A General Lack of Kindness in These Threads

[VeryHopeful2010]

Wouldn't kindness be appreciating various posters styles of communication and not necessarily trying to change them? It would be boring if we all had to be nice. That post is nice but might not have as much effect as, "What are you thinking about applying to Argosy you mindless baboon!"

This is getting ridiculous. Thanks for reminding me that my time is better spent elsewhere.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[WisNeuro]

You are very welcome. We aim to please.

 

[smalltownpsych]

This is getting ridiculous. Thanks for reminding me that my time is better spent elsewhere.

Ridiculousness was my intent. Glad you were able to recognize that. I think that you missed the point, however.
I have supervised and worked with people that graduated from said school and I respected their individual work although I don't respect the school and others like it. I also understand why they made the choice that they did. I applied to CSPP myself and might have even gone there if I had not gotten into my PsyD program. During that time, I also attended an Alliant seminar where they talked about trying to get APA accreditation and how that was not really a problem for applicants. I didn't apply there. I wish that I had access to this site when I was in undergrad and I recently recommended this site to my niece as she is in the process of completing her undergrad psych degree. It might not have changed my path that much but it would have been helpful to know what choices I was making.

 

[Peacemaker36]

Keith Moon is the greatest drummer of all time. Maybe we can all agree about that?

I agree with a lot of the information the aggressive posters provide. I do think that their point of view, while mostly accurate, does seem to discount the fact that some people take the risk, go to a FPSP, and end up being very successful. I would imagine most people on this message board know people like that. Or are people like that.

The fact is that psychology is an extremely competitive field and there are no sure things with any path. Plenty of people go to top PhD programs with dreams of a tenure track position or robust grant funding, and most don't achieve their dreams. Instead, they learn to identify new goals that are within reach. And life goes on.

When I was thinking about going to graduate school out of a good undergraduate college, many people told me not to go into this field. I did it anyway because that's what my heart wanted to do. The financially prudent thing would have been to go into consulting, lawyering, or medicine. (Although these days there are no sure things.)

The aggressive posters are right to warn people. But there is an undeniable brashness to their tone which seems to upset many lurkers and infrequent posters. I think it's fine for Keith Moon et al. to keep banging their drums. It would be nice if regular contributors to discussions about the FSPS problem implemented differential styles and tones; Ringo Starr was underrated.

 

[smalltownpsych]

I think I'm more like John Bonham in my posting style.

 

[PsyDr]

Now you're just being intentionally hurtful. We all know Neil Peart is the greatest drummer alive.

But don't tell that to Phil Rudd, he'll put out a hit on you.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Now you're just being intentionally hurtful. We all know Neil Peart is the greatest drummer alive.

But don't tell that to Phil Rudd, he'll put out a hit on you.

Ahh, see, the bolded portion is key. If we expand "alive" to "ever," then all bets are off.

 

[CogNeuroGuy]

1. SDN actually does an excellent job of moderating their forums, as most other corners of the internet are toxic and truly abrasive. It is worth noting that a great deal of (unpaid) effort is made on behalf of posters and lurkers here. If this forum is too abrasive, I'd strongly recommend against asking professionals their opinions out in the real world, as there are no moderators to set a collegial tone for such a discussion.

Herein lies the issue with this argument, this board is not an accurate representation of how all psychologists or even a majority would be. So, the argument of "we are professionals, take our advice or hit the road" is a bit broad reaching. Are you professionals? Sure, no one disputes this, however, much like anyone else with the capability of independent thought, you get a large variety of interpretations on professional practices. So, with that being said, there is a LARGE over representation of a biased perspective on several topics on this board. While you may be "advocating" for educating people on the pros and cons of the Psy.D. in reality, you are pushing YOUR perspective onto these people. If they don't agree, you simply tell them (in some pseudo-professional way) to take a hike and they don't belong in this field. That is TERRIBLE advice to be given. Also, the moderators doing an "excellent" job is up for interpretation as well; seeing how several people (including myself) have lurked, we have come in, we tried to gain information and opinions on things, but once again, we get the same handful of regulars that push their perspectives mores o than an objective analysis of the situation.

Example: A while back, erg pointed out that my perspective of getting an education was pretty distorted because he thought I was spewing out tulips, puppies and candy to sugar coat my view on reality. He simply analyzes from a pretty specific perspective, and that is a cost-benefit analysis of life. If you want to be a musician, too bad, it wont pay the bills, that is one of many examples I can remember.

I agree completely with this poster, that simply trying to spew out that "we" (the students) are illogical in are thinking simply because we don't agree with your approach to applying to programs, or some other professional aspects of practice is life. But don't portray it to be THE approach. And that is the issue. For psychologists, it seems pretty odd that no one has questioned these issues we have been having here on the board. They range from students such as myself to other doctoral students to even professionals. But once again, who would want to come back here to debate these issues when people like erg, MCParent or WiseNeuro will pretty much pack together and say the same crap? Really, it is counterproductive. And this is precisely why you see on medical school website's FAQ pages to not base professional career decisions on forums, and they literally point out the SDN network as a significant "offender."

 

[WisNeuro]

For the most part, we just point the objective facts and numbers. This is the reality, these are not our "opinions." This is not TERRIBLE advice, this is merely how things are. And, looking at the objective landscape (i.e., states pushing accreditation, some states requiring it for billing of certain codes), that reality will be hitting closer and closer to home for those individuals. We're telling them how to make their lives easier. You're telling teh majority of them how to live in debt and accept lower salaries for the rest of their lives. Are their success stories? Sure, diamonds in teh rough. But, the numbers would suggest the majority are not those success stories. Feel free to discount the objective numbers all you want, say that you don't believe in them. But, science is not religion. Science and numbers don't care whether or not you believe in them, they are true regardless.

 

[CogNeuroGuy]

For the most part, we just point the objective facts and numbers. This is the reality, these are not our "opinions." This is not TERRIBLE advice, this is merely how things are. And, looking at the objective landscape (i.e., states pushing accreditation, some states requiring it for billing of certain codes), that reality will be hitting closer and closer to home for those individuals. We're telling them how to make their lives easier. You're telling teh majority of them how to live in debt and accept lower salaries for the rest of their lives. Are their success stories? Sure, diamonds in teh rough. But, the numbers would suggest the majority are not those success stories. Feel free to discount the objective numbers all you want, say that you don't believe in them. But, science is not religion. Science and numbers don't care whether or not you believe in them, they are true regardless.

This is a valid point, however, the point you are missing is that we get too caught up in the numbers game. Psy.D programs do produce more graduates than standard Ph.D. programs, we know this from our data, we also know they have significantly more debt, we also know this fm of doctoral education in this field can lead to some programs graduating students that are not as competitive compared to other Ph.D. or Psy.D. counterparts, again, we see this from our data. However, other issues we don't see that our data doesn't take into account are other variables (which, taking your perspective, you pretty much dismiss entirely) such as SES, failed careers, maybe they come from a wealthy family, maybe they are counting on taking some of the government-assisted programs to help them relieve their debt post-graduation, and the list goes on. The point being, these are facts. Many students come on here looking at what is possible, what is realistic and what are things they can explore. If you came onto this forum as a new forum member, you would pretty much see a narrow perspective on where and how to apply to programs. I left this forum for several months and really reached out to several psychologists and doctoral students (99% of them Ph.D. I might add), and after I tell them some of the typical stuff that is posted on here by our "professionals" here, they scoff at it, and say that these are pretty limiting views.

So, WisNeuro, I don't discount that you are simply providing an INTERPRETATION of the available data. But that is all you are doing. My finances and how I plan on paying off any debt I have, is on me, my financial situation is private, and I don't need to tell you how I plan to resolve any debt I may have. Let's get that clear. For the record, I am not applying to any doctoral programs. I decided against it, I would say at least 50% of my decision came after spending months on here first trying to find answers, but ultimately did not see the value in it anymore. And this is coming from someone who spent a long time in a completely different (and even worse-off) profession. Try being a classical bass trombonist....apparently, the data doesn't support the decision to go into it

 

[MCParent]

Example: A while back, erg pointed out that my perspective of getting an education was pretty distorted because he thought I was spewing out tulips, puppies and candy to sugar coat my view on reality. He simply analyzes from a pretty specific perspective, and that is a cost-benefit analysis of life. If you want to be a musician, too bad, it wont pay the bills, that is one of many examples I can remember.

I just disagree. I remember that thread; though I don't remember what erg's contribution to it was, I remember that my own was also to say that your understanding of vocational decision-making was off. But the comment I made was not "too bad," it was that many people are unable, for a variety of reasons, to undertake specific education and occupational opportunities and that that reality is a part of vocational counseling. e.g., you don't have the grades to make it into a reputable psych program but still want to help people? There are MANY other routes to that goal than going to a weak program and incur $150k or more of debt. Just like there are MANY other routes to achieve a musical interest without putting all your eggs in the pop-star basket.

This feels like an example of how this conflict arises from distortion of what was said and not what was actually said.

 

[CogNeuroGuy]

I just disagree. I remember that thread; though I don't remember what erg's contribution to it was, I remember that my own was also to say that your understanding of vocational decision-making was off. But the comment I made was not "too bad," it was that many people are unable, for a variety of reasons, to undertake specific education and occupational opportunities and that that reality is a part of vocational counseling. e.g., you don't have the grades to make it into a reputable psych program but still want to help people? There are MANY other routes to that goal than going to a weak program and incur $150k or more of debt. Just like there are MANY other routes to achieve a musical interest without putting all your eggs in the pop-star basket.

This feels like an example of how this conflict arises from distortion of what was said and not what was actually said.

This brings up a good topic as well. Last time I was told by my high school vocational counselor that I had to look at the facts...I ended up going to a conservatory of music. I made a 13 on the ACT, had a 2.7 GPA in high school, I didn't even take the TAKS test to graduate high school, they gave me the TASP test as a remedial version of that. Essentially, I was a functional idiot on paper. So, taking this perspective, by all means, I should have NEVER stepped foot on a college campus, my adviser told me to be the best classical musician I could, or I pretty much should look into a retail career. So, people like that, who only look at the data, dismissed me. For these reasons, I really do despise people like this, Many other people I was friends with were often told this, many other people who could have become viable college graduates or students now work at Walmart's Tire Center (not because they enjoy it). Life is what you make of it, it really does. I do look at the data; I see that Harvard....will NEVER be on my list of potential institutions for any degree I might want to get (I shouldn't say never). However, I know that given my background, my experiences, some of my connections, my cognitive capacity (which is...let's say, "unique" ), I know that I can achieve a goal I might have. Do I have the resources to go into a Psy.D.? No, not without taking significant debt, but for whatever reason, I am well prepared to entertain that idea, because again, I may look into the government-assisted program to help on repayment. We can't help the education system we currently work within, but we can adapt within it, and that is simply what I do. It is something I advocate to others if they ask for my personal opinion on something.

Other than that, I am also equally able to entertain the idea of the Ph.D., not so much an MSW...to me, that doesn't fit my interests, and that wouldn't be fair in my mind to take that as an option in the event I can't become a doctoral-level trained professional. I am aware of the insurance issues between psychologists and LCSW, I am aware of the fraction of the cost a MSW is, but ultimately, there are other variables at play other than a pure fiscal approach to this.

And I just derailed this topic, so I apologize. Any rate (synopsis), there is a real issue with that, so for those who say this isn't a place for therapy, that is true, but you can be civil in other people's opinions that counter yours. When you see a person's post about, let's say, entry-level positions as a psychologist, the moment you tell them that XYZ is crap because of XYZ issue, you are giving a personal opinion, so don't ms-construe that as being 100% pure professional advice. And like any advice given, you really ought to get more opinions, from other sources.

 

[erg923]

I do not understand why @LAPsyGuy needs to be "validated" so much. I'm starting to think they should go to boot camp. Morning PT and drill instructors are often effective remedies for this.

I would also mention that I just received this message in my inbox from an aspiring graduate student" "Your posts and responses on this forum have been very helpful to me. Would you be willing to read my SOP?" This the second request I have received this week for SOP proofing. This does not include the handful of private messages I get each month seeking my opinion about the field or training issue. I think this is meaningful, kind work.

 

[WisNeuro]

You say we don't think of things like SES, failed careers, etc when considering things. What does this have to do with PhD vs PsyD vs PsyD/diploma mill? There are plenty of PhD pychologists from disadvantaged backgrounds, first in their family going to college, going to grad school at the age of 40 etc. What am I failing to consider?

 

[cara susanna]

Keith Moon is the greatest drummer of all time. Maybe we can all agree about that?

I agree with a lot of the information the aggressive posters provide. I do think that their point of view, while mostly accurate, does seem to discount the fact that some people take the risk, go to a FPSP, and end up being very successful. I would imagine most people on this message board know people like that. Or are people like that.

I haven't seen anyone post anything that discounts that fact. Even the most anti-FSPS posters here state that some people do very well at these schools. They bring up the point about the average person.

 

[CaliMac]

I think I'm more like John Bonham in my posting style.

Everyone needs to check out Michael Miley of Rival Sons. You're welcome

 

[erg923]

He simply analyzes from a pretty specific perspective, and that is a cost-benefit analysis of life. If you want to be a musician, too bad, it wont pay the bills, that is one of many examples I can remember.

BTW, I don't remember telling anyone that they shouldn't be a musician. If you suck, its probably a fool hearty idea, but then again there is Maroon 5, so...

 

[LAPsyGuy]

I do not understand why @LAPsyGuy needs to be "validated" so much. I'm starting to think they should go to boot camp. Morning PT and drill instructors are often effective remedies for this.

I would also mention that I just received this message in my inbox from an aspiring graduate student" "Your posts and responses on this forum have been very helpful to me. Would you be willing to read my SOP?" This the second request I have received this week for SOP proofing. This does not include the handful of private messages I get each month seeking my opinion about the field or training issue. I think this is meaningful, kind work.

If I needed validation, as you propose, I doubt I would have lasted more than a couple of exchanges with you. You can keep turning it back on me, but I was pointing out aspects of the communication style used on the board.

Agreed, you are a very special person, and it's good you're getting the validation you need through people seeking your opinion. Mazel tov.

 

[erg923]

@LAPsyGuy Mosh pits are also good for sensitivity. I'm somewhere in there...

 

[LAPsyGuy]

@LAPsyGuy Mosh pits are also good for sensitivity. I'm somewhere in there...

You've done an admirable job showing us you're a tough guy, but I do think it's sweet that you want us to see your video. "Mommy, daddy, are you watching? I'm a big boy." You are a big boy.

Thank you all for an invigorating conversation. Have a good night.

 

[WisNeuro]

That comment seemed unkind. I believe your message could have been delivered in a more skillful and thoughtful way.

 

[LAPsyGuy]

That comment seemed unkind. I believe your message could have been delivered in a more skillful and thoughtful way.

I could not agree more. But I thought he might like me better if I engaged in some ball brakin' (or hope crushing, or spirit breaking...whatever he calls it), but I won't hold out hope. When in Rome.

 

[erg923]

That comment seemed unkind. I believe your message could have been delivered in a more skillful and thoughtful way.

And he didn't even bother to "validate" my mosh pit experience.

 

[WisNeuro]

So, you're saying the advice one gives changes depending on context? Interesting...

 

[LAPsyGuy]

And he didn't even bother to "validate" my mosh pit experience.

I did validate it. I said your a big boy. What else could you need? Is there a pat on the head emoticon?

 

[WisNeuro]

 

[LAPsyGuy]

So, you're saying the advice one gives changes depending on context? Interesting...

No, I'm saying I made a joke. He asked us all to engage in ball brakin' and lively comeuppance. Was I supposed to say no?

 

[WisNeuro]

Regardless of your intent, I saw it as insensitive and harsh.

 

[LAPsyGuy]

Regardless of your intent, I saw it as insensitive and harsh.

I'm glad you told me.

 

[WisNeuro]

I'm glad we could both grow and learn from this.

 

[LAPsyGuy]

I'm glad we could both grow and learn from this.

That's not an assumption I'm willing to make, but I'm glad we talked.

 

[WisNeuro]

See, there's another mean and harsh comment.

 

[LAPsyGuy]

See, there's another mean and harsh comment.

Say more about that...

 

[LAPsyGuy]

See, there's another mean and harsh comment.

I'll agree that turnabout is fair play, but I think the key difference is that your intent is probably different than those who honestly communicated concern about the tone used on the board.

 

[WisNeuro]

Turnabout is indeed fair play. And the characterization of intent, and personality, for the posters in question has been fairly insulting. There are many ways to both deliver, and take, a message. Are some people offput by the message, sometimes? Yes. Are some people grateful for the message and the straightforward way it is given? Yes. As erg has intimated, I have also given a great deal of help on this board, and the positive thanks I have received far outweighs any negative that has been delivered by a handful of individuals.

 

[LAPsyGuy]

Awesome. I think that's great. It must feel really good to be of help. Seems like that's why most of us are in this profession. Perhaps the concern about tone wasn't about you. I'm sorry if you took it personally. But one question: If you don't think it applies to you, why take it personally? I find that confusing. Anyway, keep on trucking, and being helpful.

 

[LAPsyGuy]

Turnabout is indeed fair play. And the characterization of intent, and personality, for the posters in question has been fairly insulting. There are many ways to both deliver, and take, a message. Are some people offput by the message, sometimes? Yes. Are some people grateful for the message and the straightforward way it is given? Yes. As erg has intimated, I have also given a great deal of help on this board, and the positive thanks I have received far outweighs any negative that has been delivered by a handful of individuals.

I will add that it's not the message people had trouble with (at least most people). It's the tone, (add previous litany here) that I've mentioned so many times before. It wasn't the content, but the process that was troubling to some. The content is so important, and it's a shame to think some may not hearing because of the accompanying tone, invalidating comments, etc. Thanks again for the wonderful dialogue.

 

[WisNeuro]

The thread took on the context of all of the posters who decry the diploma mill model. I am one of the most outspoken there. And, at points in this thread, I was identified by name several times. Was I not supposed to take that as it being anything about me?

And, in the end, it is still about helping people. Conflict resolution is a huge part of this field. You can go through the best program in the world, go to the best internship/postdoc, and have the best job. You will encounter people that are hard to work with and that you do not agree with, a lot. Both within and without your profession. You need to be able to navigate that in some way rather than sulking away and saying things aren't fair. If you can't do it here, you have little chance of doing it in the real world. Sometimes you need to be able to see through "tone" and delivery and glean the data that you need to make a decision, provide care, etc.

 

[LAPsyGuy]

Didn't sulk and said very little about fairness. I mostly spoke about tone and invalidating messages. Sometime we do need to see through tone, but wouldn't it be nice to have people deliver messages that don't have that negative filter slapped on it? That was my point. It's a simple point. Not sure why it's hard to take in. Perhaps that's why I identified you by name. But you're right, I'm sure you're completely blameless. After all, you're not helping to prolong this nightmarish dialogue (and yes, I know I'm prolonging it too. I'm fully to blame), right?

Most people would prefer to receive a message wrapped in kindness rather than an abrasive message. Some people may not hear an abrasive message simply because it's abrasive. These don't seem like particularly controversial statements, yet they are controversial on this board.

Will we all get yet another posting in this thread encouraging us to bend over backwards and ignore rude comments in order to find the gem of wisdom in harsh words provided to us. Probably. Is it tiresome. Yes. And it makes me tiresome too, but I keep hoping some of the self-proclaimed wise elders on the board will at least acknowledge that a truth wrapped in kindness is probably better than wrapped in unpleasant bitterness. I'm not going to hold my breath because I'm not ready to die just yet.

 

[cara susanna]

I've seen a lot of posters respond to OPs in a very kind and civil manner, only to be shown disdain and anger by the OP because they didn't agree that attending an FSPS is a good idea. I think that's why a lot of the posters identified in this thread kind of gave up on that--they tend to get the same result no matter how kindly they deliver the message.

 

[LAPsyGuy]

So the solution was to be rude? Makes perfect sense.

 

[testifeye]

Didn't sulk and said very little about fairness. I mostly spoke about tone and invalidating messages. Sometime we do need to see through tone, but wouldn't it be nice to have people deliver messages that don't have that negative filter slapped on it? That was my point. It's a simple point. Not sure why it's hard to take in. Perhaps that's why I identified you by name. But you're right, I'm sure you're completely blameless. After all, you're not helping to prolong this nightmarish dialogue (and yes, I know I'm prolonging it too. I'm fully to blame), right?

Most people would prefer to receive a message wrapped in kindness rather than an abrasive message. Some people may not hear an abrasive message simply because it's abrasive. These don't seem like particularly controversial statements, yet they are controversial on this board.

Will we all get yet another posting in this thread encouraging us to bend over backwards and ignore rude comments in order to find the gem of wisdom in harsh words provided to us. Probably. Is it tiresome. Yes. And it makes me tiresome too, but I keep hoping some of the self-proclaimed wise elders on the board will at least acknowledge that a truth wrapped in kindness is probably better than wrapped in unpleasant bitterness. I'm not going to hold my breath because I'm not ready to die just yet.

I'm not even sure if it's good to contribute to this hurricane of a thread, but I did have a couple thoughts. This feedback isn't to you specifically, but rather to the issues you're addressing more broadly.

It's true kindness and truth needn't be opposites, but at times we end up choosing to emphasize one over the other. I hear you saying that truth in the absence of kindness is less valuable and is often not heard as easily by the listener. Therapeutic feedback and professional feedback are really different things. In therapy we might try to shape our feedback to increase the likelihood of being heard/changing behavior, or try to understand underlying problematic mechanisms. Professional feedback does not need to have that component. Professional feedback can (but does not have to be) given with kindness, but in a factual/behavioral way when it is *not the provider's job to understand why there is a problem but simply to address it and assume that the listener is capable of correcting their behavior.* If the listener cannot correct the behavior/integrate the feedback, it is the listener's job to manage it, not the provider's.

In the field of mental health, training cultures seem to vary wildly with how comfortable they are with regular constructive and negative feedback. In my training program, the more challenging a question was during a job talk - the more heated an argument - these were a sign of intellectual prowess and success. It was a sign of respect for a professor to want to challenge a student to a debate. There is a cost to this model of training, and in my case, I think there was a relatively punishing nonreinforcing environment that was often crushing interpersonally, though it excelled in terms of quality of skills and academic training. In many places, this is not the case.

Sometimes in mental health we are afraid to do things that challenge others because we don't want to hurt their feelings. In my opinion, this has been severely detrimental to the field. There are clinicians who have never been given useful feedback or forced to change their practice because the culture of their training was overly supportive and avoidant of conflict. This occurs less in medical training (e.g., MD) where there is a harsh hierarchy and authority is questioned much less frequently. I don't think that the medical model is superior by default, but it does allow trainees to acclimate to content of feedback regardless of process.

I see frequent posters responding to the same questions over and over again, and I can imagine that is tiring and builds up a need to be terse/factual in responding. I can also see a frustration and worry about the field at large, a concern that if we don't guard our doors the integrity of our field will weaken. We are all invested in making this profession useful, and that's why folks who already have their degrees and licenses spend the time to post in a place like this. Maybe some of us like validation of our expert contributions (which is pretty human), but mostly I think we genuinely care about ensuring that our investment in this field for ourselves and our colleagues is not degraded. We actually give a crap about supporting students that want to excel and are willing to do the work to get there.

Look, there are times I read these forums and I feel reactive to particular posts, thinking about the tone or privilege the poster must have and not always realize. I have this reaction, and I fit the "stereotype" being promoted on the forums: clinical PhD trained, VA provider, focused on EBTs, research-oriented/academic affiliated, involved in training predoctoral interns/postdocs. The internet/world is full of different personalities, and these boards are no exception. I'm sure there are times I'm posting and not aware of my own tone/bias. Then I think, hey it's the internet, there's no conversational context and it's just not a big deal.

TL;DR: you're right people could be nicer, and that's often true in the world. Think of this forum as a buffet; take what helps you and set aside what doesn't. Most of the information being offered here, regardless of process, has extremely important content found rarely in other places.

 

[LAPsyGuy]

I'm not even sure if it's good to contribute to this hurricane of a thread, but I did have a couple thoughts. This feedback isn't to you specifically, but rather to the issues you're addressing more broadly.

It's true kindness and truth needn't be opposites, but at times we end up choosing to emphasize one over the other. I hear you saying that truth in the absence of kindness is less valuable and is often not heard as easily by the listener. Therapeutic feedback and professional feedback are really different things. In therapy we might try to shape our feedback to increase the likelihood of being heard/changing behavior, or try to understand underlying problematic mechanisms. Professional feedback does not need to have that component. Professional feedback can be given with kindness, but in a factual/behavioral way when it is *not the provider's job to understand why there is a problem but simply to address it and assume that the listener is capable of correcting their behavior.* If the listener cannot correct the behavior/integrate the feedback, it is the listener's job to manage it, not the provider's.

In the field of mental health, training cultures seem to vary wildly with how comfortable they are with regular constructive and negative feedback. In my training program, the more challenging a question was during a job talk - the more heated an argument - these were a sign of intellectual prowess and success. It was a sign of respect for a professor to want to challenge a student to a debate. There is a cost to this model of training, and in my case, I think there was a relatively punishing nonreinforcing environment that was often crushing interpersonally, though it excelled in terms of quality of skills and academic training. In many places, this is not the case.

Sometimes in mental health we are afraid to do things that challenge others because we don't want to hurt their feelings. In my opinion, this has been severely detrimental to the field. There are clinicians who have never been given useful feedback or forced to change their practice because the culture of their training was overly supportive and avoidant of conflict. This occurs less in medical training (e.g., MD) where there is a harsh hierarchy and authority is questioned much less frequently. I don't think that the medical model is superior by default, but it does allow trainees to acclimate to content of feedback regardless of process.

I see frequent posters responding to the same questions over and over again, and I can imagine that is tiring and builds up a need to be terse/factual in responding. I can also see a frustration and worry about the field at large, a concern that if we don't guard our doors the integrity of our field will weaken. We are all invested in making this profession useful, and that's why folks who already have their degrees and licenses spend the time to post in a place like this. Maybe some of us like validation of our expert contributions (which is pretty human), but mostly I think we genuinely care about ensuring that our investment in this field for ourselves and our colleagues is not degraded. We actually give a crap about supporting students that want to excel and are willing to do the work to get there.

Look, there are times I read these forums and I feel reactive to particular posts, thinking about the tone or privilege the poster must have and not always realize. I have this reaction, and I fit the "stereotype" being promoted on the forums: clinical PhD trained, VA provider, focused on EBTs, research-oriented/academic affiliated, involved in training predoctoral interns/postdocs. The internet/world is full of different personalities, and these boards are no exception. I'm sure there are times I'm posting and not aware of my own tone/bias. Then I think, hey it's the internet, there's no conversational context and it's just not a big deal.

TL;DR: you're right people could be nicer, and that's often true in the world. Think of this forum as a buffet; take what helps you and set aside what doesn't. Most of the information being offered here, regardless of process, has extremely important content found rarely in other places.

Thank you.

 

[OneNeuroDoctor]

There seems to be only a small number of posters that engage in slanderous post and they tend to believe they are entitled to engage in bullying behavior. If you have different beliefs and post these opposed beliefs then you are open to being ridiculed and taunted by these posters.

The majority of posters may post topics and engage in professional behavior but it is often the case were the small group of negative posters frequent the SDN daily and this small group tends to turn away the people who engage in professional behavior.

Ego and narcissism seems to provide ammunition for generating whatever agenda this small group of posters wants to publish. If you make a writing error or grammar error this provides additional fuel to substantiate their rejection of your post.

It is sort of being back in middle school without having administrator boundaries and the inmates are running the asylum.

So now that I have posted this, I have opened up my options to be openly ridiculed by this small group of posters.

 

[LAPsyGuy]

There seems to be only a small number of posters that engage in slanderous post and they tend to believe they are entitled to engage in bullying behavior. If your have different beliefs and post these opposed beliefs than you are open to being ridiculed and taunted by these posters.

The majority of posters may post topics and engage in professional behavior but it is often the case were the small group of negative posters frequent the SDN daily and this small group tends to turn away the people who engage in professional behavior.

Ego and narcissism seems to provide ammunition for generating whatever agenda this small group of posters wants to publish. If you make a writing error or grammar error this provides additional fuel to substantiate their rejection of your post.

It is sort of being back in middle school without having administrator boundaries and the inmates are running the asylum.

So now that I have posted this, I have opened up my options to be openly ridiculed by this small group of posters.

I appreciate your willingness to post these words given that this can be an unfriendly environment.

 

[psyman]

I told myself not to, but here I am.

I've never seen you guys explain that working for a nonprofit, partial nonprofit (25% or more funding from certain sources) government or university permits complete loan forgiveness after 10 years. And during that 10 years you'll pay about 10% of your monthly salary toward repayment. You can have a million dollars in loans and live just fine with that arrangement.

An APA internship, while preferable, does not end anyone's career if not attained, though Wis would have you believe that. This will be even more true as the years go on and internships period (APPIC) are more competitive and the old guard retires. Forty percent of all APPIC internships are APA. That's pretty damned competitive. That doesn't even consider CAPIC or other internships. I took an APPIC only internship because of fear of not matching. Oh, well.

Wis and other members have an agenda to trash the PsyD in general and it applicants, students and graduates. He doesn't think they are as valuable as him to the profession and he specifically believes they harm his profession. He minimizes success they can and do have. If you don't go to a top PhD program, I guess he wants you to teach 2nd grade with a BS, because you sure as hell shouldn't be a psychologist. My PsyD education involved graduate training almost exclusively with PhD professors and supervisors. My training was rigorous, demanding and competitive. I somehow have poor training I guess. All I ask is that you don't lump all PsyDs in the same camp. I worked with more than one PhD intern or higher who were messes I would never hire, so don't lump them into the same camp either.

Wis would have us believe that the applicants he rejects by the next week are mowing lawns. Not everyone is a 1 percenter. The rest of us can do okay, too.

I wonder how MDs view nurse practitioners. Geez. Or maybe DOs...

And I was kidding about the rabbits.

 

[LAPsyGuy]

I told myself not to, but here I am.

I've never seen you guys explain that working for a nonprofit, partial nonprofit (25% or more funding from certain sources) government or university permits complete loan forgiveness after 10 years. And during that 10 years you'll pay about 10% of your monthly salary toward repayment. You can have a million dollars in loans and live just fine with that arrangement.

An APA internship, while preferable, does not end anyone's career if not attained, though Wis would have you believe that. This will be even more true as the years go on and internships period (APPIC) are more competitive and the old guard retires. Forty percent of all APPIC internships are APA. That's pretty damned competitive. That doesn't even consider CAPIC or other internships. I took an APPIC only internship because of fear of not matching. Oh, well.

Wis and other members have an agenda to trash the PsyD in general and it applicants, students and graduates. He doesn't think they are as valuable as him to the profession and he specifically believes they harm his profession. He minimizes success they can and do have. If you don't go to a top PhD program, I guess he wants you to teach 2nd grade with a BS, because you sure as hell shouldn't be a psychologist. My PsyD education involved graduate training almost exclusively with PhD professors and supervisors. My training was rigorous, demanding and competitive. I somehow have poor training I guess. All I ask is that you don't lump all PsyDs in the same camp. I worked with more than one PhD intern or higher who were messes I would never hire, so don't lump them into the same camp either.

Wis would have us believe that the applicants he rejects by the next week are mowing lawns. Not everyone is a 1 percenter. The rest of us can do okay, too.

I wonder how MDs view nurse practitioners. Geez. Or maybe DOs...

And I was kidding about the rabbits.

Thank you for posting this. I totally agree with what you said, I guess we just need to steel ourselves against the louder and more aggressive voices that are bound to attack. here's to being ok with not being elite.

 

[erg923]

Yes, well, now that we are done with wine and cheese party, I'm sure we can agree that Keith Moon rules all, Neal Pert comes in second as badass workin man, my military experience made me a "manly man," LA is great place to go for validation and warm fuzzies, @psyman and wiseneuro go together like oil and waster, and we will all be more forgiving of oneneurodoc's grammatical errors and typos.

Are we done here? Sheesh.

 

[erg923]

I've never seen you guys explain that working for a nonprofit, partial nonprofit (25% or more funding from certain sources) government or university permits complete loan forgiveness after 10 years. And during that 10 years you'll pay about 10% of your monthly salary toward repayment. You can have a million dollars in loans and live just fine with that arrangement.

And @psyman, PSLF is capped, not unlimited. And, it has yet to even happen.

You are putting an awful lot of trust, and your entire financial future, in the hands of G men whom I think we would all agree are quite dysfunctional. They also don't have a great track record of keeping "promises." I got news for you a la George Carlin. "They dont care about you. AT. ALL."

 

[WisNeuro]

Yeah, that characterization is loan forgiveness is incorrect, and just dangerous to give out as an impression to people who are incurring large levels of debt. And, as someone who works within the government, I am all too familiar with the the concept of "the good government giveth, and the good government taketh away." I wouldn't bank much on any significant program surviving several legislative sessions unscathed. To think otherwise would be fairly naive and forgetting the past.

Also, you can deny the facts, but states are moving towards licensure requirements of accredited internships. And some boarding orgs have proposals limiting boarding to accredited individuals. Not too mention that you will need that to bill for certain services in some states.

Go for hyperbole and malicious characterization all you want. We always acknowledge that a minority percentage do just fine, but they are neither the modal or mean candidate. We present the numbers, people can take that for what they will. Many of us come from a wide variety of backgrounds, AMC's, VA, academic faculty, etc that represent the largest employers and trainers of psychologists. We do know how the process works.

And, I find it interesting that the vast majority of unkind, "slanderous," negative words are actually directed towards the "offending" posters. It's a very disingenuous way to spread your message of being more kind. Especially when no one can point to many specific instances outside of here where "mean" things were said other than throwing some data out there.