- Joined
- Jan 12, 2015
- Messages
- 15
- Reaction score
- 2
Last edited:
Having a bit of trouble
- Thread starter livethruthis
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2014
- Messages
- 5,527
- Reaction score
- 6,556
Doctoral training is extremely stressful and people tend to use more primitive defense mechanisms when under stress. I saw some pretty strange behavior during the pressure cooker of my own program. I made a conscious decision to stay away from certain individuals who were unraveling. Coming from a family role of peacemaker in a high conflict family, that was difficult for me to not get involved in others conflict, but I am so glad I recognized the dynamic and changed it. Whew! Part of being an effective psychologist is self-awareness and interpersonal skills. Start working on that and if you become stuck seek guidance from someone who has greater ability in the area that you are stuck. I also had a sticking point during internship. Both of these times became opportunities for personal and professional growth.
Oh and the buck up buttercup sentiment sounds familiar. That's a phrase my patients have been using lately to describe some of their difficulties with seeking support.
Oh and the buck up buttercup sentiment sounds familiar. That's a phrase my patients have been using lately to describe some of their difficulties with seeking support.
You would hope that people working in the mental health field would be a bit more well adjusted..but I guess the old saying may be true..that half of Psychologists get into the field because they are "crazy" themselves and the other half get in because they just want to help people.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2011
- Messages
- 2,323
- Reaction score
- 3,887
A few things on this- firstly, graduate school is not "working in the mental health field"- it's training to work either in the mental health field or, the OPs program being a mentor model Ph.D. program, training to work in academia. As others have said, it's stressful, time consuming, high stakes, and often competitive- in ways very different than actual professional practice.
Secondly, psychotherapy is a set of techniques, practices, and customs that are practiced and learned. There may be personality styles and general demeanors MAY make it easier to learn and apply some of these things (it's an empirical question that perhaps has already been answered). However, one can successfully learn and apply these skills regardless of personality. One member of my cohort entered the program with the mistaken belief that everyone else was there because of their personal experiences with therapy and an inclination to not only further their self healing, but to continuously "act like a therapist" and discuss therapy related issues at all times. This will quickly get you not invited to the parties. During one of the first classes, when you do that thing where you all go around and say your reasons for wanting to be a psychologist, she was a bit taken aback when I said it was because "I have no other marketable skills."
As to the OPs predicament, I'd concur with erg. Changing the behaviors of others can be extremely difficult (that's why I get the big bucks!!), but changing your own behaviors might be a little easier. My here may be things you can change about yourself that might make it less likely that you might evoke or reinforce such behaviors in your cohort. Otherwise, look at things you can do to make it less likely you'd be in the presence of these folks when they display these behaviors. My guess is your mentor and/or the training director have dealt with such issues many times. If it's getting in the way of your training, approach them and ask for suggestions regarding how you could change your own behavior to make things less problematic for you. None of this is saying that things are your "fault," but rather that the best solutions are probably your responsibility.
D
deleted106747
I don't know that I agree you can apply the skills regardless of personality. I haven't seen that ring true in any field, from medicine to engineering to teaching and so on. Personality factors are huge in any field and ours is highly relational.
My own cohort was fraught with tension and interpersonal stressors, and I am sure I brought stuff to the table as we all do. What worked for me and for everyone in the cohort was to find the people you could connect with the best. And then, suddenly, it doesn't matter. You're on internship with a whole new crowd, then fellowship and so on.
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2012
- Messages
- 359
- Reaction score
- 91
I think this is a good point.
My cohort had a ton of conflict my first year. We were a small group, but all of us (myself included) had strong personalities, didn't know when to back down, and had some growing up to do. When we got to our third year, we naturally began to see less of each other, since our training took us off campus for externship and we only took a few classes. Things became more civil at that point.... you're almost there!
Overall... I'd second others' advice. You can't change your colleagues' behavior, so just try to focus on your training and professional development, so you can get the most out of grad school. The professors will notice your efforts to be rational and minimize conflict, so work towards that end. If that means that you have to stay out of their way or minimize interactions until you naturally go your separate ways, so be it.
Also, don't forget that you can rely on your advisor or DCT for support- they've seen this before.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using SDN mobile
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2014
- Messages
- 5,527
- Reaction score
- 6,556
No. You are completely misrepresenting what I meant. What I am trying to say is that we are all human and have interpersonal problems and lessons to learn about how we respond to stress. Learning about our strengths and weaknesses and learning more adaptive responses is part of what our training entails. I have many of the same communication difficulties and emotional responses to stressors as my patients, but usually to a lesser degree and I have a lot more skills and tools that I have learned to implement and I can help my patients learn some too. Psychologists get into the field because they find humans and the connection between behavior and thinking and feeling and the interpersonal and the biological to be compelling and fascinating and also have a desire to help improve others' functioning in this complex matrix.
No I got what you said, and I agree with it. I was sort of just making my own general statement that sort of applied to what you were saying..was not being critical or disagreeing with what you said.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2016
- Messages
- 5
- Reaction score
- 1
This saying needs to just end.
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2006
- Messages
- 22,382
- Reaction score
- 4,329
It's not. That's not even close. Please do not perpetuate that garbage.
Someone with significant psychiatric illness will have a very difficult time completing training. Sure, it happens....but it isn't common. As for wanting to help people...honestly many of those people who come into the application cycle naive about the training and every day practice, so they aren't strong candidates. I'm not saying "helping people" isn't an aspect of the motivation for many, but the applicants that make it better u stand the field is much more than that. There are of course programs that will offer a spot for a check and a pulse....but that isn't the field as a whole.
When people say "crazy" I think they mean really broadly..meaning people that have/had issues with anxiety disorders, mood disorders, BPD, etc.
And you might be right if the average admitted applicant to a competitive Psych program was somehow a representative sample of the overall population. But that isn't the case. The average applicant who is admitted to a competitive Psych program (but has mental health issues) is quite different than the average person with mental health issues.
I just don't think this is a "wild" theory, or a bad saying. I mean people enter work they find interesting..people find things that are relevant to them quite interesting.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2006
- Messages
- 22,382
- Reaction score
- 4,329
Who are those "people"? They obviously do not understand the field based on spreading an inaccurate statement, so trying to parse out what they mean isn't really a productive pursuit.
Whether something is relevant and/or interesting to someone doesn't mean it is personally applicable to them. Cancer researchers don't only go into the field because they have cancer. Maybe they know someone who has the type of cancer they are studying, but that is a reach to presume that there is a higher prevalence rate of psychology students going into the field w one or more pre-existing psychiatric a dxs. It is also against the prevailing research about psychiatric conditions, employment, and educational attainment.
It just irks me when ppl perpetuate patently false information about the field. It's like when ppl say Ph.Ds are for people who only want to do research and Psy.Ds are for people who want to do therapy. It's just not accurate.
First off, you are taking this way too seriously. It's just a saying I've heard before, and thought it was relevant to throw into this thread. Thought it might get a laugh. That is all.
Nowhere did I say that "I have the hard data to prove that half of Psychologists are mental cases", or am I making that case. I'm just saying I wouldn't be shocked if it was actually more common than other professions. I claimed that personal experience with mental health, directly or indirectly, makes someone more curious/interested in a profession. We can debate how true that is.
But I'll repeat, the candidate who gets into a competitive Phd program is not that representative of the average person with a mental disorder...so to argue that people with mental disorders are under-employed and have low educational attainment is irrelevant here. I have social anxiety and panic disorder and I'm finishing up my third undergrad and have great grades. I understand, it's an n=1, but I have a friend who was diagnosed with BPD and he finished a Phd at a great school few years back. In my own experience of getting mental health I had a lady psychiatrist who seemed like the sweetest person on the outside, but at one point showed really bad mood swings and anger when I had asked her if she was willing to sign a document I needed for school. It was beyond odd. There are other personal experiences. Again, I understand, anecdotal.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,827
- Reaction score
- 5,609
MH diagnoses are transient, remember.
The IRR of BPD is terrible.
I also hate filling hate filling out forms (disability, fmla, disability, accommodations, etc.), and probably get a little testy about that. Not really how i like to spend my time, and not why I got into this line of work.
Don't you do disability evaluations?
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,827
- Reaction score
- 5,609
Sorta. File review (appeals). And I bill for it.
So why are you annoyed doing something that is your job? Why get into it if you hate it?
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,827
- Reaction score
- 5,609
Its what I do outside of my main job. See the "mo money" thread.
I'm happier when it doesn't interfere with patient care, and I'm paid for it/my time.
The two (forensic work and clinical work) are better when they are separate.
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2014
- Messages
- 5,527
- Reaction score
- 6,556
This is a forum for students who are interested in becoming a psychologist. Misinformation about the field should be challenged. That ridiculous urban legend or whatever you want to call it is demeaning to the field and to our patients and demonstrates real ignorance of what mental illness really is so no, I don't think T4c was taking it too seriously. Also to say this in the context of the op's difficulties without any experience in a doctoral program yourself is not helpful either.
You can be fairly functional, at least in some areas, and still have fairly serious issues. You are being demeaning by suggesting that someone only has an issue if they are unemployed and have low educational attainment.
Second, I don't think there is anything wrong with suggesting that a lot of Psychologists have mental health issues themselves. Again, not claiming that as a fact..just referring to the saying. There is nothing wrong with having a mental illness. You are making it seem like it's an insult.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,827
- Reaction score
- 5,609
It is an insult, because the implied message is the motivation for serving others is actually to serve our own needs, right?
Genuineness is highly important within the therapeutic relationship, and think perpetuating such nonsense casts doubt on the genuineness of practitioners. This is insulting to us (since no evidence exists to support your assertion) and likely troubling to potential patients.
Honestly, I didn't even see it from that perspective. Not at all. In fact, I'd like to think that my own struggle with mental illness has made me more empathetic and just given me a lesson on how horrible mental illness can be. So, when I say "people often enter professions they have some personal experience with"..all I mean is that. And it goes without saying that it makes logical sense that it would be MORE REWARDING to successfully treat patients when you've gone through similar issues and understand how horrible mental illness is. I don't think I'm giving you an insight you don't understand..folks go into professions that they feel are rewarding.
I don't think any of that is insulting or bad.
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2013
- Messages
- 2,263
- Reaction score
- 2,638
The problem is that your opinion that psychology is inhabited by folks with higher than base rates of mental illness is unfounded. You can rationalize it, but at the end of the day you are making a claim that has no basis and that is insulting. Add to that, your comment wasn't just about base rates. You questioned the motivation of half of the field. That's insulting.
I've made numerous points clarifying what I meant. You can accept that clarification, or you can continue crying about it.
ps. Psychology Today article:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/199707/why-shrinks-have-problems
From the article:
"
Doctor, Are You Feeling Okay?
Mental health professionals are, in general, a fairly crazy lot—at least as troubled as the general population. This may sound depressing, but, as you'll see, having crazy shrinks around is not in itself a serious problem. In fact, some experts believe that therapists who have suffered in certain ways may be the very best therapists we have.
The problem is that mental health professionals—particularly psychologists—do a poor job of monitoring their own mental health problems and those of their colleagues. In fact, the main responsibility for spotting an impaired therapist seems to fall on the patient, who presumably has his or her own problems to deal with. That's just nuts.
Therapists struggling with marital problems, alcoholism, substance abuse, depression, and so on don't function very well as therapists, so we can't just ignore their distress. And ironically, with just a few exceptions, mental health professionals have access to relatively few resources when they most need assistance. The questions, then, are these: How can clients be protected—and how can troubled therapists be helped?
The Odd Treating the Id
Here's a theory that's not so crazy: Maybe people enter the mental health field because they have a history of psychological difficulties. Perhaps they're trying to understand or overcome their own problems, which would give us a pool of therapists who are a hit unusual to begin with. That alone could account for the image of the Crazy Shrink.
Of the many prominent psychotherapists I've interviewed in recent months, only one admitted that he had entered the profession because of personal problems. But most felt this was a common occurrence. In fact, the idea that therapy is a haven for the psychologically wounded is as old as the profession itself. Freud himself asserted thatchildhood loss was the underlying cause of an adult's desire to help others. And Freud's daughter, Anna, herself a prominent psychoanalyst, once said, "The most sophisticated defense mechanism I ever encountered was becoming a psychotherapist." So it's only appropriate that John Fromson, M.D., director of a Massachusetts program for impaired physicians, describes the mental health field as one in which "the odd care for the id." He chuckled as he said this, but, as Freud claimed, humor is often a mask for disturbing truths."
https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/199707/why-shrinks-have-problems
From the article:
"
Doctor, Are You Feeling Okay?
Mental health professionals are, in general, a fairly crazy lot—at least as troubled as the general population. This may sound depressing, but, as you'll see, having crazy shrinks around is not in itself a serious problem. In fact, some experts believe that therapists who have suffered in certain ways may be the very best therapists we have.
The problem is that mental health professionals—particularly psychologists—do a poor job of monitoring their own mental health problems and those of their colleagues. In fact, the main responsibility for spotting an impaired therapist seems to fall on the patient, who presumably has his or her own problems to deal with. That's just nuts.
Therapists struggling with marital problems, alcoholism, substance abuse, depression, and so on don't function very well as therapists, so we can't just ignore their distress. And ironically, with just a few exceptions, mental health professionals have access to relatively few resources when they most need assistance. The questions, then, are these: How can clients be protected—and how can troubled therapists be helped?
The Odd Treating the Id
Here's a theory that's not so crazy: Maybe people enter the mental health field because they have a history of psychological difficulties. Perhaps they're trying to understand or overcome their own problems, which would give us a pool of therapists who are a hit unusual to begin with. That alone could account for the image of the Crazy Shrink.
Of the many prominent psychotherapists I've interviewed in recent months, only one admitted that he had entered the profession because of personal problems. But most felt this was a common occurrence. In fact, the idea that therapy is a haven for the psychologically wounded is as old as the profession itself. Freud himself asserted thatchildhood loss was the underlying cause of an adult's desire to help others. And Freud's daughter, Anna, herself a prominent psychoanalyst, once said, "The most sophisticated defense mechanism I ever encountered was becoming a psychotherapist." So it's only appropriate that John Fromson, M.D., director of a Massachusetts program for impaired physicians, describes the mental health field as one in which "the odd care for the id." He chuckled as he said this, but, as Freud claimed, humor is often a mask for disturbing truths."
Please send your hate mail to Dr. Robert Epstein Phd (Harvard University). This buffoon is spreading lies and suggesting that Psychologists might be crazy. It's so insulting to the field. (sarcasm..before some of you get triggered)
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2012
- Messages
- 1,858
- Reaction score
- 2,224
Do you have any citations to back up your assertion? I found a few papers from about a decade ago, with a few minutes of searching, that say the opposite.
It seems pretty obviously to be a fallacy to me. We are particularly struck by the small number of folks who actually do do this (heck, even Meehl said he suspected many child psychologists of secretly hating their own parents
), we have an unrealistic expectation that psychologists are supposed to be psychologically super healthy so any deviations are exaggerated, etc.Do you have any citations to back up your assertion? I found a few papers from about a decade ago, with a few minutes of searching, that say the opposite.
It seems pretty obviously to be a fallacy to me. We are particularly struck by the small number of folks who actually do do this (heck, even Meehl said he suspected many child psychologists of secretly hating their own parents
I don't have any citations, and I never claimed I had any. The point I was making with that article is..here is a Harvard educated Psychologist, who doesn't have those citations either (and he admits as much in his article), but throws out the same exact theory, makes the same arguments I made, and says that by talking to many mental health professionals..they have the same perception.
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2012
- Messages
- 1,858
- Reaction score
- 2,224
That fallacy would be "appeal to authority."
I've taken philosophy 101 as well. I'm not making the argument "this guy is an authority..he has the same opinion..therefore, I'm right". This is not a case of being right or wrong. I have no clue if the assertion I've made is true, and I've never claimed I have the data to prove that it is.That fallacy would be "appeal to authority."
The article I posted was to suggest that if you truly don't want this theory to spread and be taken seriously, and if you think it's dangerous, maybe you should direct these concerns to people in the field? (ie Dr. Epstein)..and apparently according to him, a lot of his colleagues, who have the same perception. Some of the people here were asserting I'm the only one who believes this, and it's somehow related to my lack of experience.
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2006
- Messages
- 22,382
- Reaction score
- 4,329
I didn't say it was an insult, what I said was that the belief that a large portion of clinicians go into the field bc "they are crazy" was factually inaccurate and not supported by actual data. I also called the 'saying' garbage and I objected to the perpetuation of it.
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2016
- Messages
- 15
- Reaction score
- 8
I think psych844 is accurate that many individuals have personal histories that lead them to their professions of choice, whether it's when children pursue similar careers as their parents, substance users become substance use counselors, sexual minorities pursue positions as researchers in LGBT-related areas, etc. However, the notion that psychologists have a higher prevalence of diagnosable disorders than other professions is not based on anything legitimate and not surprisingly poorly-received by healthy, empirically-focused psychologists that may have entered the field for arguably more righteous reasons.
This situation makes me think of the research that has shown that we tend to overestimate how frequently other people behave/think/feel like we do. We tend to assume everybody thinks like we do, because it makes sense.
Surely, there are individuals that enter the field of psychology partially in a hunt for psychological health, although it would not be sensible to assume this was 50% of the field because of your n=1. And, the article focuses primarily on how stress from treating patients is deleterious to therapists' health, rather than the brief paragraph about therapists entering the field with higher than average histories of abuse.
I believe you're getting jumped on, psych844, because it's a rather bold statement (not based on empirical evidence but rather personal bias) and assumes there was a self-serving motivation for many psychologists to enter the field.
This situation makes me think of the research that has shown that we tend to overestimate how frequently other people behave/think/feel like we do. We tend to assume everybody thinks like we do, because it makes sense.
Surely, there are individuals that enter the field of psychology partially in a hunt for psychological health, although it would not be sensible to assume this was 50% of the field because of your n=1. And, the article focuses primarily on how stress from treating patients is deleterious to therapists' health, rather than the brief paragraph about therapists entering the field with higher than average histories of abuse.
I believe you're getting jumped on, psych844, because it's a rather bold statement (not based on empirical evidence but rather personal bias) and assumes there was a self-serving motivation for many psychologists to enter the field.
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2016
- Messages
- 15
- Reaction score
- 8
All right. Well, you probably would have been argued with a lot less if you said something like, "maybe 10% of people get into psychology because of psychological issues." (instead of 50%)
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2014
- Messages
- 5,527
- Reaction score
- 6,556
What I found problematic was the pathologizing of normative human difficulties under stress. A few of the people in my cohort would deny experiencing depressed mood or anxiety because they defined these constructs as something that people with mental illness experience. I didn't suggest that people with mental illness have low acheivement at all. What I am saying is thwt all people have psychological problems because no one is perfect, but to call that mental illness is problematic. Psychologists are supposed to be more attuned to their emotional, cognitive, and interpersonal difficulties because that is part of our skill set.
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2013
- Messages
- 2,263
- Reaction score
- 2,638
Thats also insulting and antagonistic. The point I was making was that what you presumed was secondary to what others perceived. Correcting for it later doesn't change the initial reaction folks clearly had to your initial comments. You seem to have a tendency to say things very quickly about psychologists/the field without thinking through how people might take them, or what those quick statements might actually mean. This pattern might be worth some consideration.
People have different interpretations..that is what clarification is for. It's also important on your end to not draw conclusions so quickly about what someone says. Ie (you took something that i largely meant as a joke as a very serious statement, you concluded that I was suggesting people go into the profession for the wrong reason, you concluded it was an attempt at an insult) None of those things are/were true.
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2013
- Messages
- 2,263
- Reaction score
- 2,638
As I said, you may want to spend some more time doing some self-reflection about how you come across instead of blaming me for drawing conclusions too quickly based on your comments. There appears to be a pattern of you offending people/making people reactive to comments that you make about the profession. As for my "drawing the conclusion too quickly" as the problem: Your "joke" didn't come across that way to me when you said it, or in the first few responses. Comments like, "[that half of the field is composed of psychologists who entered the field due to their own mental health] wasn't a wild theory", make it harder for me to assume you are joking. You even offered as evidence your n=1 example to justify your position. There appeared a fair amount of evidence to suggest it wasn't a joke until the later half of the thread when that became your claim.
Also, clarification doesn't usually include antagonistic remarks. You want to amend your comments, be civil about it and don't get defensive when someone takes issue with how you said something. Instead of telling me to "stop crying", why not just be conversational?
I don't disagree with you that people who enter mental health are more aware/atune to mental health issues (as one would expect of anyone in any field- bankers more aware of finance, doctors of health issues, etc.). Your article up there from psychologytoday hits on the hot button issue of burnout. No matter if you are looking at psychologists, physicians, whatever.. thats a hot area and there are not a lot of good skills that get emphasized on how to manage burn out during training (I say this having worked at an agency for treating physician burnout). For instance, training is not particularly well known for emphasizing healthy sleep habits, good interpersonal/work boundaries, etc. General rates of pathology in psychologists/providers are about the same because, as you note, mental illness doesn't mean inability to achieve. I have a ton of citations for equal prevalence, but they are all for physicians and not psychologists; I'm extrapolating from that, but I suspect it to hold true given no differences observed between psychiatrists (i.e., someone with psychological training) and other medical doctors.
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2006
- Messages
- 22,382
- Reaction score
- 4,329
You made a statement, the response you received was not what you expected, so you tried to argue on a couple different fronts instead of just admitting you were wrong and moving on. I'd encourage you to reconsider this approach (particularly if you plan on pursuing graduate training), as it will not be well received by professors/mentors/etc.
You guys are using your authority to squash differing opinion, and you're expecting a higher standard than you ask of yourself. I won't disagree that I can be combative, but beyond that, I think you guys should do some self reflection. If the statement I made came out of anybody else's mouth (a long time poster, a Psychologist), it would not receive the same reaction.
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2016
- Messages
- 15
- Reaction score
- 8
It was an overgeneralization to say that half of psychologists entered the field due to current psychological problems. I don't see why contradicting that should be construed as "squash[ing] differing opinion." Rather, it's simply challenging an exaggeration.
Last edited:
It's a saying. It's a saying for a reason. It's a saying because the perception is there that it is true. It's not a perception from the general public, it's a perception from people WITHIN the field. It's a perception that has existed for as long as the profession. Again, no data, but my personal experience certainly lines up with it. But I totally disagree with the assertion that making the statement is dangerous or insulting. It's only insulting if you're interpretation is a) that mental illness is shameful b) that i'm somehow suggesting that half the people went into the profession to fix their own problems, (ie the wrong intention) instead of helping others. I'm not suggesting that. But absolutely, in my view, I would not be shocked if about half the people in Psychology fall into one of these categories a) have had a mental illness in the past that they overcame b) currently have a mental illness c) have a family member that has a mental illness d) had a family member that was in mental health/Psychology. In 3 of the 4 cases, mental illness directly impacted them in the past or currently, or both, and/or there is a family history...which fits with the overall idea that about half are "crazy". "Crazy" really meaning any mental illness..as most people who don't understand mental illness think that every person who sees a Psychologist is crazy.
What is interesting to me is that this again keeps going back to a validity issues of some of the research you guys do. I was going to say "I'd love to do research on this", and then I realize that most mental health professionals would not be honest about having a mental illness.
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2013
- Messages
- 2,263
- Reaction score
- 2,638
This is where I get confused, now you weren't joking about your estimations that just a moment ago you didn't mean? (note, I wouldn't be surprised either with your criteria because the prevalence of any mental disorder almost entirely promises you are correct.. I would be surprised if ANYONE in ANY FIELD knew a single person that meets your criteria, dependent entirely on the size of family awareness)
Such is the case with all research on stigmatized topics. It's a real pain because no one wants to admit to having what they perceive as faults. That doesn't mean it isn't possible to do research, it just means you have to design good experiments. Social psychology is really the historic master of coming up with techniques to get access to information that people wouldn't want to admit (although some of that is a bit showboating for fun now I think as part of "professional expectation").
D
deleted106747
If we're talking in anecdotes, my anecdotal experience as a psychologist who has worked in integrated care for quite awhile is that mental health concerns are widespread in every profession.
I'm essentially saying that I think it's true but I'm not stating it with the most confidence/seriousness (as I don't have the data to back it up). Basically, I'm open to my perception being wrong. I'm 50% confident that 50% of Psychologists have the history I claimed.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2006
- Messages
- 22,382
- Reaction score
- 4,329
This is the problem. You are taking your opinion and assuming it not only applies elsewhere, but it applies to groups of people that have told you that it doesn't apply and your assumption is incorrect. It reminds me of the Louis CK bit about Columbus landing in America and going, "You are Indians", then being told they aren't, and Columbus responding, "Nah…you're Indians!!" One article in Psychology Today (not a peer-reviewed journal…it is basically PEOPLE Magazine for psychology, it's as far from academic as you can get) is not "proof" that the field believes this, which is what you wrote above.
It's insulting because it isn't true. Something doesn't have to be negative to be viewed as insulting. The insulting part is the gross over-generalization of something to a large group of people. If I claimed that the vast majority of Asian students are great at math, that would be viewed as insulting. Being good at math isn't inherently negative, but the fact it is being applied to a whole group of people without consideration of the attribution or data is insulting.
Similar threads
