New Mexico: Psychologists to dress up as wizards when providing expert testimony
A satirical 1995 New Mexico amendment that would have required psychologists giving expert testimony in court to wear wizard hats prompts debate over lawmakers voting on bills they haven’t fully read and the ease with which symbolic or joke provisions can advance. Commenters argue over the scientific status and reliability of psychology and psychiatry—especially in legal settings—contrasting them with harder sciences, questioning expert incentives and outcomes, and noting a broader societal struggle to address mental health without over-reliance on potentially fuzzy expertise. Several also highlight that the amendment was ultimately withdrawn, but see its unanimous senate approval as a revealing critique of legislative process and expert testimony in courts.
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- Multiple comments stress the title is misleading: this was a satirical 1995 amendment, not current law, and it was withdrawn and never signed.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.