- Joined
- Oct 26, 2017
- Messages
- 172
- Reaction score
- 278
Hi everyone,
Forgive the vague clickbait title.
I’m going into forensics (I’m in psychiatry residency) and recently have had a few conversations with forensic psychiatrists (AAPL leaders and program directors) who told me in no uncertain terms that “I’ll need to specialize in something [forensic] psychologists don’t do.” Soon afterwards, I was discussing the field on a different psychology forum and had some folks (identifying themselves as forensic psychologists) claiming psychiatrists simply made “clinical judgments” which were no more valid than “hot takes.” One commenter even suggested we (psychiatrists) “leave the forensics to them (psychologists).”
I didn’t realize there was such a turf war. Of course clinically, I’ve long recognized the value of neuropsychology and a good clinical psychologist practicing therapy. I studied psychology in college and cherish that experience (even as other premeds took biochem, chemistry, or neuroscience).
Of course I’d like to hear opinions from @splik and @whopper for forensic matters, but also from psychologists here and anyone else with even non forensic opinions.
I know the professions have different roles. With the potential for biomarkers/objective measures of illness (huge stretch believe me I know), will psychometric tests and other such assessments remain valid (more so than the interview methods we are taught)? Should forensic psychiatrists improve their familiarity with testing (one aforementioned commenter tried to ridicule me for mentioning the M-FAST as “it’s not specific”). Do psychologists really see us as bloviating clowns who give “hot takes” and expect people to listen because we are learned doctors? Is there a worry in the clinical psychology profession that psychiatrists are encroaching (I would guess not due to the dearth of psychiatrists and the shrinking percentage who practice therapy).
Thanks!
Forgive the vague clickbait title.
I’m going into forensics (I’m in psychiatry residency) and recently have had a few conversations with forensic psychiatrists (AAPL leaders and program directors) who told me in no uncertain terms that “I’ll need to specialize in something [forensic] psychologists don’t do.” Soon afterwards, I was discussing the field on a different psychology forum and had some folks (identifying themselves as forensic psychologists) claiming psychiatrists simply made “clinical judgments” which were no more valid than “hot takes.” One commenter even suggested we (psychiatrists) “leave the forensics to them (psychologists).”
I didn’t realize there was such a turf war. Of course clinically, I’ve long recognized the value of neuropsychology and a good clinical psychologist practicing therapy. I studied psychology in college and cherish that experience (even as other premeds took biochem, chemistry, or neuroscience).
Of course I’d like to hear opinions from @splik and @whopper for forensic matters, but also from psychologists here and anyone else with even non forensic opinions.
I know the professions have different roles. With the potential for biomarkers/objective measures of illness (huge stretch believe me I know), will psychometric tests and other such assessments remain valid (more so than the interview methods we are taught)? Should forensic psychiatrists improve their familiarity with testing (one aforementioned commenter tried to ridicule me for mentioning the M-FAST as “it’s not specific”). Do psychologists really see us as bloviating clowns who give “hot takes” and expect people to listen because we are learned doctors? Is there a worry in the clinical psychology profession that psychiatrists are encroaching (I would guess not due to the dearth of psychiatrists and the shrinking percentage who practice therapy).
Thanks!