A General Lack of Kindness in These Threads

[MCParent]

OND--professional? You've repeatedly posted incorrect or misleading information on the forum. How is that professional? How are you seriously offended when others correct your errors that you are telling people coming onto the board?

The loan forgiveness is good but depends on it maintaining for decades. Good luck with that; I'd not bet on it. Also, you are aware that loan forgiveness does not mean money is magically birthed from the ether, right? Everyone pays for it.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[WisNeuro]

Just as an aside, not all loans are eligible for PSLF. Also, you need to work for a government agency or non-profit. The VA is the largest government agency employer of psychologists, if you don't have an accredited internship, you can't work here or most other government positions. Just something to consider.

And yeah, I agree with MCP, that dude is a fact-checkers wet dream.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

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."

It's actually not capped yet as far as I know; that was just something included in Obama's budget proposal. But yes, it seems like the feds are looking to find ways to limit the amount forgiven. Which probably isn't a good thing, since as erg mentioned, they haven't actually forgiven any debt yet...and I have a feeling they're going to be a bit shocked when they find out just how much they'll be writing off in the first few waves of eligible folks over the next few years. The proposed cap was something like $50k, after which the student is responsible for the rest.

As for what you pay, there are the income-based repayment plans, but the percentage actually varies a bit. IBR is 15% of discretionary income unless you're a new borrower on/after July 1, 2014, in which case it's 10%. ICR is 20% of discretionary income. Pay As You Earn is 10% of discretionary, but only new borrowers on/after July 1, 2014 qualify currently.

Significant problems could arise if: 1) PSLF is capped at ~$50-60k, 2) people were banking on that and had been using Pay As You Earn for 10 years, and 3) their payments weren't covering interest, let alone being applied to principle (which with $200k in loans and a psychologist's typical salary is very likely). In that scenario, unless some other system is setup, I can see how it'd be possible to actually owe more (or close to it) than the original loan amount even after PSLF is applied.

However, other health students (particularly pharm and vet, I would imagine, but also med and dental) are probably going to fight against PSLF capping pretty significantly. Who knows what it'll look like if/when it's actually approved.

 

[WisNeuro]

With a Red Senate and House, for the next few years, I would put my money on that cap staying low. We saw what happened to education spending during the last wave.

 

[smalltownpsych]

I have an enormous amount of student debt, it just means I have to work harder to pay it off. If I had figured out that I should be a psychologist and not make a lot of poor choices when I was younger or came from a less dysfunctional background then maybe I would have been able to manage my career better. Nevertheless I am doing a job that I love, paying off the debt, and am finally making positive cash flow. I agree that the perspective of some people on this board is fully funded PhD or nothing. That is their perspective. Unfortunately what I see too often on the other side is it does not matter how much debt or whether I get accredited internship or pass the EPPP. I tend to find my perspective a little more in the middle but would always advise students to be more thoughtful in what it means to be a psychologist and how to get there. Also. attendees of large cohort programs with low match rates should ask themselves about their responsibilities to the field more.

 

[LAPsyGuy]

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.

So your response to people stating they feel invalidated is to play victim yourself? You keep putting quotes around slanderous, but I think you may be the only one using the word.

Thank you for the thoughtful response. It's true, states are moving towards an accreditation only model, and I think this is a great idea. It will take the for profits out of the picture while leaving the more reputable while leaving the reputable Psyd programs in place. I hope it will also naturally relieve some of the internship problems since the APA is ineffectual in their management of entry into the profession.

 

[WisNeuro]

Smalltown, we don't always agree, but I appreciate your perspective, and you always respond in a genuine way.

I'm honestly ambivalent about the loan forgiveness stuff. On one hand I think education should be much more affordable. On the other, I think loan forgiveness is a terrible way to go about it. It only encourages the upfront costs to go up, and, as MCP stated, that money that is forgiven is indeed coming from somewhere. I think it only makes the problem worse, where people will continually be arguing for a higher and higher cap instead of fixing the problem at the level of the cost of education itself.

 

[LAPsyGuy]

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.

Don't find LA to be a particularly warm and friendly place, but I guess it's fun to play with stereotypes. And we'll let you know when we're done, what's the rush?

 

[WisNeuro]

As for teh slanderous thing, I was actually not the first person to use the term. I can refer back to it if you'd like. And, I don't play the victim, I fight for my position, and part of that fight is pointing out the inaccuracies and hypocrisy of others. When it comes to the future well-being of the field, I'm ok with being a bit blunt and pig-headed. Our field has fallen behind in the advocacy wars for far too long due to a Laissez-faire attitude and lack of fight. Just look at reimbursement rates for us compared to other specialties over the last 20 years.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Smalltown, we don't always agree, but I appreciate your perspective, and you always respond in a genuine way.

I'm honestly ambivalent about the loan forgiveness stuff. On one hand I think education should be much more affordable. On the other, I think loan forgiveness is a terrible way to go about it. It only encourages the upfront costs to go up, and, as MCP stated, that money that is forgiven is indeed coming from somewhere. I think it only makes the problem worse, where people will continually be arguing for a higher and higher cap instead of fixing the problem at the level of the cost of education itself.

Not to derail the thread, but I completely agree. I appreciate the purpose behind loan forgiveness, but in the end, it seemingly just encourages the more irresponsible and/or predatory programs to do more of what they're already doing. Conversely, finding some way to put the programs themselves on the hook for at least a portion of the forgiven debt seems like a potential fair solution, particularly if large proportions of their graduates are requiring such assistance.

And increasing student education re: financial decisions would be nice as well. They have the online entrance and exit counseling, but you almost wonder if they should start requiring in-person meetings and the like.

 

[LAPsyGuy]

As for teh slanderous thing, I was actually not the first person to use the term. I can refer back to it if you'd like. And, I don't play the victim, I fight for my position, and part of that fight is pointing out the inaccuracies and hypocrisy of others. When it comes to the future well-being of the field, I'm ok with being a bit blunt and pig-headed. Our field has fallen behind in the advocacy wars for far too long due to a Laissez-faire attitude and lack of fight. Just look at reimbursement rates for us compared to other specialties over the last 20 years.

I agree with all of it, except not playing the victim. Our field does a very poor job of advocacy. There are many conflicting interests. For example, the APA represents both pure scientists and academics and pure clinical professionals, and its attention is split. Clinical science programs aren't even trying to produce practitioners anymore, while the for profits don't really prepare their students well enough. I doubt that funded PhD programs could produce enough clinicians to meet demand all by themselves, while the APA sits by while the for profits flood the market for private practice.
The real question is what should we be advocating for as a field? The wise elders advocate for a conservative position of phd only, while others state there is room for a professional based edificational approach. Like most old guard positions, the wise elders only mention obstacles and impediments to change, and become caustic when challenged, and those proposing change feel unheard and slighted, because, let's face it, they are, but those promoting the change shoukd be more thoughtful when dealing with entrenched wise elders.

 

[LAPsyGuy]

Not to derail the thread, but I completely agree. I appreciate the purpose behind loan forgiveness, but in the end, it seemingly just encourages the more irresponsible and/or predatory programs to do more of what they're already doing. Conversely, finding some way to put the programs themselves on the hook for at least a portion of the forgiven debt seems like a potential fair solution, particularly if large proportions of their graduates are requiring such assistance.

And increasing student education re: financial decisions would be nice as well. They have the online entrance and exit counseling, but you almost wonder if they should start requiring in-person meetings and the like.

Loan forgiveness has a very real function in shaping what type of practitioners we want to produce, and where. It has worked for medicine in the past, though they're having trouble with primary care currently. If it were to be combined thoughtfully with proper management of entry into the profession and with accreditation, it would make sense as an option.

 

[WisNeuro]

If you look back, most of us actually recommend the university based, funded PsyD's for those wanting to go that route. I don't really recall anyone bashing the dozen or so decent PsyD's. It's easy to mischaracterize the argument as all or non to front a hyperbolic position, but the facts aren't there to support it.

One issue though, is that the university based PsyD's actually resemble clinical PhD's more than they resemble the old PsyD model. The distinction is practically moot since programs have changed drastically since the 70's to be much more balanced.

 

[LAPsyGuy]

If you look back, most of us actually recommend the university based, funded PsyD's for those wanting to go that route. I don't really recall anyone bashing the dozen or so decent PsyD's. It's easy to mischaracterize the argument as all or non to front a hyperbolic position, but the facts aren't there to support it.

One issue though, is that the university based PsyD's actually resemble clinical PhD's more than they resemble the old PsyD model. The distinction is practically moot since programs have changed drastically since the 70's to be much more balanced.

There has been some endorsement of the uni based PsyD programs, but theyve also not been mentioned when those asking about the for profits are told to exit the field.

 

[WisNeuro]

I have seen erg and others mention Rutgers, Baylor, and Indianapolis several times over the years. Generally though, people are not asking about those. They ask about a specific program and we give them the data.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Loan forgiveness has a very real function in shaping what type of practitioners we want to produce, and where. It has worked for medicine in the past, though they're having trouble with primary care currently. If it were to be combined thoughtfully with proper management of entry into the profession and with accreditation, it would make sense as an option.

I'd be more in favor of reduced educational costs (even via various subsidies if necessary) than I would loan forgiveness, but that's just me. As I mentioned, though--I can certainly appreciate the intent of loan forgiveness programs. But I agree completely that "proper management of entry into the profession and with accreditation" needs to be something on which our professional organizations are devoting much more of their focus and resources.

 

[LAPsyGuy]

I have seen erg and others mention Rutgers, Baylor, and Indianapolis several times over the years. Generally though, people are not asking about those. They ask about a specific program and we give them the data.

Yes, I acknowledge that. They just as often tell people to leave the field. Any chance you could acknowledge that instead of repeating the same information?

 

[WisNeuro]

I honestly don't recall anyone telling someone to leave the field. I recall some advocating for other degrees, such as a social work degree, if it more closely aligns with their actual career goals, but that's not "leaving the field." It's suggesting a more viable alternative within the same field that more closely aligns with their career goals.

 

[MCParent]

I honestly don't recall anyone telling someone to leave the field. I recall some advocating for other degrees, such as a social work degree, if it more closely aligns with their actual career goals, but that's not "leaving the field." It's suggesting a more viable alternative within the same field that more closely aligns with their career goals.

I don't recall this either. Most of the time when people come on with "I want to do a professional school because I want to practice" we suggest the importance of research and let them know about the many, many balanced programs that exist.

 

[LAPsyGuy]

I honestly don't recall anyone telling someone to leave the field. I recall some advocating for other degrees, such as a social work degree, if it more closely aligns with their actual career goals, but that's not "leaving the field." It's suggesting a more viable alternative within the same field that more closely aligns with their career goals.

I guess it depends on how one defines field; psychology vs mental health/psychotherapy. I've seen several example of people being directed to master level training. To me, that's being escorted out.

 

[erg923]

I guess it depends on how one defines field; psychology vs mental health/psychotherapy. I've seen several example of people being directed to master level training. To me, that's being escorted out.

Yes. I have often directed people towards their stated career goals. Sometimes a doctorate is not indicate or appopriate. Why is this labeled as "bad?"

When I was 13-14, I strongly considered going into the seminary to become a Priest. I was grateful that Father John helped me to undertand the vocation on a deeper and more pragmatic level. My responsies to their inquiries lead them to (quite rapidly) show me to the exit door regarding ordination/Priesthood. They didn't excommincate me from the church though, right?

 

[WisNeuro]

So, telling someone that they can do exactly what they want to do, in half the training time, make the same amount of money, with only a fraction of the debt, is bad advice?

 

[OneNeuroDoctor]

So as I posted earlier, a small group of offenders monopolize the directions of any thread on this message board and that small group of offenders persist to engage in the agenda of APA accreditation and PhD emphasis. They claim that the empirical data provides the evidence they need to discredit posters who emphasize finding success in non APA accredited program to maintain or booster credit for their belief system. If you post something contrary to their belief system or reality they bring up issues of writing skills, cognitive dissonance, and other types of jargon to discredit your opinion. Such juvenile behavior is non professional as a professional is capable of evaluation the objective data and not taking sides but realizing the positive and negatives of a position without resorting to name calling or slanderous behavior.

 

[erg923]

So as I posted earlier, a small group of offenders monopolize the directions of any thread on this message board and that small group of offenders persist to engage in the agenda of APA accreditation and PhD emphasis. They claim that the empirical data provides the evidence they need to discredit posters who emphasize finding success in non APA accredited program to maintain or booster credit for their belief system. If you post something contrary to their belief system or reality they bring up issues of writing skills, cognitive dissonance, and other types of jargon to discredit your opinion. Such juvenile behavior is non professional as a professional is capable of evaluation the objective data and not taking sides but realizing the positive and negatives of a position without resorting to name calling or slanderous behavior.

Professionals also fact check their posts. You don't- as Mike Parent, Wiseneuro and myself have mentioned before.

 

[WisNeuro]

We don't discredit all posters who disagree with us. We usually just discredit you since you've been fact-checked more times than I can count to.

 

[WisNeuro]

And, I will readily acknowledge that I am indeed a proponent for the evil "agenda" of actually imposing training standards on our field through an accreditation process. If that makes me a terrible person, I'm in pretty good company.

 

[smalltownpsych]

So as I posted earlier, a small group of offenders monopolize the directions of any thread on this message board and that small group of offenders persist to engage in the agenda of APA accreditation and PhD emphasis. They claim that the empirical data provides the evidence they need to discredit posters who emphasize finding success in non APA accredited program to maintain or booster credit for their belief system. If you post something contrary to their belief system or reality they bring up issues of writing skills, cognitive dissonance, and other types of jargon to discredit your opinion. Such juvenile behavior is non professional as a professional is capable of evaluation the objective data and not taking sides but realizing the positive and negatives of a position without resorting to name calling or slanderous behavior.

I think it is irresponsible to the field to not promote agenda of APA accreditation. I also agree that a psychologist should be able to conduct research and that the funded PhD route is the best way to go. I didn't go the PhD route myself, mainly because I did not have all the facts at my disposal and I am still paying the financial price for that. Fortunately I did attend a university PsyD program and conducted original research and attended an APA internship so my career has not been hampered as much as my bank account has.

 

[LAPsyGuy]

I don't thin

And, I will readily acknowledge that I am indeed a proponent for the evil "agenda" of actually imposing training standards on our field through an accreditation process. If that makes me a terrible person, I'm in pretty good company.

I don't think training standards are evil, and I doubt anybody does.

 

[LAPsyGuy]

We don't discredit all posters who disagree with us. We usually just discredit you since you've been fact-checked more times than I can count to.

Perhaps that's the problem. Only facts can be discredited. People can be educated. It's that attitude of discrediting people that is probably too pervasive on the board.

 

[LAPsyGuy]

So, telling someone that they can do exactly what they want to do, in half the training time, make the same amount of money, with only a fraction of the debt, is bad advice?

Again, as repeatedly stated, and seemingly endlessly ignored, it's not the facts, but the way the facts are imparted.

 

[WisNeuro]

Not ignored, thought about, just not accepted. Support for the way it has been imparted has been generally more well-received than not. If it's genuine, and works for most, hooray. There is no single way of delivering a message that works for everyone. I'll choose what works for most.

 

[psyman]

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."

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.

Last sentence.

Source: https://studentaid.ed.gov/repay-loans/forgiveness-cancellation/charts/public-service

 

[erg923]

View attachment 186991



Last sentence.

Source: https://studentaid.ed.gov/repay-loans/forgiveness-cancellation/charts/public-service

Do you read the wallstereet journal? Do you trust the government? Think carefully about the latter...

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/...oposes-broader-debt-forgiveness-for-students/

I think the reason its not incorporated into our discussion much is that its just an amazing gamble/leap of faith to recommend to people, especially now with the cap likely coming. In 2017, the thing could look a like totally different animal. It must be nice to be so trusting of government proposals/programs. I am not. And I cant imagine banking my finacial future on a flimpsy program of which the the government can pull and/or change at any time. This isn't like th GI Bill. You dont have any legal recourse if its yanked out from under you.

 

[LAPsyGuy]

Do you read the wallstereet journal? Do you trust the government? Think carefully about the latter...

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/...oposes-broader-debt-forgiveness-for-students/

I think the reason its not incorporated into our discussion much is that its just an amazing gamble/leap of faith to recommend to people, especially now with the cap likely coming. In 2017, the thing could look a like totally different animal. It must be nice to be so trusting of government proposals/programs. I am not. And I cant imagine banking my finacial future on a flimpsy program of which the the government can pull and/or change at any time. This isn't like th GI Bill. You dont have any legal recourse if its yanked out from under you.

That's a great reason to ignore a potential resource. It might change, so don't mention it. Really helpful, thanks for your thoughtfulness.

 

[LAPsyGuy]

Not ignored, thought about, just not accepted. Support for the way it has been imparted has been generally more well-received than not. If it's genuine, and works for most, hooray. There is no single way of delivering a message that works for everyone. I'll choose what works for most.

So you're shooting for 51%? You're a real go-getter.

 

[WisNeuro]

Misinterpret and throw pejoratives around all you want.

 

[erg923]

That's a great reason to ignore a potential resource. It might change, so don't mention it. Really helpful, thanks for your thoughtfulness.

So you're shooting for 51%? You're a real go-getter.[/QUOTE]

This are all incongruent with what you are trying to promote/change on this board, is it not? I dont get it. At least mine aren't serious.

 

[WisNeuro]

There isn't even an attempt of subtlety now, just straight trolling.

 

[LAPsyGuy]

This are all incongruent with what you are trying to promote/cnahe on this board. I dont get it. At least mine arent serious.

Oh no! Who said I was serious?

 

[LAPsyGuy]

Actually, It's all congruent. My comment meant that I find it odd that he would settle for just more-than-not to find him helpful, especially when others are providing feedback.

 

[LAPsyGuy]

This are all incongruent with what you are trying to promote/change on this board, is it not? I dont get it. At least mine aren't serious.

So you're giving feedback that sarcasm is not helpful to you?

 

[WisNeuro]

Any usefulness this thread had is done. It's all just pejoratives and name-calling now. I bid adieu to this one, done feeding the troll.

 

[LAPsyGuy]

Misinterpret and throw pejoratives around all you want.

Come on Wissy, don't be like that. It's all about building community. You're a wise elder, I was hoping for some insight from you. Erg is never serious,and you're always serious. Maybe we can combine you two.

 

[SmoothJams]

I'm often amazed at how some of the more aggressive posters claim they are providing feedback in a nonpersonalizing manner while being degrading and insulting. It's an advanced level of bullying. .

LaPsyGuy, I applaud you. It's nice to see someone else get on here and stand up to all the crap some of the regulars here love to dish out. It's just high school, mean girls, intellectually passive-aggressive bullying. From (supposed) psychologists nonetheless. The sad part is that these are (supposedly) grown-a** people. It's MIND BLOWING how they treat folks who get on here.

What you, and many others here, have experienced is intellectual trolling. You took the bait (as I have in the past). There are a lot of long-term regulars who clearly have dedicated a TON of time trolling folks who disagree with them, or call them on their crap. How in the hell do you have time to be a psychologist of any kind when you clearly spend hours a day trolling people here? They're just a gang of typical internet trolls, who unfortunately have the training to be even more effective at it. They get off on it, and they stick together, like typical bullies do. Don't waste your time anymore LaPsyGuy. A**holes don't usually admit they are a**holes, even when there are YEARS of daily posts to show it.

Herein lies the issue with this argument, this board is not an accurate representation of how all psychologists or even a majority would be.

Thank Jesus. It makes me sick to think some of these people might actually be seeing clients.

...there is a LARGE over representation of a biased perspective on several topics on this board...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...

Yup.Take a look at one the troll-bait threads on race issues I took the bait on. It's laughable how some of the vets here responded, and continued to respond after their biased positions had been dismantled. Not only did these "psychologists" blatantly display a crap ton of implicit biases, they kept proving my point over and over again when their biases and logical fallacies were identified. It was unbelievable. I'll PM a link to you so you can revel in the insanity (trolling) It was the last of those threads that made me realize I was dealing with trolls.

...we get the same handful of regulars that push their perspectives more than an objective analysis of the situation...

Can I name some of them or will TherapistforChange block me? I had a great exchange with that one. I'll have to find it and send it to you as well. As you can see, the 'moderation' in this place is TOPS...if you are Erg. - he's clearly the gang leader and has been for a long time, JonSnow, CaraSusana, Pragma, WisNeuro, there are some others but it's not important. Trolls all ye' be, trolls!

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?

I only chimed in because I have seen too many folks try to confront this crap and go unsupported. So I guess that makes me a troll masochist. Sad thing is, some of these people are obviously really intelligent and experienced. They do have some great advice. Too bad they don't have the character to dispense their knowledge without condescending and bullying people. But...that's how a**holes roll.... *sigh*

CogNeuro: Bless you. LaPsyGuy, don't take the bait anymore...or just troll them back.

And ...cue psudo-intellectual troll rage in 3...2...1...

 

[CogNeuroGuy]

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.

This is a valid point to be made. You will notice that by saying what you have described impedes on other people's perspectives on how government, etc. SHOULD operate. The qualifying word being "should." This is a term used to express a subjective point of view. Notwithstanding this example, there are many examples in which select posters often rant about the government, etc. and if you don't align with their beliefs, you are not "level-headed" (again, these are the perceptions from how words are articulated, constructed in noun and verb sentences, etc.). Sad part is, if this were solely an isolated phenomenon of skewed perception by we students or non-professionals, I could understand their disagreement with myself and others who disagree with them. However, these issues are prevalent enough to warrant (several times I might add) a dedicated post that draws upon these behaviors here.

As a final thought, I am sure and almost certain that people like McParent, Wiseneuro, erg, are all fantastic at what they do, otherwise they wouldn't be where they are at in their careers. I am asserting that between the objective data available on a given subject we may be discussing, protrudes many subjective interpretations/opinionated "professional" suggestions. And that seems to be the point being made on this thread. It is completely fine to provide an opinion on a given topic...but make a clear dissociation between opinion and facts that come from "you." They become hard to decipher after many many posts and typically is translated as being "the law, or the standard."

 

[MCParent]

As a final thought, I am sure and almost certain that people like McParent, Wiseneuro, erg, are all fantastic at what they do

Well, at least we have SOME common ground. I completely agree with this point!

The trolling accusation is silly. We're all anonymous (except for me ;-) ). This is hardly a playground where someone can be physically intimidated or silenced.

 

[erg923]

I'm gonna okay a drinking game the word "trolls" in that train wreck of a post.

Personally, I've never made a big deal about "troll" status of posters because of course we sometimes say things to get a rise out if people. And don't understand why this is seen as so pathological. It's a valid therapeutic technique when used carefully and Socratic and rhetorical questioning is a staple of cognitive therapy.

So while it's quite obvious that's not my primary purpose here and never has been, I gladly comp to a fare share provocative statements to gauge reaction and/or make a point. Seems like part of what Internet chat forums were developed to facilitate. Dialogues we may not feel as free or comfortable to do in other settings. I don't see why this is viewed as universally so pathological?

 

[LAPsyGuy]

I'm gonna okay a drinking game the word "trolls" in that train wreck of a post.

I've never made a big deal about "troll@ status if posters because of course we sometimes say things to get a rise out if people. And don't why this is seen as so pathological. It's a valid therapeutic technique when used carefully and Socratic questioning is a stable of cognitive therapy. So while it's quite obvious that's not my primary purpose here and never has been, I gladly comp to a fare share provocative statements to gauge reaction and/or make a point. Seems like part of what Internet chat forums were developed to facilitate. Dialogues we may not feel as free or comfortable to do in ither settings. I don't see why this is viewed as universally so pathological?

I'm glad you can get out all of your aggression and game playing here on the board.

 

[erg923]

I'm glad you can get out all of your aggression and game playing here on the board.

We deal very serious issues on this board-issues dealing with service to vulnerable populations, clinical competence and training, etc.

However, there seem to be some that take this board, and the identities that they have built up in their head regarding the posters with a seriousness that I simply cannot understand/comprehend.

 

[LAPsyGuy]

We deal very serious issues on this board-issues dealing with service to vulnerable populations, clinical competence and training, etc.

However, there seem to be some that take this board, and the identities that they have built up in their head regarding the posters with a seriousness that I simply cannot understand/comprehend.

Agreed. You cannot understand or comprehend it.