where they would be referred to.

Coaches, by way of an over-simplified definition, are there to assist clients achieve their goals. I've been very successful with coaching and am a big advocate for it.

faceman

faceman wrote: »

I'm a coach.

The obvious questions...what are your qualifications and do you think you and your colleagues should be regulated to prevent those who cause serious harm from practising?

via4

Yes I have started to question councillors and life coaches etc. I went to councilling in the past I had one good one but she was fifty euro an hour its so much money. I had an awful one this guy who recommended I moved to the UK to go on the dole over there that I would get a house etc because I had a child. It made no sense to go over there when I was in such a state I was not fit to make such a drastic lifestyle change and my goal was to get a job not to move country to go on the dole.

biko

Why bother with life coaches when a wife/girlfriend will do the same job for nothing.

kneemos

via4 wrote: »

Yes I have started to question councillors and life coaches etc. I went to councilling in the past I had one good one but she was fifty euro an hour its so much money. I had an awful one this guy who recommended I moved to the UK to go on the dole over there that I would get a house etc because I had a child. It made no sense to go over there when I was in such a state I was not fit to make such a drastic lifestyle change and my goal was to get a job not to move country to go on the dole.

That there is one strange suggestion.

Buona Fortuna

biko wrote: »

Why bother with life coaches when a wife/girlfriend will do the same job for nothing.

A friend of mine was going to become a coach, until she found out that they wanted to take her teeth out and put seats in their place

suicide_circus

There have always been charlatans selling snake oil. Life coaches, tarot card readers, homeopaths are just the same....targeting vulnerable people for personal profit. I would be slow to advocate government intervention in any walk of life but the primary responsibility of the state is to protect it's citizens....be that from invading armies, natural disasters, violent criminals or scam artists

the_monkey

Deleted User wrote: »

The obvious questions...what are your qualifications and do you think you and your colleagues should be regulated to prevent those who cause serious harm from practising?

I think he does it for businesses tho, so I'd imagine public speaking skills, getting the best out of employees training etc ...

lots of synergizing going on there I'd say...

faceman

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The obvious questions...what are your qualifications and do you think you and your colleagues should be regulated to prevent those who cause serious harm from practising?

I have an internationally recognised Coaching qualification which at the time, could only be awarded by one college in Ireland. I believe 2 other colleges offer it now. You also have to complete so many hours a year to retain the international accreditation.

I don't have colleagues so I can't comment on their practices. I don't agree that regulation is needed, recognised qualifying bodies already exist. As with any activity of this nature, people should be asking about the credentials of who the are engaging. Some clients ask me but I always explain to all clients in our first meeting my background and credentials anyway. Clients sign an agreement that outlines both mine and their responsibilities as part of the engagement. (Not the agreement sets out the code of practice which I'm bound by etc)

I've a track record for success with my clients but as I've said previously, I'm there to help a client achieve their goal or goals. I'm not there to help address 'problems' that require medical help or otherwise.

Its not a hippy session either and I despise the book "The Secret" (which has nothing to do with Coaching.)

One of the issues I have with Coaching is the misconception about what it is and the stigma of the expression 'life coaching' which gives an image of hippy behaviour.

Happy to answer any questions about it

goose2005

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

As much as I dislike Oprah, I have a massive amount of respect for her. She's pulled herself up from having absolutely nothing to becoming one of the most recognisable people in the world today. I've no interest in her show, what she endorses, her network or that nonsense, mind. I feel that it's remarkable, however that she's accomplished so much despite surely have to deal with racism when it was more acceptable and the complete lack of anything like a silver spoon.

but the same is true of Hitler, or Martin Cahill. There's no glory in going from obscurity to wealth if you do so by harming people and continue to use your wealth to harm people.

Joe prim

What about County Councillors, how can they council a whole county? (Unless it's a small one like louth or Carlow) And anyone that goes to a psychologist need their head tested.

faceman

faceman wrote: »

I have an internationally recognised Coaching qualification which at the time, could only be awarded by one college in Ireland.

What is it and what was the college?

faceman wrote: »

I don't have colleagues so I can't comment on their practices. I don't agree that regulation is needed, recognised qualifying bodies already exist. As with any activity of this nature, people should be asking about the credentials of who the are engaging. Some clients ask me but I always explain to all clients in our first meeting my background and credentials anyway. Clients sign an agreement that outlines both mine and their responsibilities as part of the engagement. (Not the agreement sets out the code of practice which I'm bound by etc)

Are you insured against any losses that might arise out of the advices you provide or any claim of negligence?

zeffabelli

Coaching is not therapy. It uses a lot of psychology, from family systems to organisational psych and Is goal oriented.

It is not supervised breakdown or a trauma recovery programme.

People are conflating the two.

robbiezero

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Oh I hate her so much.

She now has shows on her own network (no pun intended) and when she goes to celebs homes she always asks them how they cope with media intrusion into wanting to know about their personal relationships and then she goes on to that very think: asks about their personal relationship, as if her nosiness is somehow different to everyone else's nosiness. She will also then usually have a whine about how people are so celebrity obsessed and materialistic these days, as she sits there in her Guicci heels, on yet another A lister's sofa. She has to be one of the biggest hypocrites to ever have walked the Earth.

Back in the 89, when she was on a level with Jerry Springer, she used to have those nuts on her show that said they were sexually abused by satanists in the woods and seen children being sacrificed. She believed ever word of it. Around that time Letterman came to do his show in Chicago and invited her on (this is where their feud began, despite her repeatedly saying in many many interviews, until quite recently, that she had noooooooo idea how or why it had happened..shows she's a liar if nothing else) and 3 minutes into the interview she starts saying that black people are never seen in restaurants. Dave of course laughed at her, as did the crowd, and she was fuming. It went south from there. Next Dave brings the 'Satantic Dismemberment' guests she had on her show the week before and takes the royal piss. The crowd started encouraging Dave and she goes full wacko Here is that interview.

The woman in that infamous satanic ritual show has since gone on to to be shown as a hoaxer. In fact she later wrote a book claiming to be a Holcaust survivor. Que 25 years later and Letterman appears on her new show (can't find footage of it, she must have it pulled from YT) and she brings that '89 show up and twists the whole thing. Says the crowd were mean to her and infers that it was Dave's fault. Dave, the gentleman that he is and not wanting an argument, apologizes for the show. A toe up her arse is what he should have given her.

Lets not forget this is the woman that gave us Dr.Phil also.
She has a new life coach she wheels out these days. Equally as irritating I bet.

Why is Oprah a hypocrite? Genuine question. I have never seen the show.
She is in the entertainment business with the aim of making lots of money, and in order to do that she needs to court popularity and adapt a suitable persona for that.

faceman

Deleted User wrote: »

What is it and what was the college?

I'm not on trial so I'm not divulging personal details here however you can google the different colleges yourself. The international accreditation is with the EMCC.

wrote:

Are you insured against any losses that might arise out of the advices you provide or any claim of negligence?

Everyone who provides a service like this is insured. However I'm not sure what you mean by "losses that might arise out of the advices you provide". What kind of loses and what kind of negligence are you talking about? What is it you think a coach does?

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

So is it time to regulate this area? And if so, in what way?

So hard to say really.

The most pernicious issue for me with things like this - or diet fads - or self improvement charlatans - and many more including even things like religion - is that the woo and nonsense and even outright damaging crap is very often build around a core of very sound and useful advice.

And as such you get queues of people willing to testify to the efficacy of some programme or other because implementing it genuinely did help them - but likely for NONE of the reasons that their purveyors are claiming.

Take the "Cayenne Pepper" diet which randomly jumps to mind as we had some users some time back espousing it. They were testifying with some ferociousness to how effective and beneficial it was to them and how magical Cayenne Pepper must be.

But when you unpack the "diet" you find that to use the Pepper correctly you had to start cooking more of your own food - cutting heavily down on processed or fast foods therefore - and due to some properties of the spice it was advised that you increase your intake of water - and have your meals at more regular times.

THOSE things are massively good advice and it was likely THAT that had the beneficial effects on the people testifying. Nothing whatsoever to do with Cayenne Pepper in any way. But who is going to make successful websites - public talks - and sell books by simply saying "Have more fresh produce and water - regularise your meal times - and sleep more"? People who want to make a career out of all these "coaching" methods have to be necessity add something to sell the product. No matter how crap or harmful or woo that something is.

So how does one ban or regulate for this? These "Life Coaches" are likely coming up with some brand of advice and techniques relatively unique to them - in order to differentiate their product on the markets - and appending them around a core of genuinely useful - basic - and even common sense advice that you simply can not sell on it's own.

So rather than regulate or criminalise such charlatans - one can do little more than invest in initiatives that sell those basics without the crap and woo better than we already do - to promote a society that has no need for their crap in the first place. Not ideal - but at least more workable.

KomradeBishop

faceman wrote: »

I have an internationally recognised Coaching qualification which at the time, could only be awarded by one college in Ireland. I believe 2 other colleges offer it now. You also have to complete so many hours a year to retain the international accreditation.

I don't have colleagues so I can't comment on their practices. I don't agree that regulation is needed, recognised qualifying bodies already exist. As with any activity of this nature, people should be asking about the credentials of who the are engaging. Some clients ask me but I always explain to all clients in our first meeting my background and credentials anyway. Clients sign an agreement that outlines both mine and their responsibilities as part of the engagement. (Not the agreement sets out the code of practice which I'm bound by etc)

I've a track record for success with my clients but as I've said previously, I'm there to help a client achieve their goal or goals. I'm not there to help address 'problems' that require medical help or otherwise.

Its not a hippy session either and I despise the book "The Secret" (which has nothing to do with Coaching.)

One of the issues I have with Coaching is the misconception about what it is and the stigma of the expression 'life coaching' which gives an image of hippy behaviour.

Happy to answer any questions about it

What is the qualification, and what is the organization that provides the qualification? EDIT: Nevermind, see it was answered later.

If there is no regulation, being part of an organization means almost nothing, as there are a lot of organizations out there which are effectively frauds/conmen.

KomradeBishop

faceman wrote: »

I'm not on trial so I'm not divulging personal details here however you can google the different colleges yourself. The international accreditation is with the EMCC.



Everyone who provides a service like this is insured. However I'm not sure what you mean by "losses that might arise out of the advices you provide". What kind of loses and what kind of negligence are you talking about? What is it you think a coach does?

I've had a quick look at the EMCC, and their qualifications seems rather useless:
http://www.emccouncil.org/webimages/EMCC/EMCC_Competence_Framework.pdf

You may be very good at what you do, but that's not really an organization of very high standards.


What kind of evidence-based research are your methods based on? That organization seems to completely omit any kind of description of empirical-based methods for practicing coaching, that would be required, for getting a qualification.

Ruu

I'm more concerned about the Full time mad bastards. Where does this accreditation come from?