Psychologists - Oswego, IL

"Dr Goldenstein began his career interviewing scores of sexual predators and other criminals per year, and this tutelage shows. He has an commandeering style, where he can take your honest questions or suggestions as an afront to his authority. Maybe this is helpful for controlling the room with alleged criminals, but it's not a reasonable means of proceding with ordinary folks trying to get help. He also inappropriately will offer sporadic therapeutic advice when you come in for psychometric testing, which is ethically suspicious because testing does not establish a therapeutic relationship. Dr Goldenstein raised ideas of exotic diagnoses for me in his report, including antisocial personality disorder (along with an inability to follow social norms, and a contempt for authority), a suggestion which has no remote precedent in my prior treatment and has never been alluded to by my numerous prior mental health care providers--and also doesn't fit because I've never been in trouble with the law or got into a violent fight, nor have I ever defrauded etc. Honestly, Dr Goldenstein seemed very confused by my case, and glibly proffered six or seven diagnosis to see what might stick, but never really committed to any of them (The two stars are because maybe some of them slightly did have some validity, or relevant symptoms, so the visits gave me something to talk about with my therapist). Dr Goldenstein also takes moments off to show off his knowledge of random psychological facts, which could be charming but for the fact that it seems closely tied to his practice of controlling the atmosphere. It's also interesting to note that an Arizona appellate court once denied Dr G's first employer's petition to admit his testimony in a sex offender's case after a superior court struck it. The appellate court ruled that it was within the superior courts prerogative to find that Dr G's testimony did not meet the standards of "Rule 702", which require using reliable principles and methods, reliably applying these methods, sufficient facts, and relevent expertise, in expert testimony. The employer didn't even try to argue that Dr. G's testimony met these standards, but rather that his testimony should be held to easier standards."