New Mexico: Psychologists to dress up as wizards when providing expert testimony

Status and intent of the bill

• Multiple comments stress the title is misleading: this was a satirical 1995 amendment, not current law, and it was withdrawn and never signed.
• It passed the state senate unanimously, then was revealed as satire before the house vote, which some find disturbing, others see as harmless political humor.

Legislative process and competence

• Some argue unanimous passage shows legislators didn’t read the amendment, using it as an example of lawmakers voting on text they don’t understand.
• Others counter that it’s more plausible they read it, found it funny, and assumed it would be blocked or vetoed later.
• A strand of discussion suggests legislatures need far more expert staff; another notes executives and lobbyists often fill that role, with mixed implications.

Perceptions of psychology and psychiatry

• Several commenters characterize modern psychology/psychiatry as pseudoscientific “wizardry,” citing the reproducibility crisis and weak research.
• Others defend psychology as a real science with replication challenges similar to other fields, and point to rapid advances in neuroscience.
• There is disagreement on how “fuzzy” the field inherently is and whether it can ever be as predictive as more biological specialties.

Mental health treatment and outcomes

• One view: society under-invests in serious mental health care and over-relies on therapy/psych evals without acknowledging limits.
• Another view: society has heavily medicalized mental health (therapy, drugs, workplace programs), yet outcomes are worsening, suggesting current approaches or “experts” might be part of the problem.
• Hypotheses include: perverse financial incentives to expand diagnoses; over-pathologizing normal distress; therapy sometimes worsening conditions; versus counterarguments pointing to broader social causes (alienation, economics, climate, etc.).
• Some criticize focusing on individual treatment instead of structural and community-level solutions.

Expert testimony and courts

• Commenters note that “fuzzy” psychological expertise can be abused in court, affecting competency findings and financial outcomes.
• This is placed alongside concerns about other dubious forensic practices (e.g., bite marks, polygraphs, repressed memories).
• Some think making psychologists wear wizard hats would appropriately signal epistemic uncertainty; others see it as insulting to legitimate practitioners.

Therapists, titles, and image

• Distinction is drawn between psychiatrists (medical doctors) and “therapists,” a largely unregulated title that anyone can claim.
• Comparisons are made to judges’ wigs and legal uniforms; some see the wizard-hat idea as just another symbolic costume.
• A few note the irony of mocking psychologists as “wizards” in societies that still grant significant influence to religious figures.